# data[].attributes.body
The writer of this article has complete belief that the evolution of biotechnology and medical engineering will render us at the hands of this new technology, therefore "flattening the human soul". In becoming at-home in a medically controlled world, we will lose our views of nature and become sterilized and inhuman. They argue that in order to progress in medical engineering, we will first have to establish a way to refer back to our biological roots, and this is impossible as biology can only tell so much about human nature. Another argument they make is against cloning, where the author points out that cloning could lead to either sexual crises' or an ability for world domination. In summary, they believe that this level of genetic technology is unethical and unscientific, and could potentially be the downfall of man kind.

# data[].attributes.body
Cho, Hemmy. "Enhancing Humans Through Science Is Beneficial." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010850209/OVIC?u=va_s_109_0251&xid=6eefff5a. Accessed 25 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "The Ethics of Designer Babiesand and The Ethics of Transhumanism,," http://www.ethicsofthefuture.com, 30 May 2011.

The author of this article argues for the ability to modify embryos genetics. She suggests that everything we do is to develop ourselves is 'enhancement' of our natural state. Using that logic she says genetically modifying embryos is no different from things like exercise or plastic surgery. Additionally, we already use technology to improve ourselves and this is just the next step.

# data[].attributes.body
The author cites another argument from Francis Fukuyama and proceeds to criticize it throughout the article. Fukuyama's main point is that humans risk being unrecognizable and being underwhelmed by superior biotech beings. The author's argument is that it is in human's nature to tinker with our genes and improve ourselves as much as possible. The author also argues that we are already messing with our behaviors with drugs like ritalin and prozac. The author also states "Human values are ... not fixed in our nature, but emerge from our capacity to transcend that nature." This quote bears the meaning of saying that human values are meant to grow and evolve along with us and that values should naturally be dynamic and not get stuck at any phase.

# data[].attributes.body
Miller, Cheryl. "The Nonmedical Screening of Embryos Should Be Banned." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010850204/OVIC?u=va_s_109_0251&xid=6b5297fd. Accessed 25 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "Deliver Us from Designer Babies: Without Strong New Laws, We Will Have Many More Dr. Jeff Steinbergs," New York Daily News, 6 Mar. 2009.

The author of the article argues against the ability to the ability to modify embryos genetics. She cautions us that this is a very slippery slope if we do not create regulations, people will not stop until they have them the ability to control every aspect of the child. This means that parents who want to give their child every advantage will be able to pay to have the "perfect" child. She suggests this will lead to the rich will have "perfect" children while everyone else is left on the outside looking in.

# data[].attributes.body
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=13&docId=GALE%7CA112943052&docType=Cover+story&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=&prodId=GPS&contentSet=GALE%7CA112943052&searchId=R15&userGroupName=va_s_109_0251&inPS=true

# data[].attributes.body
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=13&docId=GALE%7CA341702981&docType=Article&sort=DA-SORT&contentSegment=&prodId=GPS&contentSet=GALE%7CA341702981&searchId=R3&userGroupName=va_s_109_0251&inPS=true
This article discusses the different viewpoints of make a three-parent baby. It would work by having the normal two parents sperm and egg cell, but the third parent would donate an embryo or an egg. The embryos would inherit chromosomes from one mother and one father, but would also inherit mitochondrial DNA. However, this process requires the destruction of the original embryo by the method of pronuclear transfer. Additionally, it stated that from evidence that was collected in a 2010 report from IAV, it suggested that "donor-conceived children may experience serious emotional suffering as a result of the circumstances of their conception and the confusion surrounding their identity." The article also states that as technology innovates, we should be careful in what we do by bringing a renewed clarity to the moral meaning that is in society today.

# data[].attributes.body
Honorable mention:

# data[].attributes.body
Jones, Gareth. "So-Called Designer Baby Technology Can Exemplify Christian Principles." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010850215/OVIC?u=va_s_109_0251&xid=2830afcc. Accessed 23 Jan. 2017. Originally published in PLAYING GOD: Scientific, Ethical and Technological Challenges, Cambridge, 2004.

