Genetic Engineering

 As stated in a previous argument, one could make the assumption that preventing genetic mutations in embryos before birth, ordinarily resulting in disease or death, is more ethical then the alternative (Genetic). This is where laws and the basic rights of parents and children alike come into play, hence answering the question therein; parents have the right to genetically engineer the makeup of their child. Although the opportunity we could offer otherwise disabled children should be enough justification, we must consider other reasonable rationalizations; such as the basic fact that there are no laws that prohibit genetic engineering, the rights of the children to health and equal medical care, and the rights of the parents to raise their children however they deem necessary. Possibly the strongest and most concrete argument is the lack of laws prohibiting genetic engineering.

One of the biggest obstacles for those who oppose genetic engineering is the fact that there are no laws against genetically engineering an embryo before birth. Close examination of the constitution and constitutional amendments has revealed no laws prohibiting genetic engineering of human embryos. “No laws exist that would have prevented this genetic alteration,” (Human). In spite of there being no laws against genetic engineering, we must also consider the more sentimental side of the argument, that being the children and their right to the same medical care as adults.  

Children, within the womb or having already ventured into the outside world, deserve the same medical attention and care as adults. As stated in the Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967, it is unlawful for an employer,  employment agency, or labor organization to discharge or refuse to service someone based on age (The Age). Thus entitling children to the same medical care as adults. For example, if genetic testing revealed that an embryonic defect which would result in a disease during the child’s life, that child deserves the same medical attention as an adult. To clarify, imagine an adult who has lost a finger. He is given medical attention and if the treatment is quick enough it is possible to re-attach the finger. If genetic testing in an embryo reveals that a child will be born without a finger, the child is entitled to the same medical care as the adult, hence the genetic error must be corrected in order for this quota to be met. Children’s rights are also protected by the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, proclaimed November 1959. Principle 1 states that “The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this Declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever,” Principle 4 states “He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care,” (Declaration). Thus it is the child’s right to be genetically engineered in order to be as healthy and disease, deformity, and disability free as possible. In spite of the child’s rights dictating that it must receive the care necessary to keep it healthy, there is still the issue of the rights of the parents.