The practice holds serious safety risks for the mother and baby

The argument

The genetic modification of babies remains an untested area of scientific research, and that is the starting point of the objection rather than an incidental complaint about timing. Interventions of this kind alter the genome of a developing human being, with effects that unfold across an entire lifetime and cannot be observed in advance. Studies now suggest that genetically modified babies might face shorter life spans and greater risks of other health problems, and the procedure carries health risks for the mother as well as for the child. What makes those risks especially difficult is the position of the person who bears them. An adult patient consenting to an experimental treatment accepts a known gamble on their own behalf. The child produced by genetic modification cannot consent, has no say in whether the gamble is worth taking, and will carry any consequences for as long as they live. The risk is imposed rather than assumed, and imposed on someone who does not yet exist to object. The precautionary reasoning follows. Where a practice threatens serious and poorly understood harm to human life, the burden of proof sits with those who wish to proceed rather than with those urging restraint — and that burden cannot be discharged while the evidence needed to discharge it does not yet exist. A shortened life or a lasting vulnerability is not an error that can be corrected once discovered; it is permanent, and no later regulation can undo it for the person who has it. Given risks of that character, proponents of this position conclude that the safer course is to avoid the practice altogether rather than to regulate an experiment conducted on children. Genetically modifying babies should not be legal.

Premises

Counter-arguments

All scientific research carries some risk. If scientists had refused to test previous medical procedures for safety's sake, society would still be plagued by treatable illnesses. The genetic modification of babies holds the potential to bring lasting medical progress and is worth the risk.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Until we know the full extent of scientific advancement that could come from genetic modification, we cannot claim that the procedure's safety risks outweigh its benefits.