Genetically Modifying Human Beings is Unethical.

I used to be very much against the idea of g-modifying humans. (from here on I will use g-modify as an abbreviation for genetically modify) I will admit that it's a hard notion to swallow but now I am convinced that it is something we should pursue. To clarify I am arguing against the claim that g-modification is unethical and only that. I do not need to prove in anyway that it is actually ethical as this would be difficult since I don't believe in objective morality. First I will define: (a) "Genetically Modifying" as changing the genetic structure of human beings to improve their lives, liveliness, and survival ability. (b) "Unethical" as what is considered morally wrong. I would love to begin this debate by refuting a series of arguments. I may not be able to cover all of them in this round b/c of the character restriction but I will try. They are as follows below. G-modification is unethical b/c: 1.) The Argument that it is Unnatural. – Claims that nature intended for us to be the way we are. 2.) The Argument Against Genetic Prejudice. – Claims society will become prejudice against non g-modified humans a la Gattaca. 3.) The Argument Against Homogeneity. – Claims that everyone will look, act, think and be identical. 4.) The Argument of Genetic Malfunction. – Claims that eventually a genetic malfunction will occur and all of humanity will perish. I will focus the majority of this round arguing that g-modification is natural. I am looking for someone with a solid grasp of the theory of evolution as this pertains to what is natural. Define Nature: 1.the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities. 2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization. 3. the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers. 4. the universe, with all its phenomena. 5. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe. The argument that g-modification is unnatural goes as follows: a.)Nature created humans the way they currently exist. b.)Nature intended to make humans in this way. c.)G-modification of humans is changing what nature created. d.)Changing what nature created goes against nature's intent. e.)Going against Nature's intent is ethically wrong. f.)Therefore G-modification of humans is ethically wrong. Clearly a weak argument. What really sticks out to me is the falsity of premises (b) and (d). I would assert that (e) is also false but its not even worth mentioning (see the naturalistic fallacy). There are two leading theories about the nature of nature, if you will. One is basically a proven fact while the other isn't based in anything. The two theories are Evolution through Natural Selection and Intelligent Design. Obviously there are other theories about nature such as a completely spontaneous creation; idealism and its various forms i.e. solipsism; the flying spaghetti monster etc, etc… I discount these as irrelevant since there can be no common ground made between my opponent and me. So let's exam this. If the theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is true the premises (b) and (d) are false b/c nature does not have an intent. And If ID is true then we as mere humans could never know nature's intent. Premises (b) and (d) are therefore based merely in human presupposition and cannot be relied upon. An individual supporting ID is therefore in no position to comment on what is and isn't natural. Also if we accept that premise (b) is true it is then easy to extrapolate that b/c nature intended for us to have large brains capable of self g-modification it must have intended for us to use them for this purpose. A variation on the nature argument gets around the problem of nature's intention. a.)Nature created humans the way they currently exist. b.)Human g-modification is changing what nature created. c.)Changing what nature created goes against nature. d.)Nature and what it has created is Good. (for my opponents sake Good is used in the highest and/or any possible form.) e.) Changing what is Good is unethical. f.)Therefore changing what nature created is unethical. Another weak argument. First of all it cannot be concluded that changing what is Good is wrong or unethical. Something that is Good can be changed and still be Good. Consider nature's own actions. Nature is constantly changing its creations so if this argument holds true, logically, nature is constantly changing what is Good. Therefore nature itself is wrong and unethical. Another problem with this argument is that premise (c) is false. It's easy to assume that (c) is a superfluous premise but it isn't. It is there to establish that (b) is not natural. Once again nature always changes what it creates so if (c) is true it would always be going against itself. One could even argue that g-modification is natural on this simple basis. a.)If nature always changes what it creates then it is natural to change what nature creates b.)G-Modification changes what nature creates. c.)Ergo g-modification is natural. Although entirely unnecessary I will pose another argument that g-modification is natural. I'm using this simply for emphasis since it makes no ethical claims. a.)Nature has created all the animals b.)Humans are one kind of animal created by nature. c.)Every act done by an animal is a part of nature. d.)If humans g-modify themselves it is an act they have done. e.)Therefore the g-modification of humans is a part of nature. The argument points out the fact that we make an erroneous dichotomy between what we do and what the rest of nature does. We do not realize that we are a part of nature and that everything we do with what nature bestowed upon us is a part of nature. The lion was bestowed large claws and teeth. When the lion uses its large claws and teeth to tear through the delicate flesh of an unsuspecting fawn it is considered natural. We have been bestowed a large brain capable of g-modifying ourselves. Why then is it unnatural for us to do so? Furthermore in the eyes of evolution it is extremely arrogant to assume that nature intends for humans to be the way we are. It suggests that we are the end all and be all when humans are merely one rung in the ladder of our species just as our ape-like ancestors were. So here is at least one reason to believe that human g-modification is not unethical. I will get to the other rebuttals in the next round.