Genetic selection of embryos occurs today by a technique called pre-implantation genetic rhetoric around diagnosis (PGD). In PGD, a single cell of an embryo conceived during IVF is removed and genetically tested before parents decide whether to implant or discard the embryo. PGD offers us the chance to eradicate genetic illnesses from our world. Surely it would be wrong not to use this technology. Parents fiercely defend the right to give their kids the best start in life. We have the technology. It is inevitable that it will be used to create 'designer babies'. Germline engineering involves the manipulation of DNA in a sperm or egg of a future embryo. This could be to add or take away the sequence of a gene, or to add an entire artificial chromosome. Human germline engineering could help eradicate diseases. How could this be wrong? Why is genetic engineering any worse than social engineering? Is adding a genetic characteristic into a child to give them a better chance in life really any different to sending them to a good school, or growing up in a good area?
             It is easy to condemn the idea of genetic engineering on principle without stopping to realise that it is merely the acceleration of a process that occurs naturally. We are generally not attracted to ugly or unhealthy people because of our unconscious desire to have healthy, good-looking offspring. By choosing whom to sleep with we are employing the same principle behind genetic engineering; it is just less reliable.
             It is generally agreed that genetically determining one's child's hair colour would be frivolous and excessive, but does that make it morally wrong? Hair colour seems like a rather small detail in such a big issue, but what about altering a child's sex or sexual orientation? In China, where families are assigned a quota of only one child each, thousands of baby girls are abandoned to die every year. Allowing parents to pre-select the child's gender w...