Certain critics deeply believe that gene editing should not allow infertile parents to have children. These competitors stress that reproduction should only occur inside of human bodies. In Steinberg’s view, "The very idea of creating life outside the womb ‘was unthinkable’” (qtd. in Kalb and Springen par. 15). While the idea of contraception outside the body has increasingly been more accepted, some individuals are still fully against the nature of the concept. Equally, another argument made is that non-traditional reproduction is unnatural and unsafe. Opposers may argue that reproductive genetic editing may result in the birth of children with severe developmental abnormalities (Mameli par. 4). Accordingly, the most prevalent opposition will be that this type of reproduction goes against one’s religion and beliefs. In addition, opponents will assert that genetic engineering, event to just assist infertility, should be prohibited since there is a chance of abuse in the area. Doctor in philosophy Matteo Mameli explains the total forbiddance of reproductive gene editing would significantly lower the risk of these types of technologies being purposefully abused (Mameli par. 44). However, these claims are purely educated guesses and should not be a hindrance to allow sterile humans to have children.
Gene editing should be legal to allow infertile couples to be able to produce children. One argument made is that every person should have the right to produce children with their own genes since society has the technology. Fertility physician Dr. Keith Blauer asserts, “It's important to realize that couples have reproductive choice in this country” (Kalb and Springen par. 10). However, many infertile parents do not care about gender or other specific traits (Kalb and Springen par. 10). In essence, most people who cannot have children solely desire the chance to be able to have a child created from their own blood. Equally, another argument is people should have the freedom to make their own choice about gene editing as a whole. Supporters believe the government should not be the judge on whether or not genetic engineering should be used (Kalb and Springen par. 13). Not to mention, some supporters believe that government interference would be unsafe. Also, Bailey contends that governance of genetic engineering involving reproduction is hazardous and inessential (Bailey, “New Genetic Engineering Technology Does Not Need to Be Regulated” par. 2). Furtherly, the practice will create new knowledge about the subject of infertility.
The technique would develop new knowledge about miscarriages and infertility. Doctor at Edinburgh University Sarah Chan expresses that new research possibly could help doctors understand the successes and failures of pregnancies (“Gene Editing Could Shed Light on Miscarriages” par. 8). If scientists learn how miscarriages occur, then they will be able to discover why some individuals are barren. Equally, fertility clinics that use gene editing, instead of traditional methods, will result in less miscarriages (Maienschein par. 15). In short, genetic engineering would help scientists comprehend and cure infertility among humans (“Gene Editing Could Shed Light on Miscarriages” par. 9). Nevertheless, oppositionists of the technique believe that allowing infertile parents to have children will lead to other parents wanting to perfectly shape their new child.
Gene editing should be legal to allow infertile couples to be able to produce children. One argument made is that every person should have the right to produce children with their own genes since society has the technology. Fertility physician Dr. Keith Blauer asserts, “It's important to realize that couples have reproductive choice in this country” (Kalb and Springen par. 10). However, many infertile parents do not care about gender or other specific traits (Kalb and Springen par. 10). In essence, most people who cannot have children solely desire the chance to be able to have a child created from their own blood. Equally, another argument is people should have the freedom to make their own choice about gene editing as a whole. Supporters believe the government should not be the judge on whether or not genetic engineering should be used (Kalb and Springen par. 13). Not to mention, some supporters believe that government interference would be unsafe. Also, Bailey contends that governance of genetic engineering involving reproduction is hazardous and inessential (Bailey, “New Genetic Engineering Technology Does Not Need to Be Regulated” par. 2). Furtherly, the practice will create new knowledge about the subject of infertility.
The technique would develop new knowledge about miscarriages and infertility. Doctor at Edinburgh University Sarah Chan expresses that new research possibly could help doctors understand the successes and failures of pregnancies (“Gene Editing Could Shed Light on Miscarriages” par. 8). If scientists learn how miscarriages occur, then they will be able to discover why some individuals are barren. Equally, fertility clinics that use gene editing, instead of traditional methods, will result in less miscarriages (Maienschein par. 15). In short, genetic engineering would help scientists comprehend and cure infertility among humans (“Gene Editing Could Shed Light on Miscarriages” par. 9). Nevertheless, oppositionists of the technique believe that allowing infertile parents to have children will lead to other parents wanting to perfectly shape their new child.