I’m not a mother. I don’t want to be one for a long time and won’t pretend that I, a broke college student, can even begin to conceptualize what it’s like to carry around a little life. 

It’s getting harder for me to feed myself; I can’t possibly add the task of having another person to take care of. 

But when/if I do ever have a child, I know that I will love it. That’s the promise you make if you decide to carry to term, and not give the child up for adoption. You are saying that this child is best with you and you will love it no matter what. You will do your best to work in this child’s best interest. While this is certainly not a promise that everyone keeps, it should be the standard. 

A lot of recent discussion has been centered around “designer babies,” which are babies who have been genetically modified.

While a new Harvard poll shows that Americans are not generally in support of genetic modification of the unborn, science still marches on. A group of British scientists were recently given the go-ahead to begin a trial session of genetically modifying human embryos.

I think this stems from the fact that people tend to mix up genetically modified with other terms. Perhaps they think it means a baby who has been manufactured in a lab to be some kind of emotionless pseudo-human, a la Village of the Damned. 

“This research will allow the scientists to refine the techniques for creating GM babies, and many of the government’s scientific advisers have already decided that they are in favor of allowing that,” Dr. David King, a member of the watchdog group Human Genetics Alert, told BBC. “… So this is the first step in a well mapped-out process leading to GM babies, and a future of consumer eugenics.”

Eugenics was the “racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed ‘unfit,'” according to an article from the History News Network titled “The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics.”

“The sanctity and equality of human life is under threat as never before it would seem as we push ahead crossing one ethical boundary after another,” Nola Leach, who is part of the Christian charity CARE, told The Telegraph.

I understand these concerns. It’s strange to think that we’re changing aspects of a person’s makeup before he or she even becomes a person. And I do believe that the practice needs to be ethically scrutinized, far past other procedures that do not hold the same moral weight. 

But I’m also healthy. Aside from a severe allergic reaction and a car accident when I was younger, I’ve never been in any serious medical trouble. There aren’t any major diseases in my family, and we are blessed for that.

Many people do not have the luxury of this knowledge.

Huntington’s is a genetic disease that does not usually show symptoms until later in life. It causes a breakdown of nerve cells in the brain, which can lead to cognitive and psychiatric disorders.

Having Huntington’s has been described as having “ALS, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s — simultaneously.” Approximately 30,000 people suffer from ALS in the United States.

Genetic modification can possibly be used to lower an individual’s chances of developing Huntington’s. From what I know, that is a noble goal. 

Many people think that this form of prevention is going to open the door to parents being able to enhance their children’s intelligence, choose their personality traits and create that brand of Damned-esque super children I mentioned earlier. In other words, they think the rich may be able to create”better people.

While some people believe this is a perfectly logical thing to do, I have some qualms. Going in and being able to choose your child’s personality, capacity for interest and intelligence feels like you’re making a child out of Lego blocks. 

Stopping them from having to suffer from diseases is one thing. Deciding who they get to be is another. When it comes to children, I think you should take what you get. If you’re creating who they are, then you’re basically sending the message that you will only give love and acceptance in the strictest of qualifications.

And how will your designer children feel if they know that you basically crafted their appearance and personality from a kit? Will they feel like you created only what you wanted from them, and that they had no freedom to grow into anything else?

Because that’s what handpicking does. I may be making too big of a deal out of choosing your child’s hair color, but I don’t like where it leads. 

I don’t think genetic modification of embryos to decrease the chance of disease will lead to designer babies. I say this not because I believe it can’t, but because I don’t think we will let it, as a people. Maybe I’m naive, but I believe in people a little more than that.