This source argues that it acceptable in Christianity to design your own babies. The author declares that we are follow gods creation of life, by creating life ourselves. The point made is that designing babies gives us "God-like capabilities in ways that will deepen and enrich the lives of human beings." Because designing babies gives us the ability to influence lives for the better, and therefore it is something we should take advantage of. There is however, a boundary, where designing babies can be taken advantage of, in order to give babies superhuman abilities, and that is something that is not within the bounds of religion.

# data[].attributes.body
Malik, Kenan. "Concerns About Biotechnology Altering Human Nature Are Groundless." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010850213/OVIC?u=va_s_109_0251&xid=8f15330c. Accessed 23 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "Reviews: Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future," New Statesman, 20 May 2002.

# data[].attributes.body
Poore, Michael. "The Designer Baby Business Violates Christian Principles." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010850214/OVIC?u=va_s_109_0251&xid=1625747a. Accessed 23 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "Baby Shopping: The Clash of Worldviews in Bioethics," http://www.humanitas.org, 2007.

This article argues that the idea of designing your babies with scientific technology violates the principles of Christianity. It also argues that the goal of designing babies is not to eliminate medical issues, but to allow parents to choose what they want in their kids. Designer babies allow the parents to give birth with characteristics of the choice, including "the crudest wishes of parents, including cases where parents seek to have a baby who shares their disability."

# data[].attributes.body
The author's main view on this topic is that the public should not be advocating or even accepting the idea of designed babies. Her main argument being that it is unethical and reasonably unfair to let elite families push the socioeconomic class imbalance even further, basically splitting society up between having been genetically engineered to be perfect or having been a "natural" and having not deserved to be made better. The author also suggests that bad legislation could lead to children being "programmed" to only perform one task and excel at it.

# data[].attributes.body
Thadani, Rahul. "The Public Should Oppose Designer Baby Technology." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010850210/OVIC?u=va_s_109_0251&xid=f960498f. Accessed 23 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "Designer Babies Debate," http://www.buzzle.com, 20 Sept. 2011.

# data[].attributes.body
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=11&docId=GALE%7CA367198234&docType=Column&sort=DA-SORT&contentSegment=&prodId=GPS&contentSet=GALE%7CA367198234&searchId=R1&userGroupName=va_s_109_0251&inPS=true
The writer of this article argues the idea that the parents of designer babies should know about the diseases the baby could develop in the future. If the parents find out about the life-threatening diseases, the parents might limit the child's future. He also includes example by talking about the situation for the Kalinskys. The Kalinskys' child tested positive for a gene that produces Gerstmann--Straussler-Scheinker disease. The writer still offers an argument for the opposing viewpoint.

# data[].attributes.body
The writer of this article first takes into account the viewpoint of another scholar who argues that genetic engineering will lead to the loss of human nature, and that this will lead to the collapse of civilization. This scholar believes that true human nature is rooted in each individuals genes, while the rest of their personality is merely instinctual. The author of the article argues that this doesn't make sense. First of all, he disproves the other scholar by saying that our moral values are not fixed in our nature, and therefore genetic engineering won't affect our fundamentals. He then goes on to discuss how the need for medical solutions outweighs our need to preserve an imaginary sense of human nature rooted in our genes. He concludes by proposing that instead of preserving human values, we improve upon them.

# data[].attributes.body
Guerra, Marc D. "Biotechnology Must Not Be Used to Alter Human Nature." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010850212/OVIC?u=va_s_109_0251&xid=1e2a22c6. Accessed 22 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Human Dignity: The Challenge of Bioethics," First Things, Feb. 2003.

# data[].attributes.body
Malik, Kenan. "Concerns About Biotechnology Altering Human Nature Are Groundless." Designer Babies, edited by Clayton Farris Naff, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010850213/OVIC?u=va_s_109_0251&xid=8f15330c. Accessed 22 Jan. 2017. Originally published as "Reviews: Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future," New Statesman, 20 May 2002.