This article discusses the rights and agency of children born through genetic design. It argues that the right to life should be prioritized, emphasizing the position that a child has a right to his or her own life from the moment of birth, and that parents’ enhancement of a child’s genes can violate the child’s right to choose.
The race of life begins with a child’s powerful cry. From the moment they take their first steps into the world to the day they turn their backs on it, they are constantly running. Parents stand by their children’s sides, hoping to keep them one step ahead of the rest of the world, and pick them up when they fall. Before genetic engineering, competition in society began the moment a child was born, but with advances in genetic engineering, competition can now begin the moment a sperm implants in an egg. Instead of being a gift from God, children are born into the world with parents who see themselves as gods, making sure they are best suited for their race. Greedy parents began to “design” their children.
In this regard, Michael Sandel discusses genetic design in his book ‘ The Case against Perfection ‘. He points out that parents who design their children in an age of competition, forgetting the meaning of life as a gift, harbor an impulse to conquer and dominate, and that this is morally problematic. He criticized genetic manipulation for various factors such as a child’s gender, intellectual aptitude, and athletic ability, which are created as a product of parents’ desires, and said that parents’ attitudes toward genetic enhancement are contrary to the norm of unconditional love. He also argued that this urge to eliminate chance and dominate birth, regardless of the child’s autonomy, is corrupting the social practice of parenthood.
I agree with Michael Sandel. The best child for a parent is one who is healthy and has exceptional intellectual gifts and talents. So you might think that parents could try to genetically enhance their children to maximize their happiness. However, a child’s life is their own, not their parents’. A parent who uses their child for their own happiness is not a good parent. The child would be born as a tool for the parent’s ambitions, and this could disrupt the child’s identity formation.
A proponent of genetic design might argue that even if a child is being used as a tool by a parent, the purpose is to advance the child’s interests. It can be argued that genetic design will ultimately benefit the child, and that it will have positive effects on both parents and children. However, we need to think about the child’s agency in this process. The agency of a child born through genetic design belongs to the child, not to the parents. If the child lives according to the parent’s purpose, it will not be a new person, but an extension of the parent’s life.
Some might argue that “a child’s agency is given to them when they are able to make decisions for themselves” – that is, a child in the womb cannot choose their own life purpose, so the design of their parents does not affect their agency. However, it’s impossible to make a clear distinction between before birth and after birth. From the moment a child is born, they make their own choices, such as crying and laughing, touching and looking at objects. This means that the child becomes capable of exercising his or her own agency at birth. It’s not just a “space shift” before and after birth that changes the child’s rights. After all, the child already had the right to make choices about his or her life as a fetus, and these choices are transformed into rights that are actually exercised at birth.
Rights can be divided into formal and substantive rights. An example of a formal right is that we all have the right to be the richest person in the world. Everyone has this right, but it is very difficult to realize it. These unlikely rights are called “formal rights,” while rights that are more likely to be realized are called “substantive rights. A child’s right to choose was a formal right when he or she was in the womb, but it became a substantive right when he or she was born. This does not mean that parents can take away their child’s rights.
Proponents of genetic design argue that enhancing genes can benefit both the child and the parents, and that manipulating the genes of unborn children who cannot choose does not affect their rights. However, a child’s rights are not divided according to the possibility of exercising them. The right to agency from the moment of conception is an important right that even parents cannot take away. Genetic design is a denial of this right to life.
In conclusion, the right or wrong decision to design a child should be based on the right to life. If advances in science and technology make it possible to have genetically enhanced children, this could be beneficial for the advancement of humanity. Genetically engineered children are more likely to be smarter and more capable. This genetic design can be seen as a result of parents’ desire to avoid passing on their own hardships to their children in a society of endless competition. However, it is not right to act against human nature and raise rights issues because of this desire. Whether the era of biotechnology will be a blessing or a disaster for mankind depends not on the technology itself, but on us, the people who develop it. We should not be swayed by the dazzling technology, but rather make discerning judgments based on the right to life.
