SURNAME1

Student name:

Instructor:

Date:

Eugenics

Eugenics is the exercise of removing the less desirable traits and endorsing more

desirable traits. It is merely improving the genetic quality of humankind. Much has been done to

improve the human race, but have resulted in horror, mayhem, and misery in the name of

eugenics. Those who support eugenics are excited by its ability to create the desirable traits, but

they fail to consider its implications. Every creature, including man, is created uniquely and

attempting to change the natural traits are like “playing god.” Taking into consideration that a

person can change the traits of the unborn child from certain horrible disorder or make a genius

create a paradox box because it can result in the creation of both the sensation and the sinister.

The probe whether eugenics is ethical or not predominate the debates in eugenics. Typically,

eugenics has some merits because it can remove the undesired traits from a child and used to

cure such diseases in the society. However, there are still disorders which have not been

eliminated, and it has caused many innocent deaths of both animals and embryos in the name of

genetic improvement. Eugenics is immoral and unethical and has failed.

Eugenic does not succeed in human

Among the main claims for practical eugenic revolve around the presence of selective

breeding on species such as dogs. Throughout the years, scientists have managed to breed in any
 SURNAME2

number of traits in dogs. Some breeds are stronger, bigger, faster and smarter 1. It is one evidence

that selective breeding can generate the desired outcomes. However, humans are not like dogs

that selective breeding can be applied in human. Indeed, no animal is a like a dog considering its

genetic plasticity. Everything about dogs makes them more practically suitable for selective

breeding. In canines, the DNA is certain sequence referred to as the SINEC-CF components.

These are sequences of the DNA that are particularly prone to wandering, entirely from one

section of the DNA strand to another. In animals such as dogs, they usually insert themselves into

stretches that serve the role of regulating the eugenics processes, hugely and altering the

expression of genes. Dogs, for instance, have approximately 11,000 of these sequences. On the

other side, a human has less than a thousand of these sequences. The DNA of a dog is

demonstrated to have strange repeating segments more frequent than humans, making them

prone to benign mutation. In fact, dogs are more prone to grow in a manner that accepts more

biodiversity. For instance, a puppy’s skull does not usually look like the dog, but it grows into a

dog. In other animals, the juvenile forms are more prototypes of their adult selves. Starting from

a fundamental pattern and considering the variation from their developmentally, it permits dogs a

great plasticity of form that cannot be manipulated by other animals, including human.

The fact that selective eugenics have been successful in dogs does not mean that the

process does not have an effect. Enthusiastically control a familial route over generations and

change a species. Unfortunately, every species will react differently. Asserting that eugenics will

have the same effect on humans as it does in other animals such as dogs is wrong 2. The effects

can be fatal on genetically pliable species like the human.

1r Gyngell, Christopher, and Michael J. Selgelid. "Twenty-First-Century Eugenics." (The Oxford Handbook of
Reproductive Ethics, 2016)141.
2 Sparrow, Robert. "Liberalism and eugenics." (Australasian Journal of Philosophy 2011) 499
 SURNAME3

Eugenics will consume biodiversity

People appreciate the fact that eugenics was successful in dogs. However, this success is

not without cost. Although distinct breeds of dogs might possess features that are desirable to

humans, they are not suitable to survive than the natural dogs. Even though they are protected

from various diseases, health issues, and weakness, they lose biodiversity. Research has shown

that approximately 5% of wolves' diversity was lost when they were turned to domesticated

dogs. In fact, when the domestic dogs were enthusiastically bred, they lost approximately 35 of

their diversity. However, humans are not likely to lose biodiversity at their genetic level. It is

estimated that the human race faced extinction in the past, but the survivors became genetically

near to each other. But, losing 35% of the dog's diversity is not an appealing overlook.

Regarding the dog approach, scientists consent that dog’s mutations concerns the creation of new

genes, but shows the existing ones, making it easy for them to interbreed without issues. This

variation in genetics is what permits them to alter form to adapt to distinct breeds. However,

constraining human biodiversity in the name of one ideal or a few changes the present human

species and eliminate the human ability to transform in the future. It is broadly recognized that a

species that constrain its gene pool to leave itself vulnerable to any transformation from its ideal

status.

