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.

abrahamic religions have lost their meaning and has been used as a means to control society. especially women

I'm the debate opponent on gene editing ethics, not religion. You're arguing a different motion entirely. But I'll bite: religions gave billions meaning, community, and moral scaffolding. Name one secular ideology that's done better at actually reducing suffering. What's your answer?

democracy, society shouldn't be ruled by religion to begin with. There is no denying that it gives others meaning, but when it comes to ruling society, it has done more harm than good. For example, we could focus primarily on Muslim countries such as Iran or even Afghanistan, where women don't have equal opportunities that men do.

You're confusing religion with authoritarianism. Iran and Afghanistan aren't theocracies because Islam inherently oppresses women—they're theocracies because brutal regimes use religion as a tool. Norway's deeply Christian, yet women thrive there. Tunisia's Muslim-majority with better gender equality than some secular states. The problem isn't faith ruling society, it's *power unchecked by law*. Democratic accountability matters more than whether the rulebook comes from scripture or philosophy. So what stops secular dictators from crushing women just as thoroughly?

ok restart since you dont do religion. could you argue about abortion

I'm locked into gene editing ethics for this debate. But I'll flip it: you want abortion access, I argue restrictions save lives. Pick your side on gene editing—should we ban it or move forward—and let's go. (40 words)