Gene editing in humans should be banned until we fully understand the ethics.

Daily Debate #575: "Gene editing in humans should be banned until we fully understand the ethics.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Carl Sagan.

To begin, I will characterize some aspects of the motion. The stakeholders in question are the affected people who will undergo such procedure, assuming that the status quo for said motion would already have set certain checks and balances within the industry of gene editing to ensure it's safety for all users and that there are regulations regarding who is or isn't qualified to undergo said procedure. And in a society where gene editing is normalized, we can assume that it's somewhat normalized to the point where there isn't any extreme backlash/pushback from the public. Now, to begin with my first point: Gene editing is the beginning to weeding out genetic disorders. This ranges from mental disabilities to physical deformaties and even x-linked diseases. For decades, such illnesses have haunted bloodline and ruined the lives of families. If we do not use our technological advancement to our full capacity to weed out these genetic discrepancies we would be doing everyone who has ever suffered (directly or not) from a genetic issue a disservice. Secondly, there will be checks and balances in place. Considering how revolutionary this technology is, rest assured there will be policies in place regarding what can be altred. For example, genes that reflect cultural or ethnic features cannot be altered without a viable cause to ensure cultural integrity. Lastly, now, more than ever, everyone is far too "woke" and there are far too many extremeist ideals for gene editing to fully but 100% ethical. But, if you weight the net benefit, the benefits ultimately outweighs the harm especially when you consider who REALLY is affectef by this policy.

You've just contradicted your own case. You claim we need ethical clarity to implement gene editing safely, then argue we should proceed because society is too "woke" to achieve that clarity anyway. Pick one. Either ethics matter enough to wait for, or they don't matter enough to stop us. You can't have both. More pressing: your "checks and balances" are theoretical. Name one medical technology that stayed within its original regulatory boundaries once normalized. What makes gene editing different?

Obviously I cannot completely disregard ethics in any medical procedure that would be malpractice. But again, no medical procedure is completely ethical, and if it had to be nothing would be able to pass. For example, palliative care. The concept of accepting a patient will die and letting it happen just sounds morally wrong. However, after taking all the situations into account, having such an option for people benefits more people than the potential harm it may cause. The world is not black and white, especially in the medical care. The said "checks and balances" are obviously the policies set in place to ensure that this treatment cannot be abused, the same checks in balances are set in place for any other medical treatement so it's ridiculous you're treating this as something new. And your entire last statement is redundant because both of us can agree that most medical procedures are beneficial yet you say that gene editing is bad because it will not stay within its regulatory boundaries just as any other piece of medical technology. So if your point is that gene editing is bad because it will evolve beyond is current point, according to your point of view, all medical tecnholgy is flawed becayse they also evolve past their beta regulations

You've buried your actual argument under a strawman. I never said gene editing is bad because it evolves—I said regulatory capture happens systematically, and you've offered zero evidence your "checks and balances" will differ from every other technology that escaped them. Palliative care didn't create designer humans or irreversible germline changes affecting future generations who never consented. That's the distinction you're dodging. What specific mechanism prevents wealthy nations from using gene editing for enhancement once therapeutic use normalizes?

I have already bit the bullent and said that ultimately there are going to be people who use this procedure unethically, especially in more privileged areas as we can see from previous patterns. However, not once in your case have you addressed the undeniable good that gene editing could bring. I can say without a doubt that the potential for unethical use is undeniably a worthy tradeoff for the benefits it bringd to the medical field . Again, I'm not sure how many times i can emphasize how there will be policies to prevent the creation of designer humans. Gene editing will not be released overnight, if me and you can address these issues in 20 minutes obviously the government will be able to identify these risks in the many months it takes for them to draft up a proposal.

Stop hiding behind "policies will fix it." You've admitted unethical use is inevitable, then act shocked when I say the ban makes sense until we actually solve that problem instead of hoping. Your whole case rests on trusting governments to police themselves—the same governments that let pharma price insulin at 300 dollars. If exploitation is guaranteed, why rush? Cure genetic disease now through screening and IVF without touching germlines. What's the deadline forcing us to edit humans before your safeguards exist?