Mandatory In Utero Gene Therapy to Cure Disease

Sorry internet went down at home. I'm currently using the campus' computer (campus is a ways away from home and I don't have a car). 1. "What you are saying is that if a person is meant to be a certain way, we should 'improve them' but what really is improving a person?" My opponent is making the naturalistic fallacy, assuming that because something comes from nature it is "meant" to be that way. The same argument could be made against all medical intervention. 2. "What if by changing some parts of DNA we are in fact changing the person altogether and somehow preventing a genius' brain from forming properly, sure they would get parkinson's but would do so many useful things before their short life ends" The individual's right to be free of disease and illness outweighs any right society has to their "many useful things". 3. "What you are saying is you assume science is ANYWHERE NEAR the stage whereby we know that if we alter one part of the DNA, the rest stays fine, but in utero gene therapy is nothing to do with this." I have assumed nothing of the kind. Notice in Round 1 I specified (CAPS LOCK added for emphasis): When we have the technology to go in utero gene therapy successfully and it is TESTED AND SAFE then it would be unethical, immoral, and should be illegal for a parent to forgo curing their child of a disease they are about to be born with. I am not saying we do this now. I am saying we do this the moment it has been tested and is found safe through research trials like anything else within the practice of medicine. 4. "How do researchers determine which disorders or traits warrant gene therapy? Unfortunately, the distinction between gene therapy for disease genes and gene therapy to enhance desired traits, such as height or eye color, is not clear-cut." No one is ever going to propose that one's eye color is a disease that needs to be cured. While there may be some "gray areas" that will need to be mulled over about whether or not it is a "disease" or merely a "condition" this is not a reason not to require parents to get gene therapy for those things that are real "disease". "Gene therapy" will force a social conversation about creating consistently applicable guidelines for determining if a trait is merely a "variation" or a "disease". Dwarfism, at least variants that don't cause anything other than shorter stature might come under the "variation" category under such a scheme. There is no reason to treat "gene therapy" any different than other medical treatments. Currently if a parent tries to deny their child treatment for a disease it is not allowed and the court orders the child be treated anyways. Some religions such as Jehovah's Witness have tried to get away with that for religious reasons but the courts didn't allow it. However, take the example of parents that don't get cosmetic surgery for their Down's Syndrome child. These parents are not mandated to do that because it is not treating a disease, it is "treating" a "trait", one which is genetically related to a disease but which is not itself a disease (the disease being the physical and mental problems suffered by the patient which would not be alleviated by cosmetic surgery).