"a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilization to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics"
The media portrays the idea as parents picking and choosing physical features such as gender, eye/hair colour, intelligence, height, etc. Right away, most people would shake their heads at the idea and call it shallow. In this sense, I agree. For cosmetic purposes, creating designer babies is wrong because it makes a conditional love before the child is even born. Being the parents, they should accept and care for their child regardless. This side of the argument is simple enough, so next is the medical aspect.
Chris Kirby was born with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a genetic heart disease that can induce cardiac arrest at any age. He and his wife wanted more children, but were worried about putting them at risk for this condition. To solve their problem, they turned to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This means that a cell is removed from the embryos to check for the disease. Only the cells without the gene are implanted in the mother's uterus. This gave Chris Kirby and Tanya Fawkes-Kirby two healthy twin daughters who don't have the defect, and therefore cannot pass it on to their future children.
With their happy ending in mind, can someone really say that what they did was wrong? Many doctors don't consider this type of screening to be creating designer babies, but see it as a preemptive measure instead. However, this still makes controversy around the concept that "some embyros aren't good enough" and that every fertilized egg is a potential life. What do you think?
Those are the two main ideas that come to mind when thinking about designer babies. But have you thought about parents who want their children to have deformities? Online magazine Slate calls it "Designer Babies: The deliberate crippling of children". These genetic defects include deafness, blindness, dwarfism, etc. Parents say this is because they want children who are the same as them. In these scenarios, I think pre-implantation screening is wrong. This goes directly hand-in-hand with the superficial aspect., though I think my mind could sway to understand their perspective. The parents should love the child exactly the same as they would if he/she had the same characteristic as themselves.
In conclusion, I believe that screening of embryos for health purposes is fine. It can save a child's life. If people say that it's still creating a designer baby, I argue that the child is still theirs. The traits are still inherited from the parents, the harmful ones are just prevented. It creates so much controversy that I doubt choosing superficial traits will become an actual trend.
Here's a picture of a totally adorable baby who seems to be reading a book. Awww. I just hope those glasses have no prescription.
Sources:
CTV BC - Screening could create 'designer babies'
Readers Digest - Designer Babies
USA Today - Some ponder 'designer' babies with Mom or Dad's defective genes
Slate Magazine - The deliberate crippling of children
All images hyperlinked to source.
Blogs I've commented on:
Connie Tang - Designer babies!!!
Melissa Quinn - Designer Babies; Are we taking Science too far?
