The practice could enhance future generations
Refusing to test a procedure that could improve future generations' quality of life is short-sighted.
<
(2 of 3)
Next argument >
The Argument
The genetic modification of babies could lead to the improvement of future generations. With this procedure, scientists could prevent children from inheriting debilitating illnesses, creating a society with less suffering. The procedure could make future generations smarter, stronger, and less vulnerable. In turn, these genetically modified individuals could contribute to the common good in extraordinary ways. If genetic modification remains taboo, we will decrease the possibility of future generations benefiting from an improved quality of life.[1]
Counter arguments
We cannot claim that genetic modification will serve the common good with certainty. Since the procedure is untested, it carries an equal risk of giving future generations serious problems.[2]
Premises
[P1] The genetic modification of babies could improve the health of future generations.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The argument assumes that genetic modification's future achievements will outweigh the potential safety risks of testing the procedure.