Dont  think about designer human when many people don't have basic healthcare the global south is a place where million of people dont have good healthcare and ,that problem have  to be fixed first

another  reason i don't  agree with genetic editing  is it is not  ethical and goes against how human are originaly created editing gene on human is not ethickal 

The only time where genetic editing should be used is to solve climate change, for example bringing back woolly mammoths to stop permafrost from melting in the arctic and releasing many greenhouse gases.   Another example is to make some food grow fast. It means it can feed more people in the world like hybrid rice in china in china they use 10% arable land while producing 20% of the worlds rice using hybrid rice . It grows fast and harvests two times a year instead of 1 it feeds alot of people every year and is very succesfull .

Conclusion 
My opinion is that genetic edit on humans will be banned forever and it need to have high surveilance if there is private organization try to break the system. 
if there is a society with gene edit,  people with gene edit  will distance and stay away from people without gene edit , and say  they are superior and smarter because they have gene edit. it will create a  dividded and unequal world..

Who decides the traits of babies? Well, the parents would obviously be the people to choose their baby's traits. But the important detail in this is that the baby has absolutely no say in this who's to say that the child didn't want these qualities you wouldn't know, the baby can't have a say about it either and once it reaches the point where they can complain about it they no longer will because the traits will be either something they are good at or something that they enjoy. You can fulfil the will of your parents with no hesitation. Being able to do what you enjoy and also having the full support of your parents means there will not be a rebellious stage that is meant to naturally occur in order for the child to find out who they are. Who they are is already decided before they were even born. The child will probably lead a very healthy and fulfilling life with less than average complications with their parents. This lifestyle may not be what some people want but in my opinion, it is the best course of action.

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-50460721

There are many non-ethical uses for genetic modification. Issues such as slavery and abuse would become a lot more prevalent if people had the ability to customise their traits. You could exploit this in sport, labour and slavery without giving the genetically modified person a choice, but if they don’t know any better how can they make that choice? Even if they had the ability to make that choice, diversity would not be as prevalent and competition would be meaningless.

Designer babies is a really risky thing to do. CGS and many other social justice advocates, who point to unacceptable risks for future children. Genetic engineers are not perfect people and cannot 100% properly evaluate every gene. They are more than likely mistakes will be made. If the process is not done carefully, the embryo can be terminated. The technology used is not 100% safe yet. It is only in the experimental stages yet. Also, a baby cannot consent to have its body altered, therefore it’s not right for parents to make any changes in their babies. This technology was originally to prevent diseases and any harmful gene in a child, though many people may use this technology for superficial- purposes such as purposely seeking out a blonde-haired, blue-eyed baby for appearance concerns only. This could also create a gap in society. For example: Designer babies would most likely be better looking, smarter etc. This would create a class between designer and non-designer babies. Because the technology is new, it is unknown whether the babies will affect the gene pool. This can cause difficulties later on throughout the baby’s family tree because the changes affect every cell in the child’s body and be passed to all their children and their children’s children. Because most people will seek out good-looking, intelligent babies with optimum characteristics, everyone will be relatively similar and this can also take away from the child’s individual personality.This is also really expensive. This procedure is not cheap, and not everyone would be able to afford it. Designer babies and genetically modifying babies is banned in most countries but the countries that tried using it such as US, also banned it, since according to them, it violates the dignity of the individual and is morally illicit. So therefore, I believe genome editing for reproduction, to alter the genes and traits of future children should remain off limits. 

https://explorebiotech.com/pros-cons-designer-baby/ 

https://www.tides.org/accelerating-social-change/policy/designer-babies-dna-in-the-headlines/ 

https://www.tides.org/accelerating-social-change/policy/designer-babies-dna-in-the-headlines/  

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/10/22/139478/are-we-designing-inequality-into-our-genes/ 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1751721415300063 

https://www.tides.org/accelerating-social-change/policy/designer-babies-dna-in-the-headlines/ 

Hypothetically, imagine if Hitler had had access to genetic modification technology, he would have been able to create a battalion of super-soldiers and a perfect Aryan race. 

As with all new technology, there is always the prospect of failure. On a more personal level, recipients of designer babies would be emotionally distressed if the babies didn’t meet their expectations. From a wider perspective, a failure of technology that was unidentified for many years might lead to a population of psychopaths, unwanted diseases or a multitude of other problems.

