Should genetically modifying babies be legal?

The procedure would allow people with transferable illnesses to have biological children

Question: Should genetically modifying babies be legal?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, genetically modifying babies should be legal
Argument‹2 of 3›: The procedure would allow people with transferable illnesses to have biological children

Through prohibiting genetic modification of babies, policymakers prevent individuals from experiencing parenthood

The argument

For individuals suffering from mitochondrial diseases, the prospect of having children is shadowed by the fear of passing the illness on. The choice such prospective parents face is not between a healthy child and an ill one but between forgoing biological children altogether and accepting a risk they would not choose to impose. Proponents of legalisation argue that the genetic modification of babies changes what is on offer in that choice, and that this is the strongest reason to permit it. The mechanism is specific. Through mitochondrial replacement therapy, a woman's ill mitochondria can be replaced with healthy ones, so that the condition is not transmitted to the child. What matters for the argument is where the intervention acts: it addresses the source of the illness before it can be inherited, rather than treating a child who has already inherited it. That is why proponents describe the result as having biological children with peace of mind. The fear that attends the decision is removed along with the risk, not merely managed afterwards. Mitochondrial illness gets the most attention, but the argument does not stop there. The same procedure could prevent couples from passing on other serious genetic diseases, so the group of people it would help is wider than the best-known case suggests. Each such condition presents the same dilemma, and the procedure dissolves it in the same way. The conclusion drawn is that prohibition has a cost borne by identifiable people. Where the law forbids the procedure, couples who could safely have healthy biological children are prevented from doing so, and either the illness is passed on or the children are never had. Allowing the genetic modification of babies would let more couples experience the joy of parenting without transmitting serious disease, and on this view that is sufficient reason to make it legal.

Premises

[P1]People with mitochondrial diseases often fear passing their illness on to their biological children. [P2] Mitochondrial replacement therapy can swap a woman's faulty mitochondria for healthy ones, letting her have biological children without that fear. [P3] The same approach could prevent the transmission of other serious genetic diseases, letting more couples experience the joy of parenting. [C] Therefore, because the procedure would allow people with transferable illnesses to have biological children, genetically modifying babies should be legal.

Counter-arguments

Allowing mitochondrial genetic modification would help only a small number of women conceive biological children. There are other, less risky ways of helping couples with health issues to have children without fear.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] There are safer ways for couples to have children.