This blog post deeply examines whether control exercised under the guise of choices made for children is truly love, exploring it from the perspectives of freedom and dignity.
People often call children ‘a gift from God’. For the giver, a gift signifies celebration and blessing; for the recipient, it brings happiness. The phrase ‘a gift from God’ signifies how profoundly children are a source of great joy for parents. This is a universal sentiment most parents can relate to. However, two fundamentally opposing approaches exist in child-rearing attitudes. One allows a child’s life to flow as it naturally does, while the other controls the child’s life, designing it to advance toward specific goals.
Michael Sandel, author of ‘The Ethics of Life,’ described the former as an attitude of seeing the world as it is, and the latter as an act of manipulating the world. He further explained this through the concepts of ‘curing’ and ‘enhancing.’ First, from the perspective of treatment, curing a child’s illness does not undermine their natural strength but rather helps that strength manifest effectively. While there is room for debate on where to draw the line for treatment, the purpose of medicine is to promote health and cure disease. In other words, it is not about artificially intervening in and controlling a child’s life, but about restoring and maintaining natural functions so their life flows more naturally and effectively.
Conversely, from a strengthening perspective, parents can go beyond treating a sick child to strengthen even a healthy child for a better and more successful life. Furthermore, they can even ‘fix’ their children genetically. This appears somewhat artificial. It seems like using technology to control, and in extreme cases, manipulate a child’s life. This is the opposite of unconditional love.
Theologian May stated that parental love for children has two aspects: ‘accepting love’ and ‘transforming love’. Accepting love finds satisfaction in the child’s very existence, while transforming love seeks to develop the child towards a better environment. The ideal state is when these two aspects complement each other and achieve balance. However, if the focus tilts too much toward transforming love, it can degenerate into an excessive drive to enhance the child. This imbalance creates a situation where parents attempt to design their child’s genetic makeup.
Even the United States, long seen as a symbol of independent and free living, has recently seen parents designing their children’s lives and controlling them for the sake of so-called success. Now, America, like Korea, is intensely focused on early education for the sake of a better life for their children, overprotecting them to ensure they follow an elite path. Parents even call their children’s universities to monitor them after they enter college. Sandel argues that this parenting style resembles enhancement through genetic engineering, and that genetic enhancement is no different from eugenics.
Eugenics is the study of various conditions and factors aimed at genetically improving humanity, first established in 1883 by Francis Galton of England. Its goal is to increase the population with superior and sound qualities while preventing the growth of those with inferior genetic traits. Of course, improving a child’s life through education and training can feel entirely different from determining it through genetic manipulation. However, the difference lies only in the timing—before or after the child is born—and is fundamentally no different in that it involves excessive intervention rather than accepting the child as they are.
Consider the example of parents who want to turn their child into a sports star. Tiger Woods’ father reportedly put golf clubs in his son’s hands when he was old enough to be in daycare. Parents nervously watching their children on soccer fields or baseball diamonds, or children suffering sports injuries at a young age, all fit this pattern. Is this truly right? Can it be acceptable if the intention is good? My answer is ‘no’. Even if the reason is to improve a child’s life, designing genes is unacceptable. This is because it violates the dignity of life that every human being possesses.
The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, published during the French Revolution in the 18th century, states: “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.” Our Constitution also guarantees the right to liberty, which protects individuals from state interference or infringement upon their free domain. This principle stems from the belief that all citizens possess dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness. The law safeguards human freedom precisely because individual life and liberty are so crucial. Neither the state nor even parents can infringe upon this; if taken too far, it constitutes a violation of a child’s human rights.
So, how far does the freedom guaranteed by civil liberties extend? Or, what is the scope of freedom humans can enjoy? Where is the limit in genetic engineering that does not infringe upon this freedom? My answer is that, in principle, the best approach is to refrain from intervention entirely, permitting intervention only for therapeutic purposes when normal life is impossible. The point is to minimize or eliminate human intervention in the birth of life.
Genetic design, no matter how well-intentioned, is artificial and rejects a natural life. Raising children requires immense strength, effort, and money, but it is profoundly misguided to believe parents have the right to determine their child’s life path by designing their genes. Children are not corporations. Significant investment does not make them entities that must live according to their parents’ will. Children are human beings with the right to freedom, and that freedom is best realized when they are accepted as they are.
Today, everyone knows that happiness indices do not correlate with economic wealth or educational attainment. In fact, they often show an inverse relationship, with statistics revealing higher happiness indices in developing countries compared to developed ones. Developing countries, with lower economic, educational, and welfare standards than developed nations, focus primarily on basic survival. Parents there don’t exert excessive effort for their children’s success like those in the US or Korea do. Yet, they are happier than we are. The interesting thing is that we all know this fact. But it seems we only know it intellectually.
If asked what the purpose of human life is, most people would say it is to pursue happiness. Any normal parent would wish not only for their own happiness but also for their child’s happiness. Yet, even knowing that happiness is different from social success, they try to instill in their children the genes needed to win in a competitive society. This is a contradiction, and something is seriously wrong. Before trying to implant good genes in their children, such parents should deeply consider how their children should live to be happy.
When climbing a mountain and seeing water flowing along a stream, it is truly beautiful. Artificially created fountains or streams may appear more beautiful, but water flowing in nature carries a naturalness and peace that artificial creations cannot match. This is because it is created by nature, flowing as it is, unimpeded. The same applies to a child’s life. Helping them become happy human beings is not about designing and controlling their lives. It is simply about loving them for who they are and watching over them as they flow naturally.