Another problem that could arise from genetic modification is people will be less empathetic toward disabilities. Our society currently already has problems with discrimination against disabilities, gender, sexuality and race, genetic modification might make the discrimination worse.

If genetically modified technology is used, the chance of babies having a genetic disorder, like down syndrome or Turner syndrome will become rare because the baby would make alterations to be healthy even if the disorder has been passed down from generations. (Sunny S, Feb 7, 2022 )  Another advantage is that genetic modification could offer us a way to more organ matches.

According to information published by United Network for Organ Sharing, about 20 people die every day while waiting for their transplant. Over 100,000 people are currently waiting for a kidney transplant, 14,000 for a liver, and about 4,000 for a heart.  With the creation of designer babies, scientists can create a similar genetic profile to make it easier to find matching organs. (Sunny S, Feb 7, 2022 )  

To conclude, Designer babies offer parents a wide variety of choices or eliminate characteristics while the baby is still forming in the womb. While controlling and manipulating embryos can be a dangerous and unwanted option, many people support the idea of enhancing children, because gene - editing could potentially help avoid a range of heritable diseases by deleting or changing embryos. ( BBC News, 4 September 2020) 

Genetic modification is entirely possible through the selection of certain gamete groupings and pairing them accordingly to form the appropriate zygote². If certain groupings do not obtain the genetic features required, scientists may attempt to render the ‘genetic code’. Regardless of evolutionary concerns, the experimentation required for the concept to become tangible is lengthy and risky. 

These investigations would not only include experienced scientists but also a variety of surrogates, many of which die during labour due to lack of staff and poor service as confidentiality is vital in these experiments. ‘Experimentation’ is commonly a lab-based procedure conducted to determine a certain factor, this will continue until the desired outcome is achieved. Failed products are guaranteed in such experiments, causing many unknown deformities and mutations to arise within the many babies delivered as a result. The modification of embryos has been tested by aiming to clone sheep; many abnormalities, defects and the generation of different mutations arose with the morality rate of 95% (Irish Times, 1998). 

Geneticists suggest this will aid in human evolution and the diminishment of certain diseases (SIS, N/A), however the equally valid study of cognitive sciences suggests that humans may support designer babies due to grandiosity and the value of human attractiveness rather than the health benefits³. Though the idea worthy of commendation for the future, it is important to develop rationality over the subject and acknowledge the negative factors that come alongside it.

¹ Ly, Sarah. “Ethics of Designer Babies | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia.” The Embryo Project Encyclopedia, 31 March 2011, https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies.

² Linstead, Greg. "DNA and Genetics." Pearson Science 10 Student Book: 10-14

³ Greene, Robert. "Know Your Limits: The Law of Grandiosity." The Laws of Human Nature: 320-355.

Bibliography:

Ball, Philip. “Designer babies: an ethical horror waiting to happen?” The Guardian, 8 January 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/08/designer-babies-ethical-horror-waiting-to-happen. Accessed 10 May 2022.
Barlette, Mary-Anne. "Failures In Genetic Engineering." Irish Times, 8 March 1998, https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/failures-in-genetic-engineering-1.139384. 

Chefalo, Joe. What They Don't Tell You On The News. 2010.

“Designer Babies, The Key To A Better Developed World.” Seisen International School, https://www.seisen.com/student-life/seisen-post/features/~board/seisen-post/post/designer-babies-the-key-to-a-better-developed-world. Accessed 10 May 2022.

“Genetically-modified babies 'ethically justifiable', academic claims.” BBC, 19 November 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-50460721. Accessed 10 May 2022.
Greene, Robert. "Know Your Limits: The Law of Grandiosity." The Laws of Human Nature.
Linstead, Greg. "DNA and Genetics." Pearson Science 10 Student Book.
Ly, Sarah. “Ethics of Designer Babies | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia.” The Embryo Project Encyclopedia, 31 March 2011, https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies. Accessed 10 May 2022.

 There should be a strict line as to how far scientists should be abel to go when experimenting things this important. The major positive Factor about genetically modified babies is that it is a plausible option for parents to make as it will not be forced upon, people Should not be able to change  major chractersitics of the embryo such as therer appearence or there cognitive ability  hobbies and skill, But in cases of being able to prevent any life threatening diseases of disabilities that  lower the babies standard of living such as cerebral plausy .

