Genetically Modifying Human Beings is Unethical.

Zerosmelt - thank you for responding, I enjoyed reading your rebuttal! 1. COMPARING TOOLS, COMPUTERS, & HANDGUNS TO GENETIC MANIPULATION - My opponent drew a comparison between genetic engineering and "tools, weapons, fire, and computers". Comparing the genetic manipulation of human beings, which are living organisms, to the invention of a handgun is completely flawed. My opponent's argument is flawed because he is drawing a comparison to dead and inanimate objects. Power drills and handguns do not have millions of year's worth of genetically adapted DNA. A table saw cannot think for itself, nor can it reason. Our genetic code has enabled us to learn, how to adapt, and how to survive as a species. This has taken millions of year's worth of evolution. If we alter the barrel of a .357, we know the round will travel faster or slower. If I add more RAM to my computer, I know my computer will run faster. If we alter a cytosine molecule on a strand of human DNA, we do NOT know what will occur, nor can we prevent mutations, or control them. If a wildfire rages out-of-control, we can extinguish it. If a genetic mutation rages out-of-control, do we extinguish that life? On the other hand, do we spend tens of millions to mitigate their right to life under the U.S. Constitution? If we protect their right to life, where would we house the experiments that "went wrong" in order to protect the public? 2. EXISTENCE OF GOD - Fortunately, I do not have to prove the existence of God. Whether God exists or not is completely moot. The simple fact is that tens of millions of people DO believe God exists. Therefore, if you want to gain public support for GE, millions of people will have to be convinced that genetic engineering IS ethical. This is highly unlikely because millions of Catholics, Christians, etc. have inherent beliefs that interfering with God's work is absolutely taboo. This adds to my earlier assertions pertaining to the negative impact GE would have on our society. My opponent states I used "clever phrasing" when citing the concerns from "people with religious beliefs". I would counter by saying it is dangerous and callous to ignore the resolute beliefs of millions. 3. GE USED AS ADVANCED WEAPONRY- I would like to add something else for us to consider when exploring the realm of GE. Let us not forget that man, with all his inventions, has always developed more efficient and more effective ways to kill. Therefore, it is highly probable that GE would be government-controlled, and then developed for use as a weapon. While one government may attempt to use it to help humanity, another may use it to destroy. People of a specific race, or religion, could be targeted for genetic manipulation. Theoretically, you could contaminate their future gene pool, or completely wipe them out. 4. NATURAL LIFE CYCLE – My opponent's rebuttal fails to address the claim that the increased lifespan of human beings could very well harm or cause the extinction of other plants, animals, or insects. My opponent claims other species will step-in to fill the gaps. Although some species may step-up, other species will be devastated. My opponent does not understand that this natural life cycle evolves over millions of years. The point is that nature herself determines what species has run its course on our planet. If man upsets this delicate balance, and causes the end of a species before its "natural time", we could cause the strain, or elimination of several different species. 5. LONG-TERM EFFECTS – In his rebuttal, my opponent failed to address the long-term dangers of genetic engineering. Since many effects may not present themselves for years, or over the course of several generations, this is cause for great concern. My opponent's rebuttal to the possibility that GE could be harmful to humankind was to quote something from quantum mechanics that says, "The nature of atoms is such that at any moment it is possible for all the atoms in planet Earth to simultaneously converge to form a singularity, i.e. a black hole." This statement does not make any sense, nor does it have any relevance. In fact, it can be interpreted to imply that since anything can happen at anytime, let us just say, "Screw it" and move full steam ahead without any forethought or care as to the consequences of our actions. My opponent concedes that there is indeed a risk with GE. However, he says it is a "marginal risk". There is no way he can prove that with certainty. My opponent says scientists will "be careful". However, no matter how careful we are, we cannot prevent human error, nor can we corral malicious intent. My opponent cited a source from Wikipedia. I would caution against citing Wikipedia since anyone can add information to this website. Thanks again for providing such a great debate topic; I look forward to Round 3!