Whether or not parents should be allowed to genetically modify their offspring has been a controversial issue for many years. However, genetic engineering is a broad classification for smaller procedures. Eugenics is defined as the inclination of certain genes over others. There is also the concept of “genotype choice” in which different embryos are grown in the laboratory and then the parents select the suitable one. Many articles have been written in the debate on this issue, some for, some against, and others saying yes, but to a certain extent. In all debates, ethics always seems to surface since some say it is ethical and others oppose it. Most commonly, genetic engineering surfaces in the medical field because it is believed that many diseases could be eliminated through some form of genetic manipulation. This is why many consider it important, but also why it is the subject of such controversy. Oliver Morton, editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, maintains an affirmative stance in this debate. In his article “Overcoming Yuk,” Morton outlines his views on the subject and why it should be allowed. A term that Morton frequently refers to is "the Yuk factor." This term was coined by Tom Wilkie, an ethicist who works for a biomedical company in London. This term refers to anything that we, as humans, would instantly respond to by saying “yuck.” Morton argues that even if something makes us want to react that way, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. Often this goes against our human nature. Morton refers to "genotype selection" in this sense, because we don't really know about this procedure. However, ... middle of paper ... prejudice often leads to violence and ultimately death. Is this something society should relive? I don't think so. On the other hand, I don't think we should completely forget about genetic engineering. There are valid aspects that can benefit society. However, those who oppose it are right in the sense of not allowing designer babies. On the other hand, using it to get rid of certain fatal or serious diseases in babies is a good idea, in the sense that it would increase human lifespan. Go back a few centuries, to a time when adults often didn't live past their 40s or 50s. Nowadays, thanks to modern medicine, people live into their late 90s and even into their early 100s. Well, wouldn't using genetic engineering to cure diseases in babies be just another form of medicine? That's why I think it should be allowed, but with stipulations.