Should genetically modifying babies be legal?

The practice holds serious safety risks for the mother and baby

Question: Should genetically modifying babies be legal?
Position‹2 of 2: No, genetically modifying babies should not be legal
Argument‹3 of 3: The practice holds serious safety risks for the mother and baby

Do the potential benefits of this procedure justify risks to the health of mother and baby?

The argument

As an untested area of scientific research, the genetic modification of babies holds numerous health risks for the mother and child. Studies now suggest that genetically modified babies might face shorter life spans and greater risks for other health issues. Since the procedure holds these safety risks, it is safer to avoid practicing genetic modification of babies altogether.

Premises

[P1]Genetic modification of babies is an untested area of science that poses significant health risks to both mother and child. [P2] Studies suggest genetically modified babies may face shorter lifespans and elevated risks of other health problems. [P3] Practices that carry serious, poorly understood safety risks to human life should not be permitted. [C] Therefore, genetically modifying babies should not be legal.

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.