The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Genetic Experimentation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,289 times Debate No: 19910
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




In history the topic of enhanced humans always comes up. Hitler during WW2 did it to find the "perfect" human. It is happening in our world today and the big topic is if it is ethically right to do this. In our history as a country we have gone into this topic many of occasions in history.
Rudolf Jaenisch creates the world's first transgenic animals. He introduced foreign DNA into mice embryos and the resulting animals had the modified gene in their tissues. This profound moment gave scientists a new way of studying genes and development

"to develop a new generation of therapeutics from genetically engineered copies of naturally occurring molecules important in human health and disease."
Engineering humans will help us be disease free, and genetically "perfect".
Yes there are risks at close hand when dealing with placing and removing genes in a living being, but there is risks in all kinds of medicine in our world today. I'm sure when they were testing with medicine in the past they didn't know what the outcome would be. There were probably some deaths as they went along, but if we followed in their footsteps we can set a new path for the evolution of human kind.


Thank you for setting up what I hope to be an enlighten debate.
Okay so firstly, your point where kind of jumbled so I’ll try and decode what you where meaning so we can have a clear outlay of what we’re debating over.

Balance of harms. Basically you stipulated that the benefits massively out-way any incurrent harms.

Perfection. This would lead to genetically perfect people. Free from disease ect.

It’s happened before. Experimentation like this has already occurred so why not continue. You used the lovely example of the Nazis... So thanks for that.

Okay so I’m going to stipulate why morally, scientifically and practically this is wrong.

So the balance of harms first off.

The medical code is to do no harm; if we breach that code we have conceded our morals and in our ravenous desire to do the right thing we become immoral and logically if an action leads to immorality you shouldn’t do it.
More so this idea of insane naivety that these miracle “cures” would be equally distributed between the rich and the poor is insane. And by incorporating this as a social norm what you do is you actually make the poor degrade to a sub-human status as they are no privy to these genetic advancements. This proliferates the already terrible void of wealth distribution. This is wrong; you can’t expect to argue that this will bring people closer together by further segregating them.
So that’s your balance of harms dealt with. Employing this method is not only morally but practically wrong for the reasons above.

Now this idea of Perfection.

There is no world in which I will accept this insane idea of perfection. Perfection does not exist not in a scientific level. The whole drive behind biology is evolution. If you encode whatever gene’s you fancy then you are ignoring evolution, not only does this leave you at risk as by decreasing diversity you leave a population more susceptible to disease as we all have the same genes and therefore shared weakness. Furthermore this will lead to inbreeding depression, I don’t like to quote wiki but it’s a relatively good description.
This Does Not Remove Disease. How does genetic manipulation solve malaria? How does it solve AIDs? What you’re trying to say is that it cures genetically inherited diseases. This is not the same thing and I would argue a very misleading statement.

Finally, it happened before.

This argument you aptly use the Nazis to demonstrate. Now I don’t think I have to explain why drawing yourself morally close to the Nazi party is a bad idea but I will if you disagree.
I will use a different example to demonstrate why this argument not only justifies atrocities but should never be evoked morally. Slavery happened before, if you accept that there where allot of economic gains to slavery them you could and would via your method justify it. Your balance of harms argument is flawed because rather than saying under only “these” circumstances is action “x” reasonable you say, “ I think we may have eventual gain” if we invoke “x” regardless of the harms.

So in closing I have shown that your argument is morally void, Acts against the betterment of society, is Scientifically wrong as even if these changes where invoked they wouldn’t cure disease would and greatly concentrate diversity.

Debate Round No. 1


Kid-with-power112 forfeited this round.


TheSpaceCadet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Kid-with-power112 forfeited this round.


TheSpaceCadet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, once again, it is quite obvious who won. While many of his contentions could be questioned (as always), TheSpaceCadet managed to disprove Pro's points, bringing up inbreeding depression (as well as contradictions with the imperfections associated with evolution), noting Pro's fallacy, as well as immorality....Both sides forfeited, and I did not notice anything major in spelling or grammatical structure to merit a point for one side....