Is Selection Of Children Wrong Summary
The Selection of our Future
Danielle Locsin
‘Designer Babies’ and the selection of children is a new and emerging topic. I will be basing my paper on one source, Is Selection of Children Wrong by Dan W. Brock. Brock has divided the topic of selection into two parts: negative and positive selection. I will start by summarizing and analyzing Brock’s work by defining the difference between negative and positive selection and providing the expressive arguments for both. Then I will provide the five objections pertaining to both negative and positive selection: 1) That it is “playing God”; 2) that it would undermine the attitude to children as gifts to be unconditionally accepted and loved; 3) that there is no perfect child; 4) that it is eugenics …show more content…
and therefore wrong; 5) that the risks of selection would always outweigh any benefits, and how Brock refutes them. After all provided, one will see that Brock himself believes that selection itself, whether negative or positive, is neither morally problematic nor wrong. Finally in the end, I will take those arguments a step further providing my original input on the situation, arguing for negative selection and against positive selection. The sole purpose of human life is to procreate and perpetuate the survival of our race through selection. Selection has been around from the beginning “to transfer some of the procreative partner’s genetically influenced features or traits to one’s offspring” (Brock 252). This means we select men or women we find attractive. We select those who are financially stable. We select in hopes to shape ones future, and in turn ones future children and family. This being said, there are two types of selection: Negative and Positive Selection. Negative selection involves choosing among different possible children, neither of them an actual child at the time of choice. “This causes some moral concern when the selection involves the destruction of one being for the creation of another being” (Brock, 253). Since negative selection involves the prevention of the creation of a disabled child it involves prenatal testing, or genetic screening, for life threatening diseases. If these diseases are prevalent in the genes of the fetus, then one can abort. The moral concern comes from two expressive arguments: the selection against disability or the message expressed by negative selection. As said above, the moral concerns sprout from two reasons. Firstly lets touch on the topic of negative selection against disability. This means there is a “distinction between whether the pregnant woman is aborting the fetus because she does not want a child now, from a woman aborting a fetus because of the specific nature of the fetus” (Brock, 256) , i.e. having disabilities. The woman might have a different motive for negative selection. Whether it be because she would rather have no child than one with a disability or because she would prefer a child with a disability than one without it is still legally at the woman’s discretion. This is the kind of negative selection that is found to be objectionable by not only the disability community but by many people overall. Secondly, we have the message expressed by negative selection. This affects the disability community the most. When a woman aborts because of a particular disease it sends the message that the disabled community is of lesser value that that of non-disabled community. But this message is only a message in and of itself because of the negative connotation put on the disabled community as it only reinforces the prejudice and discrimination against persons of disabilities. Brock mentions in his article, “[a] woman’s actions is that she hopes to give the child that she will have the best life possible and that she believes that a serious disability, all else being equal, is likely to make the child’s life more difficult or worse than life without such a disability.” (Brock, 260). This being said, nothing more seems to be implied that that of the wellbeing of her future child. But what constitutes as a serious disability? What would be considered under the title “serious disease”? Is this all for the benefit of the family, as a disabled would cause burden to a family in which one would like to avoid? Either way, to have a disadvantage in one’s life does not constitute that that life of a person with a disability is worth any less than that of a life without a disability. As said by Brock, as long as there is a balance in moral reasons it should not be immoral or wrong to pursue negative selection.
Now that we have established the expressive arguments on negative selection, we will move onto the expressive arguments on positive selection—selection in favor of specific desired traits to manipulate or enhance. Although there have been findings of identifying negative traits we have yet mastered the enhancement of positive traits such as intelligence, memory, strength, or fitness; these positive traits are more complex. Unlike negative traits that stem from only single gene disorders, positive traits most likely determined by “complex interactions between multiple genes and multiple environmental factors” (Brock, 263). Meaning that even if one were to identify which gene(s) are involved in enhancing positive traits, there are still environmental factors that have to be taken into consideration.
Positive selection happens through the process of PGD and IVF. During these procedures, one can test embryos for genetic diseases. Just like negative selection, positive selection may have a negative message behind it. The process “only identifies or singles out some traits as desirable, not as undesirable” (Brock, 264) and by singling out these desirable traits, one may convey the message that those without those positive traits are of lesser value. But Brock brings the point that this is already an underlying attitude, but it can be used to reinforce the attitude.
