Blog 11

The article I decided to read today, What Choices Should We Be Able to Make about Designer Babies? A Citizens’ Jury of Young People in South Wales, observed the outlooks of young participants with the idea of “designing” their own babies. These observations showed that the participants found areas, such as preventing inherited medical conditions, where altering the baby’s genes would be beneficial, but they also found a level where baby designing was not acceptable, such as changing the sex of the baby. This was described in the article as being “purpose-specific.” This can be connected to Dollhouse with the idea that the scientists went to such an extreme level of altering a person. There was one handler that did not find the operation morally right. This article is wonderful because it holds plenty of information that displays the idea of ethics behind the science and technological advancements. It goes through a whole experiment with statistics of the types of people in the jury. The results came out to be the majority of the jury approving the capability of parents to “prevent inherited conditions from being passed on and to prevent serious suffering” (Iredale 211). There was one man in the group to disagree with this. “No-one in the UK should be allowed to scan and remove illness as illness is an important part of society… if we remove illness where do we end, removing everything we believe to be undesirable” (Iredale 211). This shows a different side of morals. He is the representation of science being totally immoral in this sense. In my view, there’s no real point where you can decipher if something is immoral in scientific view, since everyone has different morals.