People could use this advantage in a useful way, for example Africa. Africa is a well known continunt for diseases and disabilities, the government could make it affordable or even free for a short period of time just so some people could get genetically modified babies so its easier for them to try and survive because its already hard for them to live under the circumstances they are in right now there are so many majour things going on. 

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/08/designer-babies-ethical-horror-waiting-to-happen 

Bibliography:

ttps://www.scielo.br/j/bioet/a/jFptVvKR7RJHWXwmsKpZFrh/?lang=pt 

https://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol2/1/html/2.htm 

Genetic modification is defined as changing the genes in a patient's cells to treat a medical condition, or to change a characteristic of a patient (Center for Genetics and Society, n.d). The increasing possibility of genetic modification has prompted genetic modification to become the forefront of bioethical debates. One argument is that genetic modification can be taken to the extreme, and have negative effects on the child for example creating mutations in parts of the genome that is edited (Cyranoski, 2019). The counterargument is that it can improve the lives of a lot of people through the practice of gene therapy, which is used to prevent or cure specific genetic diseases and that we need to rely on the doctors and the parents to draw the line before anything can happen to negatively impact the child.

The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs released a statement in 1994 which supported using genetic modification as a means to cure genetic diseases (Ly, 2011). The positives of genetic modification are that it can help couples with fertility issues conceive children. It can allow the examination of embryos in regards to genetic or sexual diseases before they are implanted into the mother. Also, through PGD (preimplantation genetic diagnosis), physicians can select embryos that are not predisposed to genetic conditions, this is used by parents with genetic diseases e.g cystic fibrosis and anemia (Ly, 2011). 

The use of genetic modification in relation to gene therapy is an ethical practice. An example of genetic modification benefitting the world is seen in the case of Monique and Scott Collins in 1996. The couple had had two sons previously and desperately wanted to have a daughter, they were also trying to avoid muscular dystrophy, a genetic disease (Morales, 2002). The parents wanted to create a balanced family dynamic, and wanted to avoid passing down a genetic disease. Is that not ethical?

I support the idea of genetic modification to an extent. I believe that it has the potential to improve the lives of many people. If genetic modification is used to prevent or cure specific genetic diseases, it is ethical. However, this idea can be taken too far and if the basic characteristics of the baby (e.g. likings, skin color) are edited, I believe that genetic engineering becomes unethical. At this point, the parents are no longer improving the life of their child through genetic modification, they are controlling their child's life through genetic modification. In conclusion, genetic modification can be a positive practice.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/gene-editing-humans-its-not-just-about-safety/#:~:text=For%20a%20very%20long%20time,permanent%2C%20affecting%20all%20future%20generations.
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00673-1
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-50460721
https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/topics/human-genetic-modification#:~:text=Human%20genetic%20modification%20

On the downside, there is no doubt that genetically modifying babies is risky, and the results of genetically modifying babies in China were mixed. But there is no doubt that when a technological breakthrough occurs in genetically modifying babies, when there are no failures and the risks are minimal, the harms will far outweigh the benefits.

When the disadvantages of a morally controversial experiment are infinitely reduced, people will clearly see its advantages infinitely magnified. Undoubtedly, the benefits of Genetically-modified babies are enormous. Imagine how happy a pair of parents who are not smart get a smart son; when the society is full of smart people, the technology development and all kinds of industries in the whole world will develop rapidly, once science fiction All will become a reality, so will the ethical controversy of Genetically-modified babies still be a problem?

Just like in vitro fertilization helps infertile families get babies, genetically modifying babies can create more possibilities, there was considerable debate on the topic of in vitro fertilization 10 years ago, but because it has played a role in many populations help and gradually become popular, then when genetically modifying babies also eliminates certain hidden dangers like in vitro fertilization, people can choose many factors of their children, and I think many people will choose to accept.

(236 word)

Critics of designer babies think that the technology is exceptionally unethical and is almost similar to the process of abortion. Many of them believe that the enhancement of human characteristics and traits should not become a practice for civil societies.
2. The technology is not well developed

The development of the genetic engineering in designer babies is still in the early stage; in other words, many experiments are still being done to perfect the process. With this, its effects are still not fully determined and adequately understood. 
3.Brings harm to the embryo and the mother

As alluded to earlier, the technology of creating designer babies is still not well-developed; hence, it may be practically unsafe for both the mother and the baby. According to some doctors, the technology could cause miscarriage or grave injuries to both mothers and children.

