According to Philip Ball, genetic modification has come a long way from when it was discovered 40 years ago. He says that genetic modification's definition has changed over the years, from just a small mitochondria flip to editing the entire genome. Ball states that most countries have banned genetic modification because it is not "nature." He also shares that there may not even be a need to genetically modify our children. Ball says we could just pick a different embryo with the good genes, instead of a time consuming, costly method with one embryo. Ball believes that genetic modification can be achieved in better, easier ways and should be allowed in all countries.
David Resnik and Daniel Vorhaus state that there is a big spectrum of people who believe in genetic modification and their views are very widespread. They view genetic modification as a baby having its genes be changed to develop new traits. They share that there are many different views to show how genetic modification can be changing a gene to not receive another gene, removing an unwanted gene, and picking what genes will make the child's characteristics. Resnik and Vorhaus argue that there are many people who believe genetic modification is good, bad, or even fatalistic. They also state that genetic modification should not interfere with basic human freedoms, such as who you like, your talents, or your free will. They gloss over everything ethical about changing the genes of a human being.
Jocelyn Kaiser states that the USA government is currently holding back on the idea of genetic babies. According to her, the government may allow testing the procedure, but not to the public. Kaiser shares a quote from a genome researcher named Eric Lander, who says, "[the government] has closed the door to the vast majority of germline applications." Kaiser says that the government may be able to shift their ideas, maybe sometime in the near future. She also states that there is a growing debate in the USA government on whether or not this process should be legal. The government may allow the procedure to be legal in a few years.
According to futuretimeline.net, inputting genes into babies could be accepted in the future and is also essential. The website argues that in order to have our species advance, we must cut down diseases and genetic conditions. The website also shares a quote from Debra Matthews, who says that we need to "weigh all of the potential outcomes" and discuss if editing the human genome is beneficial or not. The website states that this technology is decades away and is one of the keys to understanding ourselves and other life. The website also says that ethical issues would arise with the ability to modify the babies genome, but all in all this method of gene implanting is necessary to help the human race.
Rachel Iredale argues with the idea of designer babies. She conducted an experiment with the young youth of Wales, consisting of asking the youth whether or not designer babies should be legal. The majority of the "jury" says that the method is a "health service", and so should be allowed. The minority say that the parent should love the child no matter what genes, ridding the need for designer babies. Iredale also shows a table about the verdict of the jury's ideas. This table states that most of the youth are happy with the thought of designer babies, whether fixing their genetic diseases to selecting the child's sex. Iredale goes into depth about the youth discussion and other issues that might come up with these laws.
Pam Belluck argues that we should not change our babies looks and talents with genetic material. She states that there are many more problems with genetic engineering than originally thought. Belluck also analyzes how there is a problem with inserting new genes into the child's genome, and how the scientists need to find the right RNA molecule to insert the DNA. This process is very tedious and expensive. She adds that there are major issues with changing bodily functions to produce a child with a greater or lower amount of hormones, which could lead to major harm to the child.