Is it ethical to genetically design babies before they are born?

Definition of Designer Babies:

• a baby whose genetic make up has been artificially selected by genetic engineering.
  
• taking away or modifying specific genes

We are on the Pro side of this debate, stating that designer babies an ethical practice. Our first reason is this: designer babies prevent the possibility of preventing babies from having diseases or mutations. This is beneficial because society can now cure and prevent harmful diseases such as cancer, autism, and down syndrome.

Our second point is that the parents have the right to do what they wish to their children. If the child is theirs, they should have the right and it is ethical for them to consent to what there child should have an not have.

Our third point is this: yes, designer babies are expensive, and yes, they are for the upper classes. Opposes would say that kids with disabilities are looked down upon. We argue, as does a famous Sociologist Emile Durkheim, that people with disabilities are looked down upon regardless, it is human nature, so the fact that special needs children and humans will be looked down upon is a flaw.

Our fourth and final point is that with smarter, more capable children in our world, there will be a greater likelihood that they will make a difference in the world. With this ever changing society and technology, only the most apt and intelligent people can make a difference these days. With designer babies, society as a whole has greater potential.

Thank you.

4. This cannot happen until everyone can afford and be allowed to design their own baby. Until that happens, genetically altering babies to be smarter and more able will just widen the gap between those who it is available to and those it is not, and is not fair.

• There will never be a problem of overpopulation with the creation of designer babies. These parents who are having their child’s genetic make-up altered would be having a child anyway. So, the numbers at the end of the day are essentially equal. Both parents will end up with a child, with or without the modification of genes. Overpopulation is not an issue in this case.
• According to our opponents, diversity will decrease because everyone desires the same traits. African-American parents will not believe that creating a Caucasian child is the “good” trait that they want to have. White families are not going to create a Latino son. Families still would want to see the “family resemblance” and not to differentiate between family members. Also, everyone has different ideas going on in their minds, and different concepts of the word “good”. What is good for one family may not be good for the other. Therefore, with the use of designer babies, a huge diversity would still exist in the world and many people would continue to be unique in their own way.
• The price of a designer baby is likely to be extremely costly. Therefore, the majority of humans will not be able to start their own baby factory that spits out super humans. While many cultures prefer men, many also prefer to have women. Like the Somali Culture, a woman is considered beautiful and possesses the best traits of any human. Everybody’s ideas are, again, different. This will result in different children being created.
• You have presented a different argument in your last point. Yes, sometimes life is not fair. This is known throughout the world. Socialists tried to fix that. Martin Luther King Jr. tried to fix it. It’s never going to change. This is an entirely different story. Because people in the poorer districts cannot afford an iPad, then IPads should not exist? Start a new debate if you want to talk about life’s fairness.

This is exactly our point. Who ever said smarter and stronger children were bad for society. Designer babies aren't born to be 6'2 220 lb powerhouse linebackers. This is not taking away the possibility and natural occurrence of bright, strong children. On the subject of overpopulation, designer babies aren't a science of easy and free reproduction. It is a process which takes the same 9 months and the mother still births the child. Sure, the kid would most likely have the traits that helps him/her live longer, but the mother still has to decide mentally, physically, and financially for this decision. If a mother wants a child, she will have that child, regardless of how bright it could be. On the subject of reduced genetic variability, the opposition's argument is utterly not true. The diversity will not decrease because black people do not want blond hair blued eyed children. The only thing they would alter is their aptitude toward a healthy life, free of disease. If a mother or father, for instance, had autoimmune, Huntington's Disease, or mental illness in their family history, they would want their child to be free from this possibility of a hindered lifestyle. Yes, many cultures around the world find it more favorable to have men as children, the token is the same for the women in some societies. In the Musuo tribe, the women of the society rule. Just like any father would like to have a son, a mother would also like to have a daughter.

Thank you.

I don't' know who said smarter and stronger children were not better for society, because we did not. What stated that it is not fair for some people to be able to monetarily afford the future success of their child. What will happen is that those children whose parents could afford to have them genetically enhanced will have a greater chance of success in getting jobs etc. simply because their parents could pay for it. Also, the subject at hand is overpopulation, not abortion. Everything you said about mothers choosing to have their child or not is extraneous. The fact stands that when these genetically helped children are born, they will live longer. Longer lifespan means people dying less often, resulting in overpopulation. In the words of Thomas Malthus: "power of population is much greater than the power of the earth to provide sustenance for man." As for genetic variability, yes, many black people probably do not want blonde children. However, within the race of Africans, the spectrum of genetic variability will decrease. Africans will want the same African traits for their children. In an amplified example, what you will end up with is a bunch of Africans that are all the same, a bunch of white people that are all the same, and a bunch of Asians that are all the same. We are not saying everyone wants to be white, but that within races there are certain desired traits that people want. Regarding gender discrimination, an isolated Asian tribe does not constitute for very much as a counterexample. They are actually at the heart of China, where everywhere else in the country, and most of the continent, males are favored. The Musuo tribe is actually coined as "The last matriarchy", or the last society dominated by women.

All in all, the pro-designer baby argument supersedes the accusations put forth by the contenders. First of all, abortion was never discussed in any pro argument and the contenders argued in the first round how this issue is certainly not fair. Therefore, their third round contradicts their two previous rounds. Designer babies should be looked at as a beneficial factor to the growth of society. Having no disease or permanent disabilities is better than living a life with such harsh living conditions. Stronger and smarter people will create a stronger and smarter nation. Also, in the United States, parents have the right of their children under the age of 18. With that, it is easily argued that the parents have a right to their genes and mutations. This point was presented in the debate and the opposition never found an answer to it on the legal level. Genetically designing babies before they are born is constructive and practical with the scientific enhancement of the 21st century.

Thank you readers and please give us your positive feedback.

We would like to thank the opposition for their time and thoughts dedicated to this debate. Thank you and vote for pro.