Technology is advancing. Everyone can attest to that. Almost every year we hear of a new phone, computer, or even a new medical procedure that just hit the shelves. We hear about how they can (surprise!) drastically change our lives. It creates better relationships, quality of life, and give us more meaning in life. But when do we stop? Isn’t there a downside to progressive technology and how far it goes? Especially when it doesn’t just affect us? While reading Richard Hayes’ article “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks.” I saw how he showed on a future with designer babies would lead to the crumbling of our human rights and morals. In Jessica Cussins & Marcy Darnosky’s article “Why Worry About Genetically Modified Babies?” they also believe…show more content… No Thanks”, he makes the point that while these groundbreaking human genetic technologies can cure and prevent diseases they’ll create future problems if used out of context. It can shake our very core of ethics and what we are allowed to control. But many ask “Why not? Don’t parents have the right?” Yes, of course they do which is exactly why need to responsible adults who love their child for who they are. Hayes makes great ethical and emotional appeals that challenge the way we value ethics and human nature. Parents shouldn’t use genetic technology to create the kid they want, nature creates the child they need. Our kids will now become market advertisement instead of part of a family that will be loved no matter what. Additionally, he shows that if this technology becomes unchecked our human desires, advanced technologies, and markets will it’ll create even more inequalities in the world. Kids will be teased that they aren’t modified. Thus, parents, who originally don’t approve, will be tempted to have kids with modifications. It creates a sense of caution and responsibility with these new opportunities. He focuses on parents and other adults who might advocate for procedures to alter their children’s genes. Changing 2 or 12 genes takes away from who the child is and how they fit in our community. We wouldn’t love them for being them with all their quirks, we would love them because they’ll be perfect or exactly…show more content… They discuss how the UK is considering changing their policies to allow fertility clinics to use nuclear genome transfer. Naturally, the technique is supposed to help women who have mitochondrial diseases to have healthy children, and researchers and patients both agree that the technology wouldn’t be used to produce “designer babies”. However, many claimed it wouldn’t pose a problem if they did. Cussins and Darnosky show 2 main concerns with that: one, it would open a door to modify inheritable traits and two, the procedure is risky: it’s medically unnecessary to the children and could ironically cause a severe mitochondrial disease. What this means is that the UK would be the first to diverge from an agreement to not sanction human germline modification. They would allow these fertility clinics to do the procedures without any medical checkup for the children, thus creating a new normalcy that threatens responsible use of genetic technology. Moreover, What if the procedure fails? What happens to all the people affected by an experiment gone wrong? To reduce the issues with this other advocates are actually trying to redefine the genetic modification procedure, but Cussins and Darnovsky state “The U.K. Department of Health wants to make a distinction between changes to mitochondrial DNA
