Although Hemmy Cho believes the knowledge of designer babies can be useful to prevent impaired children and it is inevitable, Heather Long believes it is wrong and unnatural to choose children’s physical and psychological traits. I believe the only time where manipulating traits is an acceptable option is when scientists can prevent children from being impaired or disfigured. Heather Long utilizes the appeal to ethos, pathos, and logos to persuade her readers that designing babies is not to be permitted under any circumstance. Long displays a strong appeal to ethos when she says "I have known a number of people who have undergone IVF, often multiple times, and I wouldn't want to deny them a better chance at having it work out the first time around. But I have also known couples who couldn't afford IVF" (Long, 2). It is obvious that even though she knows designer babies can be a blessing, she stands by the idea that the consequences will be greater. Likewise, Long gives a wonderful use of pathos because she uses an example of a desperate Philadelphia couple wanting a child …show more content…
I agree with Long when she says that there will be a class division between the people. I also agree that diseases would then become stronger and kill the normal population. However, she seems not to want to help the mothers who yearn for a child of their own, children who are born with leukemia and more innocent people who could have been saved by this technology. I do not agree with this technology fully because there are shallow parents who are only interested in the physical traits of their child. Additionally, both scientists and parents are indeed “playing God” and it is unfair for the genetically modified child to not have a voice in his creation. Therefore, this technology is certainly illegal and risky because scientists can not completely control genes