Not only do eugenic consume biodiversity, but also mess with nature. It appears that

eugenics mess with nature in the process of genetic improvement. A good example is the

government of China, which is funding a wide study and hiring scientists from various countries

to perform eugenic tests. These scientists are provided access to embryonic substantial without

limits to study. In fact, some rule regarding the importation of human embryonic stems cell has
 SURNAME4

been passed. For instance, in England, researchers are permitted to generate new embryonic cells

for therapeutic study. There is a temperate balance in nature that should not be disturbed because

of the uncertainty effects that could occur. With eugenics and technology advancement, scientists

tend to be running to reveal some vague invention through testing with human genes.

Eugenics has led to the death of animals and embryos being tested

Even though eugenics was successful in dogs, it resulted in the death of huge numbers of

animals being tested and dumped after experimenting. According to Gyngell and Michael (2011),

a few of the embryos that are used for eugenic procedures die and only a small fraction survives.

It is estimated that only 1% to 30 of animals used in eugenics tests carry the DNA change of

interest. Scientists are continuously backing the cover of ethical exercise for scientific

knowledge, but it would be wrong considering that these sorts of exercise would as well occur

with human embryos. If an exercise endangers the future of the human species, it should be

aborted with immediate effect regardless of its benefits. Eugenics practice is one of these tests

that endanger the future of the human race because its aim at manipulating DNA of the human

race, which may lead to human extinction 3. The fact that animals have died during the tests does

not mean that human too won’t die. DNA manipulations are dangerous and can lead to severe

changes and uncertain income. For instance, some of the dogs that have been interbred have

become prone to serious abnormalities and abnormal organs.

Eugenic practices can lead to social divisions in the society

3 Caplan, Arthur L., Glenn McGee, and David Magnus. "What is immoral about eugenics?." (Western Journal of
Medicine, 171.5-6 1999): 335
 SURNAME5

The society is comprised of distinct races. Implementing eugenics means that there will

be a race with superior characteristics than others. Such development could lead to bias and

discrepancies in the society. There are various methodologies of eugenics, which involve

targeting particular cells or DNA for numerous reasons, which incorporate preventing disorder or

the reason of preselecting features for maximum results that is referred to as the "designer

babies.” In fact, when eugenics practice happen in human, it means that families can choose the

desired features. This process will not continue as families will compete for the best genes for

their child. If individuals are permitted to manipulate DNA, they will continue forever. Humans

could all be modified to have the best features possible, such as smart, strong, handsome,

beautiful and so on. When manipulation of DNA barriers is removed, there is no point of turning

back, and the impact on the society could result in the uniqueness, meaning that individual will

tend to have alike biological characteristics. The capability of the society may seem to be

pleasing, but it is a glassy slope into a world of discrimination and inequality. For instance, the

abuse of eugenics is well referenced in the case of Nadya Suleman 4. It is a case of an American

woman who gave birth to octuplets in 2009. Nadya had conceived through in vitro fertilization

and was unable to upbring the six children because she was unemployed. Here, there was no

certainty that Nadya would give birth to octuplets. It was revealed during birth. Also, the child

did not possess the desired outcome of super intelligence.

Moreover, not only would eugenics result in social division, but also an abuse of social

effects. It is not possible to enforce laws without the establishment of strict regulation. Eugenics

will lead to abuse and uncertain social impacts such as the well-being of people. Eugenics could

4 Rosenthal, M. Sara. "The Suleman octuplet case: an analysis of multiple ethical issues." ( Women's Health Issues
20.4. 2010): 260
 SURNAME6

also lead to unfair advantages among members of the community. According to Brenner (2013,),

Americans would use eugenics to perfect their children to appear intelligent. In fact, even

selecting the gender of the infant would become an issue of money. If eugenic practices would

become available for a certain price, only a certain class could afford it, thus dividing the society

into classes or status. When money dominates eugenics practices, greed will come in, thus

creating room for possible dangers and unregulated practices. To make the matter worse, it

would worsen the economic variations that exist between the lower and the upper class in the

society. It is likely that if eugenics is allowed to improve human genes, a new race will emerge,

creating another division between the haves and the have not 5. As such, not only will the rich

have more money but also do everything better because they will have money to buy eugenics

services. Such division would extend even to the world whereby the developed countries would

embrace eugenics than developing world, thus enlarging the gap between the developed and

developing countries.

