rough genetic manipulation, will still be human, but will live in a synthetically altered reality. A human, born or unborn, has the right to have his/her own identity, naturally created by a mother or father, not a scientist.What right do we (science) have assuming that we can step in and takeover mother nature and the natural process? If something is natural, that is the it is supposed to be, the way it has always been. Complications thus far in the natural human life, consist of infant disease and death. It seems the humane thing to do to try to save these children from this unpleasant fate, but that is reality. If we alter reality we are altering our world, and who we are. Who Gets the Good Genes?In Aldous Huxleys 1932 novel Brave New World, childbirth is controlled by science and the government. The book relates the idea of reproduction for the sake of social efficiency, to the natural way of birth. Creating babies from test tubes, and deciding ones existence on the basis of the betterment of their society, is the controversial topic of the millennium.The idea is a sticky one because genetic transfers present reasonable arguments for both opposing it and advocating it. Ethical dilemmas prevent most people from accepting this new scientific revolution, but when talking ethical, isnt it ethical to try to better the world, or save a childs life? Who would try to stop parents from ensuring that their child doesnt have hemophilia? Ethically it would be the right thing to do. Also, what would be wrong about creating a child for a infertile mother? No one could deny a human the right to mother a child. These dilemmas can be looked at in a positive way, but how about creating a child who is smarter, taller, more athletically inclined then ordinary children? Is it right to alter a childs being for the benefit of society in the future?Undoubtedly, there new scientific breakthroughs are very costly, thus limiting the chance t...
