THW allow the creation of “Designer Babies”

[Proposition]

Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen and members of the house – throughout the human history, we’ve been overcoming life-threatening diseases have been one of the top priorities of any society. The development of new technology such as Nano-technology would best reflect the human efforts.`

As an extension of such effort to overcome diseases and increase the quality of life, we fully support the legalization of “Designer Baby”. Throughout this debate, we will prove to you that the concept of Designer baby is not only efficient in solving the harms of genetic diseases, but more importantly why it is principally justifiable to promote this technology.

Before I explain the constructive arguments of our team, allow me to clarify some key issues in this debate.

First, in regards to the definition of the motion – We define “Designer Baby” as a baby whose genetic makeup has been selected in order to eradicate a particular defect or to ensure certain physical traits. In professional terms, we support the active usage of ‘Pre-implementation Genetic Diagnosis”. This means that embryos can be screened for disease before being implemented to the mother.

Second, in regards to our policy – Just like any other technologies in our society we are not going to allow all forms of genetic screening. We will make sure that this technology is limited to screening out certain genetic diseases that may seriously harm the life of a human being. Moreover, since we recognize this technology to be very important for the basic right of citizens, we are willing to subsidize the continuous development of this technology, as well as subsidizing the people who may lack the financial capacity to access this technology.

With than being said, let me move on to the argumentations of our team.

My first argument is about “Why legalizing Designer Baby is principally justifiable”.

I have two points of analysis to prove this argument.

First, we believe that every individual deserve the Right to Happiness. According to the concept of Right to Happiness, society should prioritize citizens to pursue happiness in their life. The only case in which the government can limit individuals right to happiness is when they collide with the Harm Principle. We do not think that Designer Babies goes against the Harm Principle in any ways. For one, using the technology of designer babies do not result in harm to others. Just because I get rid of the possibility of my baby’s genetic disease, it does not result in other people having the disease. Moreover, this technology actually saves individuals from being harmed instead of causing harm to the subject.

Secondly, why do we believe that ‘not allowing designer baby leads to serious harm to individual happiness’? The fact that an individual have a genetic defect, such as not being able to see, means that this person will not be able to enjoy a normative life in society. It means, that children would not be able to get proper education just like any other children in society. These factors clearly harm the individuals to pursue happiness.

The conclusion we can draw here is that “Designer Baby” is a justifiable means to ensure the happiness of individuals.

The second argument I will elaborate is about the “Right of Parents”.

We believe that not allowing “Designer Baby” harms the right of parents in two specific contexts.

First, it harms the parents’ right to protect a child from harms. We believe that all parents have the right to ensure that their child is healthy and protected from harms. Especially in the case of genetic disorders or any other diseases that may be passed down to the child, this technology should be guaranteed. Why? Because a parent with a disorder, knows better than anyone else about the serious pain of having that disease. Not allowing parents to protect the child from a foreseeable disease, infringe the basic right as a parent.

Secondly and more importantly, “Designer Baby” ensure the ‘Parents’ Right to Have Baby’. In the status quo, many parents are burdened with physical and psychological pressure of giving birth to an ill baby. Especially in the case of parent with a disease, this is even more serious, as they carry extra pressure. This is because the parent would know how painful it is to carry that disease. By allowing the “Designer Baby”, we are removing the unnecessary, unfair, and additional burden of a parent with a disease.

Thirdly, it’s perfectly justifiable for parents to want to deliver ‘superior’ gene to their child. Even if we are talking about non-medical conditions, we believe it should be allowed. Why? Because the desire to pass down a better gene is normative in the status quo. Couples get married considering the biological condition of their spouse. Sperm banks already take the donors specific information in to consideration since it may enhance the genetic information of the next generation. Making this process a bit more clear should not be penalized.

Considering these analysis, we can conclude that creation Designer Baby is a justifiable means to ensure the right of parents.

Our Deputy Prime Minister will continue to support the motion by proving “Why legalizing Designer Baby is fulfilling the Role of Government”

---



Deputy Prime Minister

I’m going to prove to you “Why legalizing Designer Baby is fulfilling the Role of Government”.

I have two (three) levels of analysis to prove this argument.

First, it is undeniable notion that government need to protect citizens from harms such as diseases. This can happen in two ways. One – government should cure people when diseases were to occur. In the case of genetic disease or inborn characteristics, this is close to being impossible. The second option is to “prevent” the disease from happening. Mandating children to be vaccinated would be one of the examples. We believe that “Designer Baby” is simply an extension of the current efforts. As a matter of fact, the most effective means to prevent a genetic or inborn defect is through genetic engineering. In this context, the government should not only allow Designer Baby, but also actively subsidize it.

Secondly, we believe that not allowing designer baby is same as the government knowingly neglecting the citizens. The current technology can already detect the possibility of a disease. Despite this fact, if the government simply ban the “Designer Baby” technology, we cannot say that such government is a responsible government.

Finally, we argue that governments need to make sure that individuals are free from social perception such as racism. When individuals do not have any choice, but to live a life based on natural birth lottery, that’s when discriminations on particular characteristics can happen. For instance, the African Americans were severely discriminated within the society since their skin color was something they cannot change. It clarified that some people are different and can never be the same with other people. Our side of the house allow people to see beyond the appearance of individuals since it’s just and arbitrary choice of people.