Now that we have supplied the definition and expressive arguments of both types of selection, we can move onto the five objections against both negative and positive selection and how Brock refutes these objections. First we have the objection that it is “playing God”, a role that is not for humans. This objection is not sound. If one were playing God in interfering with the natural way of life, then anything medical would not be ethical. The medications developed to help a sick person is not natural, anything man made is not natural, so one is supposed to refuse help because it is intervening with Gods interpretation? If negative selection against a serious disease is ‘playing God”, then building planes to enable humans to fly for betterment of transportation is playing God as well. God had given humans the ability to create and develop these ideas so one should utilize it. It shouldn’t be used against improving and bettering society. This objection also implies that everyone believes in God, which is not true. As said by Brock, “many do not share, including those who do not believe that selection usurps God’s prerogatives, as well as those who do not believe in the existence of God at all… playing God objection in its religious interpretation is not a proper basis for public policy in a liberal democracy” (Brock, 267). This reiterates the concept of separation of church and state, as it should be. God gave us minds, we utilize it, that is Gods will for humans.
Next is the objection of preserving unconditional acceptance of children. In the article, Brock acknowledges that Leon Kass and Michael Sandel argue that “selecting our offspring undermines the attitude to human life as a gift to be unconditionally accepted as it is given” (Brock, 268). This quote exaggerates the power one has of their lives and others. It is known that there are many environmental factors in play, and parents learn early on that its uncontrollable. Although many try, border line tyrannical, to influence their child’s life by trying to shape it, mold it, generally controlling it from early on. This objection applies to negative selection as “negative selection against prospective children expected to have disabilities could be likened to viewing children as consumer products that should meet certain quality standards, and if they do not are to be returned as ‘defective’ “ (Brock, 268). This implying that no child was created because it was discovered to have a disability or a fetus was created but aborted before born because genetic discrepancies were found in testing. For Positive selection this will “ lead to hopes and expectations that a child will have specific traits that are expected to be selected or enhanced” (Brock, 269). But, considering how complex and how much we do not fully understand about genetic enhancement, there are sure to be some traits that “fail to materialize as the child grows and develops”. This may lead to blaming of child for not successfully becoming what was picked out to be. Yet, unconditional love is programmed in humans. It will always be there, as proven by social and historical findings. Second, both negative and positive selection happen before a child is born, so “all the experiences of pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood” contribute towards the strong building of unconditional love and attachment. This simply does not go away, there is no evidence proving that negative or positive selection undermines a parents unconditional love and commitment to a child.
Next is the third argument: the perfect child.
This objection implies that negative and positive selection seek to make the perfect child, although we all know there is no such thing as the perfect child. Brock states that there are two mistakes in this objection. First being that as said above, we do not know what the perfect child truly is. One may see a disabled free child to be perfect, and another may believe that a disabled child is perfect. For negative selection, if genetic diseases were not classified under a “genetic disease” from previous negative judgments, Brock believes it would be classified instead as a genetic difference. Same goes for positive selection, all we can believe is that the enhancement is meant to make the persons life better. But, judgments can always be made relative to the situation. For example, increased intelligence or increased physical strength, these may be better judgments yet judgments are still made. Secondly, even though one parent may have their own belief of the perfect child, they do not have the ability to know what a perfect child is for someone else. . As Brock says, “there is no perfect child, not in reality, but also even as an ideal” (Brock, 271). As humans, we all have different views on what a good life will be, so based on our views, each parent will have different interpretations of what is a “perfect child”. Overall, neither negative note positive selection can determine there is only one “best life, nor in turn that …show more content…
there is one best or perfect child” (Brock, 273). Brock gives a good example of how differently each parent views a perfect child. He uses the example of a deaf couple and their decision to have a child who would be deaf rather than not as it would be easier for the family dynamic since both parents too are deaf. This is not implying that a child who is not deaf is not a good child, but to this deaf couple their version of a perfect child would be a deaf one.
Next we have the fourth objection: That selection is eugenics.
