Imagine it’s 10 years in the future and you can “fix” your children’s genetic “problems” before they are born. Write a substantial story about this. Or, write an essay examining where the line ought to be (either morally or legally) with procedures like this. Can we, for example, draw a line between therapy and enhancement? Even if we can, is this distinction relevant?

If I could “fix” my children’s genetic “problems” before they were born, I would likely do it. I know I would need to think long and hard about it but, if it could help my child in the long run, I’d do it. I have Hypophosphatemic rickets which is a disorder characterized by hypophosphatemia. It basically means I have defective intestinal absorption of calcium and rickets or osteomalacia unresponsive to vitamin D. It is usually hereditary and some of the symptoms are bone pain, fractures, and growth abnormalities. If I could prevent my kids from going through some of the things I’ve had to go through I wouldn’t hesitate. My reasoning for being skeptical is how far is too far? If this could stop cancer from ever entering the human body then yes absolutely. However, I could never change anything physical or something that would not be life-threatening. I would not change their height, skin color, eye color, body mass, or anything that has to do with their image. It feels almost like conducting cosmetic surgery on someone who hasn’t given consent. I would not want my child to grow up and feel resentful of the way they look because I altered the way they were “meant” to be. At the end of the day if it elongates their life span and gives them a healthy life I am all in.