Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Designer babies
From Debatepedia
Revision as of 21:41, 24 October 2010 (edit) Silverfoot (Talk | contribs) (→Con) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 21:46, 24 October 2010 (edit) Silverfoot (Talk | contribs) (→Pro) Next diff → |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
|WRITE SUBQUESTION BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |WRITE SUBQUESTION BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
====Pro==== | ====Pro==== | ||
- | ''Yes, designer babies would grow up as genetically superior to children born normally, and normal children would be discriminated against because of their lack of having genetically modified talents. A genetically modified super-human couldn't help but look down on their naturally born counterparts. | + | ''Yes, designer babies would grow up as genetically superior to children born normally, and normal children would be discriminated against because of their lack of having genetically modified talents. A genetically modified super-human couldn't help but look down on their naturally born counterparts. As Princeton University biologist Lee Silver contemplates in a 1999 TIME Magazine article, society may be split into the "gen-rich" and the "gen-poor", depending on their genome. |
Revision as of 21:46, 24 October 2010
Should parents screen for desirable genetic traits in offspring, producing "designer babies"? |
Designer Babies Will be Considered to be Superior than Children Born "Normally" | |
ProYes, designer babies would grow up as genetically superior to children born normally, and normal children would be discriminated against because of their lack of having genetically modified talents. A genetically modified super-human couldn't help but look down on their naturally born counterparts. As Princeton University biologist Lee Silver contemplates in a 1999 TIME Magazine article, society may be split into the "gen-rich" and the "gen-poor", depending on their genome.
|
ConClick on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
Normal babies would be at an unfair disadvantage to their genetically modified counterparts | |
ProNormal children would have the unfair disadvantage of not having their genes altered. These "genetic superhumans" will dominate over the natural born children. How can any normal child hope to become a better basketball player than a children specifically designed in a lab to play basketball? How can the average child compete with a designer baby for academic awards, such as valedictorian? Designer babies would have an unfair advantage in life, that no matter how hard they work, they will never be able to overcome.
|
ConJust because their parents chose not to gift them with genetic modification at birth, doesn't mean they won't be able to compete. Children nowadays still are born genetically different. Is genetic modification any different than having parents with superior genes? Children have the same chances of being born genetically modified as they do being born in some third world country. How is that any fairer? With a little bit of effort, children will be able to overcome any genetic advantages or disadvantages that they may have. As Thomas Alva Edison said, "There is no substitute for hard work"
|
Write Subquestion here... | |
ProClick on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
ConClick on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
See alsoExternal links |
Categories: Morality | Babies | Sex | Life | Life and death | Genetics | Family | Parenting | Bioethics | Science | Technology