Genetics and Reproductive Biotechnologies

2 pages (500 words)


Genetics and reproductive biotechnologies have indeed revolutionized the world. Things like cloning, genetics, screening and sex selection in unborn children have been some of the latest genetics and reproductive biotechnologies. The big question is, is genetics and reproductive biotechnology bad for the human race and should they be banned or rendered illegal in every country in the world? This paper is going to support the issue of genetic and reproductive biotechnologies in the society today.

Genetic and Biotechnologies

Even though some authors like Hinman believe that the issues of genetic biotechnologies, issues like abortion, euthanasia and other modern technological punishments like the death penalties are immoral and unethical some believe biotechnology is a blessing to the world (Hinman, 4). These authors include Stock and Fukuyama in their book, ‘the clone wars’.

Biotechnology in my point of view is a blessing to the human race. According to Fukuyama and Stock, parents will be blessed in that they can now control the future of their children by ensuring that ‘…they protect their future children form diseases, help them live longer and even influence their looks and their abilities…’(Stock & Fukuyama, 5). They therefore feel that no moral justification for religious body should interfere in the world of science and scientists. Therefore, the government and other related bodies should not delay, interfere or ban biotechnological advancements.

The fact that relevant and significant bodies like the US congress criminalize and try to justify the unethical and moral deprivation of genetics and biotechnology by imposing a fear to the people that it will lead to the unnatural revolution of human nature and bring about things like cloning is wrong but partially true. However, on this point Stock and Fukuyama state that biotechnology should not be banned rather it should be regulated by the government. Hinman argues about the unethical ways of abortions and euthanasia yet people still do and euthanasia is still preferred even by the patients themselves. Therefore, why not allow the government to use technological advancements to help curb diseases like Alzheimer’swhich are real and dangerous realities in the world which biotechnology can curb through gene screening.

Sex of the baby, and gene screening is said to be wanting to compete with the natural set up of the world yet, the religious bodies have not experiencedfirst-hand miseries and frustrations parents go through when they cannot have a certain sex of baby or have to bear the burden of raising a sick child with for example Alzheimer’s. Arguing that sex preference and determination is bad for the child is pretentious and fallacious in that the baby is being saved in the real sense because it will be good for both parents and child to have exactly what they want plus the child will receive better love and care.

Fukuyama and Stock are supported by McGee who states that parenting in the era of genetics has been very surrealand adventurous in that now parent have a choice of what sex of baby to have and when to have babies. Furthermore, parents can even go as far as determining the genes the baby carries in that they can undergo a gene screening.


Criminalizing genetics and biotechnology is fallacious and just procrastination of our problems. Biotechnology has not only benefited human beings but even animals which still come around to being a blessing for human beings. Fallacious fears imposed by some religious bodies and the government that biotechnology is dangerous and unnatural is simply fallacious. As amatter of fact, banning biotechnology according to Stock and Fukuyama would be, ‘…dangerous, wrong: limits individual liberty and favoritism to the rich’ (Stock &Fukuyama, 6).

Works Cited

Hinman, Lawrence M. Contemporary Moral Issues: Diversity and Consensus. Boston: Pearson,

2013. Print.

Stock, Gregory, and Francis Fukuyama.”Clone Wars.”…/Stock-

Fukuyama/Stock-Fukuyama_debate.pdf. 1 June 2002. Web. 6 Dec. 2014.