---

 [Opposition]

Leader of Opposition

We have three constructive arguments to provide in today’s debate. First, the concept of “Designer Babies” degrade the value of human. Second, the “Designer Babies” is Uncertain of being safe, and last the Social Harm this policy will bring to our society. I will explain the first two principle arguments against this motion.

The first argument I want to elaborate is that “Designer Babies” Degrade the Value of Human. In this argument I will prove to you that “Designer Babies” harm the principle value of human being. I have two points of analysis.

First, when do we respect the value of human being and why?

The notion of Human Dignity is that we value all individuals for who they are. We respect and consider them as a valuable being, not because they carry certain physical traits, but because they are a human being. We never distinguish a value of human being regardless of their health conditions. The problem is - “Designer Babies” are likely to cause hierarchy of values depending on the characteristics individuals carry. It sends a social message that “certain characteristics are too inferior to be allowed to be born”. It indicates that some people who have particular traits, do not deserve to born, let alone enjoy the luxury of being respected for who they are. This is distorting the universal norm of respecting the dignity of a human.

Second point of analysis – We believe “Designer Babies” are likely to be especially harmful to certain stakeholders. For one, there are people who already carry the so called undesirable traits such as being short (or any other characteristics). To these people, the social message of branding them of inferior is a huge offense. This is particularly bad because such inborn characteristics are not something you can easily change after birth.

The conclusion we can draw here is that “Designer Babies” harm the dignity of humans by distorting the value of human as superiority and inferiority.

The second principle argument we want to provide is the notion of Uncertainty. In this argument, we will prove to you that the technology of “Designer Babies” carries too much possibility of side effects to be legalized in society.

First, we need to understand that all technology, especially Genetic Technology, should be tested extensively for its safety. How do we make sure that a genetic technology is safe? Normatively, we use “generation test” to ensure its safety. We believe that as genetic characteristics can change and mutate as it’s passed downed to the next generation. In this process, unexpected side effects are likely to occur. Precisely for this reason, Genetically Modified Organisms such as ‘Super Corns’ were only allowed after multiple generation tests. Even after the generation tests, GMOs are only allowed under strict conditions. For instance, European Union strictly limit the GMOs from being near non-GMO farms in order to prevent the GMO genes to be mixed with others. Furthermore, certain GMOs are not allowed to be reproduced after a generation due to the concern of negative mutation. We can see that even the products that we consume have such strict regulations.

The problem is – “Designer Babies” is much more uncertain since we haven’t done such extensive generation testing. The first “Designer Baby” was created less than two decades ago. We do not think “Designer Babies” have been proven enough for its safety. Moreover, even if “Designer Babies” have been tested as much as GMOs, we cannot uphold such strict conditions on human usage. It would not be possible to regulate the reproduction of humans just like we do to GMOs since the desire to reproduce is the basic instinct of humans. Also, it would not be possible to limit the “Designer Babies” to only have babies within the “Designer Babies”.

The conclusion we can draw here is that “Designer Babies” are far from being safe enough to be legalized in society.

---

Deputy Leader of Opposition

The final argument of side opposition is that allowing “Designer Babies” will bring Numerous Social Harms in multiple levels.

First, it’s highly likely to create an unfair competition in society.

As the proposition would agree, all parents would like to provide the best conditions for their child. We believe that such motivation will push parents to choose certain characteristics such as being super intelligent and pretty. Why do we believe this is bad? This creates an unfair competition between the “Designer Babies” and normal babies.

In particular, this will increase the gap between the rich and poor. The rich with enough financial capacity is likely to enhance their babies to be more competitive whereas the poor would not be able to. (Even if the proposition team argue that they will subsidize the poor, we don’t think it will be enough to achieve equality. For example, many governments in the status quo provide free education, but it is never enough to provide similar amount of educational input to the poor.) The exclusive harm of this, is that unlike other forms of gap such as money, the gap that is driven from inborn characteristic is practically impossible to overcome. For example, a baby that have been engineered to be faster from the moment of birth - has absolute advantage over other babies.

Furthermore, such possibility of inequality from birth, works as an additional pressure for the poor families to have a baby in the first place. Along with the existing burden to have a baby, this policy is likely to add more burden just for the poor.

Second, “Designer Babies” would reduce the motivation to overcome social discriminations such as racism and sexism.

We believe that the technology to be able to alter one’s characteristics, pushes the society to choose certain characteristics and avoid others. For instance, this will push societies to prefer white skin color because that’s what certain societies already prefer. The society will naturally lose the collective motivation to overcome racism since they can simply become white. The same logic can be applied to gender inequality. Patriarchal societies will naturally be even more gender discriminatory society and prefer boys. Why is this so? This is because, changing a discriminatory social norm is not easy and often takes long time to be achieved. Considering this, parents are likely to resort to easier and faster way which is to simply alter the child’s genetic to become the majority.

The conclusion we can draw is that “Designer Babies” causes multiple levels of social harms.