Genome editing in a fetus is negative.

Reminder Burden of Proof You have the Burden of Proof to show (rather than just infer) that it would be a negative. You've raised some interesting questions about how it might turn out, but have yet to show any clear negatives assured to happen. You have rather decided to show some good reasons for it. Arguments/Rebuttals Doing this mostly by order or reply. "Beauty" The original claim dealt with "eliminating beauty," which I showed through simple deductive reasoning to be false. Now you seem to support me with "everyone taste is different," which would lead to no less variety of features than we see today as "everyone" would want their kids to look different. Further unless we are dealing with completely overwriting the existing data, rather than editing it as the resolution deals with most directly, we'd be more dealing with parents modifying their future children from the base template of their own genes, assuring no less variety in pairings than today, as opposed to the next generation all looking like Tom Hiddleston. Now "If everyone could have their facial genes modified," is an interesting thought to chew on, but this debate is specifically dealing with fetuses, rather than the implications of a more advanced type of plastic surgery for adults. "Strength Gene" I previously just included this under the Beauty heading, but as it's continued with a source... By claim "nor a strong gene that replaces the gym" has not been refuted. The source details something which with exercise can double the rate of returns from exercise, yet that does not replace the gym. No way this would be anything other than a positive has been inferred, the article itself pointed out "the scientists say they have not seen any harmful side effects." As for positives, with regulation this could with minimal effort prevent any child being born with Hypotonia (also called Low Muscle Tone, a sometimes fatal disorder) [3]. "Hybrids" Again, no actual negatives have been stated. Even your article itself could not find anything worse than some people don't like the idea of it because circular reasoning, even while those same people enjoy the benefits of medical advances. As your article stated: "The reason for doing these experiments is to understand more about early human development and come up with ways of curing serious diseases." You've of course come up with a perceived negative, but have not listed any actual reason it is negative even if it hypothetically went that far: "imagine if there were people with the ability of protecting themselves with armadillo like shells. That would be devastating." Again just the worry of people "protecting themselves," which in no way bridges the gap to being "devastating." "GMO Soldiers" This debate topic was over changing fetuses rather than adults. Since you insist your talk of soldiers excludes slavery (modifying unborn children then raising them as weapons), I am really unsure where you're going with this, beyond inferring we can fix and/or prevent the health problems suffered by our veterans (at least in first world countries). "God, or Gods, have created us the way we are for a specific reason" Firstly no evidence has been submitted to imply God exists. If God coincidently exists, no way genome editing is against his will has been implied. But since you've picked this up again with "If God let the newborn die, maybe the newborn's purpose was to die." By the logic of that, if God (presuming he exists) makes children sick in ways preventable with genome editing, we are guided to do that (like Noah building the Ark instead of letting his family drown). If God then allows us to make said edits (or build said Ark, or purify drinking water, etc.), it is most clearly God's will. All that said, I don't see religion as particularly relevant to this medical debate. Sam Berns As you've stated, if his ailment did not exist "he would have chosen another lifestyle." Saying people should die of preventable illnesses to raise awareness for an illness that has no reason to exist, is akin to saying people should kill themselves to raise awareness about suicide even if they are not depressed. You've listed a fatal genetic disorder in your case, as if people dying of it is a good thing which must be protected. Vaccines The point of bringing them up was to show a highly comparable medical issue, for example a vaccine against some potentially fatal virus, or a minor genetic improvement against premature heart attacks. The Harvard Stem Cell Institute has developed a shot against heart attacks with reduces their occurrences by "40 to 90 percent" [4]. Even the conservative Fox News agrees with the significant benefits, such as eliminating sickle cell, leukemia, HIV, muscular dystrophy; all for a trade off of such minor problems as "one day stop parents from passing inherited diseases to their children" [5]. I know, in such a world Sam Berns could not consent to not dying horribly at a young age, but given the clear benefits of life prospects longer than 13 (the average age of death for those with his illness), I think that's a sacrifice most people in his position would be willing make. Sources [3] http://www.news-medical.net... [4] http://news.harvard.edu... [5] http://www.foxnews.com...