Brock mentions in his article that eugenics has had a negative connotation towards it since the Nazi’s had used it to justify their actions. Eugenics, anytime mentioned, is a “discussion stopper about its ethical character”, but Brock believes that eugenics itself, “the betterment through selection, is not obviously in itself or inherently immoral” (Brock, 274). Even though eugenics was used wrongly to justify the Nazi reign, it was intended to positively affect a population. In this sense, eugenics is used not for the population sense but through the perspective of a parent who is only trying to provide a better life for their child, and therefore misleading to call it eugenics. With eugenics there are four features of eugenics movements that are negative. The first feature being that eugenics is the “belief in the deterioration of the gene pool and a consequent encouragement of the ‘fit’ and discouragement of the ‘unfit’… [and] consider the fit and unfit was deeply influenced by racial, class, ethnic, and national stereotypes and prejudices” , the second feature was an “excessive belief in the hereditability of behavioral traits… that the solution to social problems lay in biology rather than social reforms” , the third feature was “the failure to recognize and acknowledge the pluralism about what is a good person and a good society”, the fourth feature being the “role of the state in reproductive choices,
which failed to recognize to important value of reproductive freedom” (Brock, 275). Each of these features should be avoided and Brock believes that n one of these features are present in negative or positive selection; therefore, neither are eugenic.
Lastly, the fifth objection is that selection has excessive risks. Brock believes that this objection applies towards positive selection more than negative selection. Since Brock believes that a fetus is not a person at the time of abortion, there are no moral risks towards the fetus, but rather the body of the mother, but the risks of aborting a child are not greater than the risks of childbirth. Positive selection on the other hand, deals with complex traits so it may carry some risks in the process. Like said in the beginning, positive selection is still a new and emerging topic so geneticists still haven’t identified the genes for manipulation. Since determining those complex genes and environmental variables together still hasn’t been done, some geneticists believe that we may never have positive selection in the future—this being the controversial point among geneticists. But, being scientists, its all about being able to duplicate an experiment and if one cannot duplicate results successfully, then one cannot move on the next stage. This meaning that “positive genetic enhancement should not take place until its safety for the embryo and subsequent person is well established… but just because selection is positive does not entail that its safety must necessarily inadequate” (Brock, 276); this point being very clear that, no selection or enhancement shall be done until safety has been adequately established.
In conclusion, both negative and positive selections have come under scrutiny whether the ethics behind each are problematic and wrong. Both topics have obviously caused some unease in the public eye, and Brock puts each argument and objection to rest. Brock has given rebuttals on each that are both valid and sound. “If negative or positive selection should be rejected, it will have to be for other reasons, not simply because selection of our children is wrong” (Brock,276)…selection itself, whether negative or positive, is neither morally problematic nor wrong.
In this last section of the paper, I will provide my original input on the topic at hand. As said in the beginning of this paper, I will be for negative selection but against positive selection. I am for negative selection, as it pertains to a fetus and only a fetus, not an actual person or being. I believe that the woman can choose at her own discretion to continue with a pregnancy or not, whether it be for the reason of the fetus having a disability or not. I am not for abortion, I am for pro-choice. All the objections or arguments should not apply to negative selection as the process happens before birth and therefore not a human child. I believe this process does not imply that the disabled community is lesser than that of non-disabled. I believe this type of selection is a smart one. If one believes they cannot provide or care for a child with a disability, they are being responsible. It is a very big commitment and therefore should only be pursued by those who are willing and able.
On the other hand, I am against positive selection in the way of enhancing a human’s abilities. I believe in positive selection per it pertaining to eradicating serious diseases or disabilities. Although Brock mentioned that disabilities are looked down upon only because it is labeled as unfit, life without such disabilities would be better and easier. This we cannot deny. For enhancing human capabilities, I believe positive selection should not be used. There are two ways it can go, either the less able rise to be as equals to those who were fortunate, making the playing field even, or those who are already fortunate and able get yet another upper hand. Surely a procedure like this would cost a great deal of money, and those able to afford are usually those who already have an upper hand in the first place. Either way, enhancement can never win because as human beings we are never satisfied. We are always wanting the “new” and the “better”, because we are never happy with what we have.
