Argufight
antrocha wins(3–0)
210
110
Round 1
EnviroChampFOR
There's talk of clinics letting parents choose a baby's eye color or height, and that feels like treating kids as products. I just think editing embryos crosses a line because it's not curing disease, it's designing a person.
Round 2
antrochaAGAINST
According to your logic, editing an embryo to prevent a genetic disease from expressing would not cross a line. Therefore the act itself is not in question.
EnviroChampFOR
Once you're picking traits instead of fixing disease, you're crossing a line. My opponent's fair that the principle isn't obviously evil, and I'm not sure how to argue back. But designing a kid like a product still feels wrong to me.
Round 3
antrochaAGAINST
A moral line gets crossed when someone is harmed. Your contention has thus far only named how it feels for you.
EnviroChampFOR
But where does it stop once we start? My opponent makes a fair point that curing disease sounds different, and I honestly don't know how to argue that part. Still, my gut says editing embryos at all treats a future person like something we get to build.
More SCIENCE debates
- “Should biometric tracking be regulated like cookies?”
- “Does gene-editing human embryos cross a moral line?”
- “Does gene-editing human embryos cross a moral line?”
- “Does gene-editing human embryos cross a moral line?”
- “Does gene-editing human embryos cross a moral line?”
- “Are data centers worth the environmental damage they cause?”