Various oppositionists of genetic engineering believe the method should not be used even if it is to save lives. These objectors insist that gene editing will result in more aborted modified babies than saved human beings. Consider the argument that genetically modified children with unwanted traits will be terminated (Kalb and Springen par. 10). Additionally, supporters of the practice believe that the technique will reduce overpopulation, but opponents think exactly the opposite. These challengers assert that overcrowding on Earth will be worsened if scientists begin to save every life with the procedure of gene editing. On the other hand, some scientists believe that the technology is not understood enough to be used yet. Dr. Ronald Cohn, a medical doctor at The Hospital for Sick Children, states, “As exciting as it is, I think that we all need to put the brakes on ourselves to make sure that we don't move ahead of ourselves" (Mansbridge par. 114). What Cohn really means is that scientists need to learn more about the methods before immediately beginning to save lives. However, the research for genetic engineering is plentiful and the procedure should be used promptly in the medical field.
Genetic editing should undeniably be utilized to save human lives. The medical technique would prevent deaths before and after birth. For illustration, a one-year old girl was spared from the terrible illness of leukemia from the act of gene deletion (Hesman Saey, “Gene Editing Helps Baby Battle Cancer” par. 1). Moreover, gene editing has lead to an increase of knowledge of the basic functions of varied diseases like cancer. Chinese scientists, by capturing, modifying, and returning cells into the body, have discovered how to disable cancers permanently (Le Page par. 3). Yet, genetic engineering can also save lives before they enter the world. Couples who have experienced the death of a child born with a prenatal disease will now have the ability to reproduce healthy children with the new technology (Kalb and Springen par. 7). This breakthrough would allow every person the gift to bear a healthy child. Appropriately, the procedure should be used because it can quickly begin to save lives.
Gene engineering should be legal to save lives because it has sufficient evidence and is a personal decision. A director at the American Association of Tissue Banks named Sarah Gray explains, “I am the mother of a child who died because of a lethal birth defect. He was six days old and he suffered every day. If you have the skills and the knowledge to fix these diseases, then frickin' do it!” (Mansbridge par. 124). Basically, Gray is saying that since scientists have an ample amount of research on genetic editing, the technique should be used immediately to save lives. On the other hand, the most dominant argument in favor of genetic engineering is that neither the government nor society should have the ability to ban a person from genetically modifying his or her children. Science correspondent for Reason magazine Ronald Bailey significantly explains how new technologies, such as genetic engineering, need regulation only in the matters of safety and effectiveness and not usage (Bailey, “Genetic Enhancement Should Only Be Limited by Regulations for Safety and Efficacy” par. 28). Accordingly, the government should not make the decision for every person whether gene modifying is acceptable and lawful. Although, some challengers argue that using the technique to save lives will lead to other uses like preventing abnormalities.
Genetic editing should undeniably be utilized to save human lives. The medical technique would prevent deaths before and after birth. For illustration, a one-year old girl was spared from the terrible illness of leukemia from the act of gene deletion (Hesman Saey, “Gene Editing Helps Baby Battle Cancer” par. 1). Moreover, gene editing has lead to an increase of knowledge of the basic functions of varied diseases like cancer. Chinese scientists, by capturing, modifying, and returning cells into the body, have discovered how to disable cancers permanently (Le Page par. 3). Yet, genetic engineering can also save lives before they enter the world. Couples who have experienced the death of a child born with a prenatal disease will now have the ability to reproduce healthy children with the new technology (Kalb and Springen par. 7). This breakthrough would allow every person the gift to bear a healthy child. Appropriately, the procedure should be used because it can quickly begin to save lives.
Gene engineering should be legal to save lives because it has sufficient evidence and is a personal decision. A director at the American Association of Tissue Banks named Sarah Gray explains, “I am the mother of a child who died because of a lethal birth defect. He was six days old and he suffered every day. If you have the skills and the knowledge to fix these diseases, then frickin' do it!” (Mansbridge par. 124). Basically, Gray is saying that since scientists have an ample amount of research on genetic editing, the technique should be used immediately to save lives. On the other hand, the most dominant argument in favor of genetic engineering is that neither the government nor society should have the ability to ban a person from genetically modifying his or her children. Science correspondent for Reason magazine Ronald Bailey significantly explains how new technologies, such as genetic engineering, need regulation only in the matters of safety and effectiveness and not usage (Bailey, “Genetic Enhancement Should Only Be Limited by Regulations for Safety and Efficacy” par. 28). Accordingly, the government should not make the decision for every person whether gene modifying is acceptable and lawful. Although, some challengers argue that using the technique to save lives will lead to other uses like preventing abnormalities.