To be able to change the genetic process of disease would not only save lives, but could possibly save billions of daughters among the victims that inherit disease like cancer. They talk about doing it by editing the faulty scripture in the genetic code in order to correct the fault in the code (Harris). They also claim that the future of an unborn child does not have the right of consent because they do not exist yet therefore their rights don’t exist and obviously if the genetic code is not done before hand then they have no chance at changing it. The total amount of people with birth defects are up to 7.9 million (Harris). Personally, i know multiple people that have birth defects and honestly it is a very sad to watch the entire family struggle due to those defects. The opposing view does have a compelling argument, and that is the fear of playing god (Darnovsky). If genetic modification works to well, then it could be like the story Harrison and Bergeron where everybody is equal except for the few people that could be superior. It’s a system that could very easily be manipulated for evil.
Whether or not genetic modifications should be done to humans is a very sensitive and scary topic. There are so many benefits that it could give humans, like not suffering from awful disease or having there families live impoverished lives in order to get the proper medication for there kid. But If it goes to far, then there is no point in society. We are all the same with the same ideas and under a few people with superior knowledge. You could go with the “alternative” option of having limitations but there would be so much political disagreement than even having modifications in the first place. I think it’s a bad idea.
Very compelling post. You did a great job synthesizing two of the major arguments posed against genetic modification. I too have seen the effects genetic disorders have caused to friends and families and cannot see a reason why they would not have wanted to prevent those effects before their children were created. This is why I think the argument of consent is one that doesn’t hold much water. I also agree that the other view of playing god is a very dangerous one as well. It seems like most good things often come at a cost and the cost of preventing genetic diseases is that some may try to abuse such power. I think this is a very valid argument when attempting to prevent such modifications. How do you think we should stop genetic modification then? Do we stop the research into genetic modification? Or do we regulate it once its capabilities are actualized?