Danielle Locsin
‘Designer Babies’ and the selection of children is a new and emerging topic. I will be basing my paper on one source, Is Selection of Children Wrong by Dan W. Brock. Brock has divided the topic of selection into two parts: negative and positive selection. I will start by summarizing and analyzing Brock’s work by defining the difference between negative and positive selection and providing the expressive arguments for both. Then I will provide the five objections pertaining to both negative and positive selection: 1) That it is “playing God”; 2) that it would undermine the attitude to children as gifts to be unconditionally accepted and loved; 3) that there is no perfect child; 4) that it is eugenics …show more content…
and therefore wrong; 5) that the risks of selection would always outweigh any benefits, and how Brock refutes them. After all provided, one will see that Brock himself believes that selection itself, whether negative or positive, is neither morally problematic nor wrong. Finally in the end, I will take those arguments a step further providing my original input on the situation, arguing for negative selection and against positive selection. The sole purpose of human life is to procreate and perpetuate the survival of our race through selection. Selection has been around from the beginning “to transfer some of the procreative partner’s genetically influenced features or traits to one’s offspring” (Brock 252). This means we select men or women we find attractive. We select those who are financially stable. We select in hopes to shape ones future, and in turn ones future children and family. This being said, there are two types of selection: Negative and Positive Selection. Negative selection involves choosing among different possible children, neither of them an actual child at the time of choice. “This causes some moral concern when the selection involves the destruction of one being for the creation of another being” (Brock, 253). Since negative selection involves the prevention of the creation of a disabled child it involves prenatal testing, or genetic screening, for life threatening diseases. If these diseases are prevalent in the genes of the fetus, then one can abort. The moral concern comes from two expressive arguments: the selection against disability or the message expressed by negative selection. As said above, the moral concerns sprout from two reasons. Firstly lets touch on the topic of negative selection against disability. This means there is a “distinction between whether the pregnant woman is aborting the fetus because she does not want a child now, from a woman aborting a fetus because of the specific nature of the fetus” (Brock, 256) , i.e. having disabilities. The woman might have a different motive for negative selection. Whether it be because she would rather have no child than one with a disability or because she would prefer a child with a disability than one without it is still legally at the woman’s discretion. This is the kind of negative selection that is found to be objectionable by not only the disability community but by many people overall. Secondly, we have the message expressed by negative selection. This affects the disability community the most. When a woman aborts because of a particular disease it sends the message that the disabled community is of lesser value that that of non-disabled community. But this message is only a message in and of itself because of the negative connotation put on the disabled community as it only reinforces the prejudice and discrimination against persons of disabilities. Brock mentions in his article, “[a] woman’s actions is that she hopes to give the child that she will have the best life possible and that she believes that a serious disability, all else being equal, is likely to make the child’s life more difficult or worse than life without such a disability.” (Brock, 260). This being said, nothing more seems to be implied that that of the wellbeing of her future child. But what constitutes as a serious disability? What would be considered under the title “serious disease”? Is this all for the benefit of the family, as a disabled would cause burden to a family in which one would like to avoid? Either way, to have a disadvantage in one’s life does not constitute that that life of a person with a disability is worth any less than that of a life without a disability. As said by Brock, as long as there is a balance in moral reasons it should not be immoral or wrong to pursue negative selection.
Now that we have established the expressive arguments on negative selection, we will move onto the expressive arguments on positive selection—selection in favor of specific desired traits to manipulate or enhance. Although there have been findings of identifying negative traits we have yet mastered the enhancement of positive traits such as intelligence, memory, strength, or fitness; these positive traits are more complex. Unlike negative traits that stem from only single gene disorders, positive traits most likely determined by “complex interactions between multiple genes and multiple environmental factors” (Brock, 263). Meaning that even if one were to identify which gene(s) are involved in enhancing positive traits, there are still environmental factors that have to be taken into consideration.
Positive selection happens through the process of PGD and IVF. During these procedures, one can test embryos for genetic diseases. Just like negative selection, positive selection may have a negative message behind it. The process “only identifies or singles out some traits as desirable, not as undesirable” (Brock, 264) and by singling out these desirable traits, one may convey the message that those without those positive traits are of lesser value. But Brock brings the point that this is already an underlying attitude, but it can be used to reinforce the attitude.