Eugenics is against God’s creation

The exercise of improving the genetic quality of the human race violates God's creation

of man. Human beings are created in the resemblance and appearance of God and are unique.

There are not like dogs that have been bred throughout the years. In Genesis 1, 26-27, man was

created in the resemblance and appearance of God and given the responsibility of naming all the

5 Caplan, Arthur L., Glenn McGee, and David Magnus. "What is immoral about eugenics?." ( Western Journal of
Medicine,171.5-6 1999): 335
 SURNAME7

other animals. It should be appreciated that human being is God’s unique creation. The fact that

an individual could change the skin color is against God’s intention for creating a human being.

Christians believe that God's intention for all human beings is to be unique in a particular way

and through decoding the data contained in human cells through eugenics is like separating God's

intention from God’s creation. It is why eugenics is referred to as “playing god,” and Christians

are strictly opposed to eugenics. Typically, eugenic practices or belief is unethical 6. Some people

have appreciated eugenic practices for substituting organs for persons who need transplants but

cannot acquire appropriate donation. It is because to take a person DNA and create a duplicate

organ that contains that DNA would greatly decline the possibility of organ survivor. Protestants

churches are against such procedures. Moreover, the process of eugenic practice seeks for the

manipulation of DNA and killing of several embryos to obtain the required DNA. What it means

is that the process of eugenics or to improve the genetic quality in humans would deform various

human embryos as waste, eliminating the chance for those embryos to grow into full maturity.

Genetic perfection improves normal human beings

Eugenic is opposed to compromising the human dignity through manipulating natural

DNA and instilling the desired features. There is no evidence which features are perceived to be

perfect. Some people suffer in the society due to genes deformation and are stigmatized by even

the people who oppose eugenics. Such people should not be left to suffer prejudice while the

cure is available. On the other hand, nobody would wish to have genetic deformation. Since

6 Brenner, Dru, and Doug Brutlag. "Eugenics: The Pathway to a Brighter Future or a Slippery Slope of Immorality?."
(2013).12
 SURNAME8

eugenics can be used to cure genetic disorders, it should be embraced. Furthermore, nobody is

forced to adopt eugenics. Therefore, as long as individuals are not coerced to make choices about

their children that are in line with certain versions of what is bad or good, healthy or unhealthy,

there would no problem for the use of eugenic practices. Indeed, resechas shown that eugens

cure certain disorder such as autism, which is a major challenges in the word. So, if such diseases

an be treated through eugenics, then it is not justifiable not to utilize it.

Conclusion

Eugenics is important as it assists in treating disorders associated with genetic

deformation and promoting the development of genes. Nevertheless, improving human genes

poses various challenges such as compromising human dignity, killing embryos, and so on. They

must be determined in the light of their ethical, spiritual and moral perspectives. The capability,

power of eugenics comes with great responsibility. Genetic improvement has become a

contentious issue throughout the years because the process concern complex processes of DNA

manipulation, which raises certain issues. Various genetic diseases have happened, which may be

chronic or degenerative and not acknowledged for some period, but are very dangerous to the

organism. It is also likely that defective genes may be transferred to generation inform of

eugenics. Human life should not be disturbed as it is unique and not like other animals. Indeed,

even the DNA processes in human are different from animals. Therefore, eugenics is not an

effective way of improving human genes.

 SURNAME9

Work cited

Brenner, Dru, and Doug Brutlag. "Eugenics: The Pathway to a Brighter Future or a Slippery

Slope of Immorality?." (2013).

Caplan, Arthur L., Glenn McGee, and David Magnus. "What is immoral about eugenics?."

Western Journal of Medicine 171.5-6 (1999): 335.

 SURNAME10

Gyngell, Christopher, and Michael J. Selgelid. "Twenty-First-Century Eugenics." The Oxford

Handbook of Reproductive Ethics (2016): 141.

Rosenthal, M. Sara. "The Suleman octuplet case: an analysis of multiple ethical issues."

Women's Health Issues 20.4 (2010): 260-265.

Sparrow, Robert. "Liberalism and eugenics." Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89.3 (2011):

499-517.