LNAT Practice Test Essay – In the future, should parents have the option to genetically modify their children?

In the LawMint LNAT Practice Test Series for 2024 and 2025, there are 30 full length tests, with 360 passages – 1260 MCQs and 90 essay prompts or essay questions.

The essay below is a sample that can be written for the prompt:

In the future, should parents have the option to genetically modify their children?

This LNAT essay question is included in LawMint LNAT Practice Test series.

While the model essays may include both sides of an argument, the question may require you to state your stance - either for or against; and support it with arguments.

Read our articles and watch the videos on our YouTube channel for guidance on how to structure and write the LNAT Essay.

Introduction

As advancements in genetic engineering continue to progress, the possibility of parents having the option to genetically modify their children becomes an increasingly relevant topic of discussion. The implications of such a choice extend far beyond the realm of science, touching on ethical, moral, and social concerns. This essay will explore the arguments for and against allowing parents to genetically modify their children in the future and the potential consequences of this decision on society.

Arguments in Favor of Allowing Genetic Modification of Children

Proponents of allowing parents to genetically modify their children argue that such technology could help eradicate genetic diseases and improve overall health. By identifying and eliminating harmful genes, parents could potentially prevent their children from inheriting life-threatening conditions, such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, or certain types of cancer. In this sense, genetic modification could be seen as a form of preventive healthcare, ensuring that future generations lead healthier, longer lives.

Another argument in favor of genetic modification is the potential for enhanced cognitive and physical abilities. Proponents claim that, by modifying specific genes, parents could ensure that their children have a higher IQ, greater athletic abilities, or even improved physical appearance. These enhancements could provide children with a competitive advantage in various aspects of life, including education, sports, and career opportunities.

Arguments Against Allowing Genetic Modification of Children

Opponents of allowing genetic modification of children raise several concerns, primarily focusing on the ethical and moral implications of such a choice. One of the most significant concerns is the potential for creating a new form of inequality, where those who can afford genetic modifications have access to a superior quality of life compared to those who cannot. This disparity could exacerbate existing social divides and create a genetically stratified society.

Another argument against genetic modification of children is the potential for unintended consequences. The science of genetics is complex and not yet fully understood, making it difficult to predict the long-term effects of modifying a person’s genetic makeup. Introducing changes to a child’s genes could have unforeseen consequences, both for the individual and for future generations, as these modifications would be passed on to their offspring.

Furthermore, opponents argue that allowing parents to genetically modify their children opens the door to “designer babies,” where children are created to fit specific aesthetic or ability-based criteria. This practice raises concerns about the commodification of human life and the potential for parents to place unrealistic expectations on their children.

Potential Implications for Society

The decision to allow parents to genetically modify their children in the future would have significant implications for society. On the one hand, the eradication of genetic diseases and enhanced abilities could lead to a healthier, more capable population. On the other hand, such a policy could also result in increased inequality, unforeseen health consequences, and ethical dilemmas surrounding the value and purpose of human life.

To navigate these complex issues, it will be essential for governments and regulatory bodies to establish guidelines and limitations for the use of genetic modification technology. This could involve restricting the use of genetic modification to the prevention of severe genetic disorders, rather than allowing modifications for non-medical purposes, such as cosmetic enhancements or increased intelligence.

Conclusion

The question of whether parents should have the option to genetically modify their children in the future is a complex and multifaceted issue, with both compelling arguments and significant concerns on either side. Ultimately, the responsible use of genetic modification technology will depend on striking a balance between the potential benefits and the ethical, moral, and social consequences of such a choice. By establishing clear guidelines and limitations for the use of this technology, society can navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by genetic modification while preserving the dignity and value of human life.