Now that we have supplied the definition and expressive arguments of both types of selection, we can move onto the five objections against both negative and positive selection and how Brock refutes these objections. First we have the objection that it is “playing God”, a role that is not for humans. This objection is not sound. If one were playing God in interfering with the natural way of life, then anything medical would not be ethical. The medications developed to help a sick person is not natural, anything man made is not natural, so one is supposed to refuse help because it is intervening with Gods interpretation? If negative selection against a serious disease is ‘playing God”, then building planes to enable humans to fly for betterment of transportation is playing God as well. God had given humans the ability to create and develop these ideas so one should utilize it. It shouldn’t be used against improving and bettering society. This objection also implies that everyone believes in God, which is not true. As said by Brock, “many do not share, including those who do not believe that selection usurps God’s prerogatives, as well as those who do not believe in the existence of God at all… playing God objection in its religious interpretation is not a proper basis for public policy in a liberal democracy” (Brock, 267). This reiterates the concept of separation of church and state, as it should be. God gave us minds, we utilize it, that is Gods will for humans.
Next is the objection of preserving unconditional acceptance of children. In the article, Brock acknowledges that Leon Kass and Michael Sandel argue that “selecting our offspring undermines the attitude to human life as a gift to be unconditionally accepted as it is given” (Brock, 268). This quote exaggerates the power one has of their lives and others. It is known that there are many environmental factors in play, and parents learn early on that its uncontrollable. Although many try, border line tyrannical, to influence their child’s life by trying to shape it, mold it, generally controlling it from early on. This objection applies to negative selection as “negative selection against prospective children expected to have disabilities could be likened to viewing children as consumer products that should meet certain quality standards, and if they do not are to be returned as ‘defective’ “ (Brock, 268). This implying that no child was created because it was discovered to have a disability or a fetus was created but aborted before born because genetic discrepancies were found in testing. For Positive selection this will “ lead to hopes and expectations that a child will have specific traits that are expected to be selected or enhanced” (Brock, 269). But, considering how complex and how much we do not fully understand about genetic enhancement, there are sure to be some traits that “fail to materialize as the child grows and develops”. This may lead to blaming of child for not successfully becoming what was picked out to be. Yet, unconditional love is programmed in humans. It will always be there, as proven by social and historical findings. Second, both negative and positive selection happen before a child is born, so “all the experiences of pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood” contribute towards the strong building of unconditional love and attachment. This simply does not go away, there is no evidence proving that negative or positive selection undermines a parents unconditional love and commitment to a child.
Next is the third argument: the perfect child.
This objection implies that negative and positive selection seek to make the perfect child, although we all know there is no such thing as the perfect child. Brock states that there are two mistakes in this objection. First being that as said above, we do not know what the perfect child truly is. One may see a disabled free child to be perfect, and another may believe that a disabled child is perfect. For negative selection, if genetic diseases were not classified under a “genetic disease” from previous negative judgments, Brock believes it would be classified instead as a genetic difference. Same goes for positive selection, all we can believe is that the enhancement is meant to make the persons life better. But, judgments can always be made relative to the situation. For example, increased intelligence or increased physical strength, these may be better judgments yet judgments are still made. Secondly, even though one parent may have their own belief of the perfect child, they do not have the ability to know what a perfect child is for someone else. . As Brock says, “there is no perfect child, not in reality, but also even as an ideal” (Brock, 271). As humans, we all have different views on what a good life will be, so based on our views, each parent will have different interpretations of what is a “perfect child”. Overall, neither negative note positive selection can determine there is only one “best life, nor in turn that …show more content…
there is one best or perfect child” (Brock, 273). Brock gives a good example of how differently each parent views a perfect child. He uses the example of a deaf couple and their decision to have a child who would be deaf rather than not as it would be easier for the family dynamic since both parents too are deaf. This is not implying that a child who is not deaf is not a good child, but to this deaf couple their version of a perfect child would be a deaf one.
Next we have the fourth objection: That selection is eugenics.
