Should the Law allow genetically engineered babies for medical reasons?
Debate Rounds (3)
Aside from the moral implications regarding God and meddling with fate is the scientific fallacy of what a 'medical reason' is.
Is you're kid going to be 'clinically retarded'? You can't tell without brain-scanning it and that's not entirely possible via ultrasound.
Is your kid going to have a psychological disorder of any kind, what with psychology being a branch of both science and medicine? Who knows; no one does.
So this leaves only primarily physically visible ailments to begin to be taken into consideration.
Let's say they have a life debilitating disease. Having a shorter life can be a great motivation to do a helluva lot with the short time you have making you a better human being and contribution to the species.
If your genes don't match up to produce your ideal baby, it is your right to keep the result of your genes and raise it as best you can. Other than that, you have no rights regarding a baby
There is no such thing a hereditary cancer.
If you have an unhealthy baby in your womb, abort it. If you can't produce a healthy baby do not plague the human species with your DNA line, eliminate it at your level and adopt a baby from the already overpopulated Earth.
jade.how forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.