4.  People with disabilities may experience devaluation 

Instead of equality, many people believe that the creation of designer babies will only breed inequality and promote devaluation of people with disabilities. In this case, some children will have a higher biological advantage over some children.

5. Only wealthy can afford the procedure 

One of the significant concerns about the technology of designer babies is that they are too expensive to be available to the common public. A small genetic test could reach up to more than $200. The type of procedures has varying costs : the average price for IVF is about $8,000, the average price of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is about $3,500, and the selection of the child’s sex is about $18,000.

6. Widens the gap in society

As mentioned above, the technology is very costly and rich people will only be given an unfair advantage from it. With that, many believe that instead of achieving equality, it will only emphasise the difference between social classes.

7. Violates the right of the children

Through the manipulation of the child’s genome even before he/she is born, many believe that it is considered as a violation of human rights. Aside from that, it also overlaps with the child’s consent. As a result, designer babies may even appear like a manufactured commodity which has no self-worth.

8. Gene pool may be affected

The problem with designer babies is that when their population has grown to a considerable size, more individuals will have the same set of genes. With this, there will be less variation in the gene pool. As a result, the new generation will become very susceptible to various disorders.

9. Many genetic disorders may remain to be elucidated 

Despite the already advanced understanding of numerous genetic disorders, many remain to be unelucidated. Critics argue that the genetic manipulation process could unintentionally lead to the rise of novel forms of genetic disorders in humans.

10. Many removed genes might be essential for growth 

Last but not the least, a major concern in the process is that genetic engineering could result in the unexpected removal of some genes that are necessary for the growth and development of a child.


https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/08/designer-babies-ethical-horror-waiting-to-happen

https://www.seisen.com/student-life/seisen-post/features/~board/seisen-post/post/designer-babies-
the-key-to-a-better-developed-world

Genetic editing of the embryo during IVF when the DNA in the zygote is genetically altered, this can be done to lower risks of diseases or disorders as well as changing physical appearance of the unborn baby. 

Genetic modification of babies has unknown long-term effects. Genetic diseases and disorders have an effect on the DNA sequence, with most diseases affecting multiple  genes it could cause more unknown complications elsewhere. If designer babies become realistic, only people who can afford to pay over $20,000 can have a designer baby. There is also a risk of permanently affecting the human gene pool. Normalising designer babies can bring risk to causing sociological issues. Society would naturally divide between the genetically altered and the not, superiority in designer babies could grow because of their genetic advantages and disvalue people with disabilities.

I believe that society is simply not ready for these unethical practices unless precautions and restrictions can be taken to ensure the general health of the child, disregarding the preference to alter the baby’s appearance. The question needed to be asked is if the privilege of technology in designer babies will be exploited. Making designer babies fully accessible for anyone could misuse the power of using the technology for enhancements of appearance and cause harm to the child, influencing more unneeded social issues and injustices. 

In conclusion, genetic modification of unborn babies could have significant effects on the elimination of genetically transferred diseases but certain precautions and restrictions need to be taken into account before designer babies become normalised and common. 

Sources:

Parents should only be able to change the traits of their unborn children if it is for clear medical reasons, such as where it would prevent the child from having a poor quality of life. For example, earlier this year the Australian Parliament passed legislation to allow for mitochondrial donation. This means that a man and woman can create an embryo through In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) technology and then the mitochondrial donated by another woman is used to replace the mitochondria of the mother who is the carrier of mitochondrial disease. This can prevent the baby from inheriting severe mitochondrial disease which causes painful debilitating suffering and premature death. 

 

It is important that legislation is clear about when genetic modification is allowed as this is a complex ethical area. Some disability advocates argue that allowing parents to make genetic modifications, even to prevent severe illness of disability is unethical as it can lead society to not value those with a disability and implies that a person with a disability’s life is not worth living. However, I believe that genetic modification should be allowed under strict conditions if children can be prevented from experiencing unnecessary suffering and have a longer lifespan with a better quality of life. 

Sources: