Imagine losing your only child to a disease that could have been prevented, a disease that happened only because people refused to look past cliche fantasy dystopia scenarios and acknowledge the benefits of an innovative discovery like human embryo editing. This would break you, not because you lose your child, but because you know you could have done something to stop it from happening. Ethical concerns are valid, but it must be taken into account that gene editing only when necessary prevents a future edited gene class divide, and instead saves lives. Regulated allowance of this is much more practical than a blanket ban.

The opposition has already agreed to the biggest benefit of embryo editing, and indeed said some things that support my case. Firstly scientists already work with embryos, as shown by his very own example of ivfs. Moreover, the problem with consent is completely irrational as parents and guardians are there to consent. Guardians have to decide many things for their young ones before they are capable of making decisions for themselves. Whether or not the child is actually born while this decision takes place is completely irrelevant as the child is ignorant of the decision in both cases. Lastly, they make the argument that the editing will go down to the childs whole lineage. However they fail to address the consequences of this, would the child rather pass on weak or other damaged genes onto his lineage that make them susceptible to diseases, and in some cases the child might even pass away with the disease, thus ending his lineage. Therefore, it is always better to edit the gene and at least make sure that a lineage will even exist.

Firstly, your argument is entirely subjective. You say we are not ready, yet who decides when we are ready. Some may argue we weren't ready for ai, yet here we are, you are writing your speeches with ai and that process that we humans learn to adapt. Moreover, if we cannot decide on and follow a certain metric of what's necessary and if that metric falls apart over time then there is no point arguing anything since what we decide now will also fall apart over time. If rules are not followed then if we ban embryo editing now it may or may not remain banned in the future. With how absurd that is, we must assume that the rules we decide on will be followed otherwise nothing can be worked out. Thus, another subjective argument is disproved. They also say editing an embryo doesn't cure anyone which is a factually incorrect statement and here i would like to point out why we should listen to the arguments of someone who is blatantly lying. Still, if we entertain their final and only standing argument, we realize that the examples he quoted aren't that different fromm embryo editing. Isnt choosing an ivf a change that that they never agreed to. Thus it's apparent hypocrisy, And it should also be pointed out that it has already been argued and accepted by the opposition that these changes are indeed for the better. Lastly they fail to address any of the points I mentioned regarding getting consent from parents. Since he is last in the debate, he may be able to introduce new points without me being able to rebut them, but all the points he had raised so far have been rebutted.