Brock mentions in his article that eugenics has had a negative connotation towards it since the Nazi’s had used it to justify their actions. Eugenics, anytime mentioned, is a “discussion stopper about its ethical character”, but Brock believes that eugenics itself, “the betterment through selection, is not obviously in itself or inherently immoral” (Brock, 274). Even though eugenics was used wrongly to justify the Nazi reign, it was intended to positively affect a population. In this sense, eugenics is used not for the population sense but through the perspective of a parent who is only trying to provide a better life for their child, and therefore misleading to call it eugenics. With eugenics there are four features of eugenics movements that are negative. The first feature being that eugenics is the “belief in the deterioration of the gene pool and a consequent encouragement of the ‘fit’ and discouragement of the ‘unfit’… [and] consider the fit and unfit was deeply influenced by racial, class, ethnic, and national stereotypes and prejudices” , the second feature was an “excessive belief in the hereditability of behavioral traits… that the solution to social problems lay in biology rather than social reforms” , the third feature was “the failure to recognize and acknowledge the pluralism about what is a good person and a good society”, the fourth feature being the “role of the state in reproductive choices,
which failed to recognize to important value of reproductive freedom” (Brock, 275). Each of these features should be avoided and Brock believes that n one of these features are present in negative or positive selection; therefore, neither are eugenic.
Lastly, the fifth objection is that selection has excessive risks. Brock believes that this objection applies towards positive selection more than negative selection. Since Brock believes that a fetus is not a person at the time of abortion, there are no moral risks towards the fetus, but rather the body of the mother, but the risks of aborting a child are not greater than the risks of childbirth. Positive selection on the other hand, deals with complex traits so it may carry some risks in the process. Like said in the beginning, positive selection is still a new and emerging topic so geneticists still haven’t identified the genes for manipulation. Since determining those complex genes and environmental variables together still hasn’t been done, some geneticists believe that we may never have positive selection in the future—this being the controversial point among geneticists. But, being scientists, its all about being able to duplicate an experiment and if one cannot duplicate results successfully, then one cannot move on the next stage. This meaning that “positive genetic enhancement should not take place until its safety for the embryo and subsequent person is well established… but just because selection is positive does not entail that its safety must necessarily inadequate” (Brock, 276); this point being very clear that, no selection or enhancement shall be done until safety has been adequately established.
In conclusion, both negative and positive selections have come under scrutiny whether the ethics behind each are problematic and wrong. Both topics have obviously caused some unease in the public eye, and Brock puts each argument and objection to rest. Brock has given rebuttals on each that are both valid and sound. “If negative or positive selection should be rejected, it will have to be for other reasons, not simply because selection of our children is wrong” (Brock,276)…selection itself, whether negative or positive, is neither morally problematic nor wrong.
In this last section of the paper, I will provide my original input on the topic at hand. As said in the beginning of this paper, I will be for negative selection but against positive selection. I am for negative selection, as it pertains to a fetus and only a fetus, not an actual person or being. I believe that the woman can choose at her own discretion to continue with a pregnancy or not, whether it be for the reason of the fetus having a disability or not. I am not for abortion, I am for pro-choice. All the objections or arguments should not apply to negative selection as the process happens before birth and therefore not a human child. I believe this process does not imply that the disabled community is lesser than that of non-disabled. I believe this type of selection is a smart one. If one believes they cannot provide or care for a child with a disability, they are being responsible. It is a very big commitment and therefore should only be pursued by those who are willing and able.
On the other hand, I am against positive selection in the way of enhancing a human’s abilities. I believe in positive selection per it pertaining to eradicating serious diseases or disabilities. Although Brock mentioned that disabilities are looked down upon only because it is labeled as unfit, life without such disabilities would be better and easier. This we cannot deny. For enhancing human capabilities, I believe positive selection should not be used. There are two ways it can go, either the less able rise to be as equals to those who were fortunate, making the playing field even, or those who are already fortunate and able get yet another upper hand. Surely a procedure like this would cost a great deal of money, and those able to afford are usually those who already have an upper hand in the first place. Either way, enhancement can never win because as human beings we are never satisfied. We are always wanting the “new” and the “better”, because we are never happy with what we have.