essay about do you disagree or agree that parents should be able to modify their unborn children, 500 to 700 words

ok

Explanation:

Neither Farahany nor Silver argued in favor of allowing parents to modify their children to ensure other traits that are less medically necessary, but nevertheless desirable, such as higher intelligence or blue eyes. "What I think parents care about most is promoting the health of their children," Silver said. Leading to eugenics?

No, humans should not be allowed to genetically modify babies. There are so many down sides and problems with the process. There are many safety concerns, it isn’t very efficient and it would cause a negative impact on society. First, genetically modifying babies is a huge safety risk.

What do you think of when you hear the word ‘Genetically Modified’? Soybeans? Corn? No. This time, human beings. The human genome editing technology has progressed at a surprising pace in these three decades from the Human Genome Project to CRISPR. There was an announcement last week that the two scientists have just won the Nobel Prize of Chemistry for their contribution to the genome editing technology, named ‘CRISPR Cas9’.*1 That makes possible to cut off the target sequence of genomes and insert a different sequence. Cas9 is an enzymatic protein that works like scissors.*2 The human genomes have been decoded and mapped. It is possible for this technology to be applied to the human genomes. ‘Designer baby’ is more realistic than ever. ‘What would you like our baby to look like, darling? My blue eyes or your brown ones?’ Will a conversation like this be common soon?

         The technology has an enormous possibility in several fields, particularly in medicine. The technology could be hopeful for people who have a serious disease such as HIV or hemophilia and are afraid of passing it on their children. Two years ago, Chinese scientists produced twin babies applying the technology, ‘CRISPR’, in order to prevent the babies from being infected with HIV because their father had the disease.*3 One of the scientists claimed that their achievement in giving the resistance to HIV to the babies could lead to taking fear of infectious disease away from human beings.

         But there is one question popping up: Is practicing the technology directly to the human embryos ethically acceptable, even with such a good intention? Some people may think that the human embryos are already human lives and using the technology directly to them is equivalent to God’s deed, so that should not be done by human. President Bush banned the human embryonic stem cell researches in 2001 for a similar reason. Moreover, the technology makes errors and those errors could cause serious consequences to the babies. Who would take responsibility if that happens and how? The science community needs careful discussion about using the technology. And people also have to know more about it.

         I think that making use of the genetic editing technology to the human genomes should be limited to developing treatments to cure and prevent of serious illnesses like cancer. We all need a thorough discussion: The scientists need a discussion to make ethical and judicial rules stricter than ever for researching with it and applying it to medicine. People also have to learn more and have their own opinions about the technology. I believe that parents should not genetically modify their unborn child only because they want their baby to have any particular appearance or ability. You should not use the term, ‘designer baby’, so lightly. That’s the issue of the human life.

"valley of salt tears" and "dark, deep and foggy" are two images used to establish a mood of uncertainty and regret. this imagery is made up of sensory appeals to brings up   theological concerns of sin and retribution.

they conjure up the human   uncertainty about the divine and its relationship to the world.

ian mortimer in his book "the time traveller's guide to elizabethan england" uses a narrative in his style, which successfully conveys a clear description of the life in england in the 16th century. he writes in second person, which makes it comfortable to reader and easy to understand, he captures the readers attention with views of the landscape, the streets, the people including rich and poor. he also depicts some cultural traits from how people behave, eat or what they wear. his descriptions range from the social, economical, the political power to the examples of the life of common people. it could be tell that this book is about social history rather than a   novel.