Ethics Blog Post #2

What I have learned through my research so far is that, pretty interestingly, embryos are given legal victim status, when they are pursued by the mother for their full development. For instance, when they are killed in a car accident, the suspect is charged with murder of the fetus. This is per under the federal US Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. Therefore embryos are given rights to prevent damage to their health, when it is the intention of the mother to fully develop them. Such rights push further the idea that genetic modification should not be done on human embryos, given the great negative affects they can cause, which are greater than the current benefits for the current foreseeable future. I am leaning more toward the position that the most ethical approach to this type of dilemma is to put the rights of unborn children first (children who are pursued by the mother for their full development). Here is how the 4 pillars factor in: It terms of autonomy, modifying genetically a human embryo gives the child no autonomy - they have no say in wether or not they want to be genetically modified. In terms of beneficence, genetic engineering of human embryos can actually be of benefit to the eventual child. It can help prevent genetic disease, lower the risks of diseases in generations to come, increase life expectancy, increase intelligence, etc. However, in terms of non-maleficence, genetic modification of human embryos can actually produce disastrous effects as the technology has not been fully developed. Genetic engineering can possibly make mistakes while modifying embryos' genes, and if they were to reproduce, it can cause lasting damages to the human genome. In terms of justice, since it is so expensive, it probably could only be used by wealthier families, not those who are of lower income. 

(Above is George Bush signing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.)