Now that prospective parents have the option to genetically design their kids (at least to a point), what does this mean to society in terms of other responsibilities involved in child-making?
Creating super-kids holds an allure – at least to some parents and bioethicists. But there are serious risks, both to the individual child and society. We don’t even have all the information needed to make an informed choice. That hasn’t stopped the technology from being championed.
Ever since Chinese scientist, He Jiankui genetically engineered three children five years ago via the novel CRISPR technology; the debate has raged over the ethics of manipulating our natural (or, if you will, God-given) genetic endowment. Initially, scientists in most countries imposed an absolute moratorium. Their views have loosened of late, especially regarding eradicating disease. Most scientists still oppose trait selection, choosing smarter, better-looking, or a particular gender for our children.
Adam and Eve were commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge, lest “in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” [1] Adam and Eve did not die - not then, anyway. But now, with knowledge generated by whole genome sequencing comes proposed attempts to create the “perfect child.” Should that day come, I suggest, it would be the death of humanity.  
In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) has produced some eight million children since its inception in 1978 with the birth of Louise Brown. But, like many novel technologies, problems abound - including errors and malfeasance on the part of the very lucrative IVF industry, which in the US is virtually unregulated. The novel technology, its problems, related lawsuits, and lack of legal redress in some cases raise essential questions about the value of a human life.
To thousands of women gifted with childbirth through assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and their children - the practice can only be described as a godsend. The industry, including IVF facilities, with global revenues in the billions, I am sure, agrees. But perhaps technology has run away with itself before we’ve considered the full ramifications of the risks and conjured solutions for the abuses, some of which have come to light just this week.
As the Supreme Court gears up to determine “the fate of the fetus,” the state of their “pre-genitors” also remains murky.
Could governments mandate that we quit reproducing sexually for the sake of public health? It sounds outlandish, but there are prominent thinkers making that case. Their argument is superficially plausible but ultimately absurd, both for scientific and ethical reasons.
With the press flooded with futuristic phantasms of using CRISPR-Cas 9 to genetically engineer "designer" children -- by creating human-induced hereditable mutations -- it's easy to lose sight of ethical, legal, and moral issues arising from currently existing technology. Will we be tempted to "improve" our genetic destiny, and who decides which improvements to make? And who gets them? Are we mature enough as a society to eschew decisions leading to claims of eugenic determinism? And what about the social justice concerns?
Healthcare has cultural roots. Chicken soup as “Jewish penicillin” exemplifies one culture’s role in signifying quality, remedy and affective connotations like comfort. Meanwhile, many choose traditional Chinese medicine over its Western counterpart, a decision that provides insight but leaves us with some questions. 
A series of studies in the past two decades suggest the long-standing worry among women that in vitro fertilization could carry an increased risk for breast cancer has no merit.
In a record-breaking experiment, researchers from University of Oxford have been able to allow an embryo to develop up to 13 days, beating the previous record of nine days. Knowledge of the biochemical processes taking place will prove invaluable for developmental biologists and people struggling with infertility.