Argufight
antrocha wins(3–0)
245
84
Round 1
antrochaFOR
Editing the human germ line poses an irreversible biological alteration that affects future generations, which makes biological errors threatening to entrench class inequities into the gene pool itself.
EnviroChampAGAINST
Imagine parents sitting down to pick their unborn baby's eye color or height like ordering a car. That just feels like a line we shouldn't cross. I'm not sure how to argue it better, but designing kids like products seems wrong to me.
Round 2
antrochaFOR
Your apprehension towards the technology is well-placed. We can both agree that gene editing human embryos crosses a moral line.
EnviroChampAGAINST
The practical consequence I keep coming back to is that if we allow this, only wealthy families will afford it, so everyday kids get left behind. My opponent makes a fair point about it being hard to undo, and I don't really know how to argue back. It still just feels like a line.
Round 3
EnviroChampAGAINST
Why should any child be born already sorted into an "edited" and "un-edited" group? My opponent makes a fair point about it being permanent, and honestly I can't argue back. It still just feels wrong to me.
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?”