Various objectors of genetic editing believe the operation should not be used to prevent body deformities. Firstly, the most influential and debated problem is science versus religion. Critics argue that scientists are emulating God when they shape an organism gene by gene to specific criteria (“Genetic Engineering: Will Genetic Engineering Improve People's Lives?” par. 6). These individuals believe this power interferes with religious beliefs and will lead to negative results (“Genetic Engineering: Will Genetic Engineering Improve People's Lives?” par. 6). Yet, just as important, the issue of what is deemed an abnormality or not is another prominent argument. English sociologist Tom Shakespeare, who suffers from a disability himself, claims that “The disability-rights community has a history of disagreement with such experts over their perception of people with disabilities” (Shakespeare par. 5). In other words, Shakespeare believes that certain disabled people deem that physical impairments are an aspect of human variety. Furthermore, adversaries argue that all birth defects would be edited out of future children and that there would be no diversity of humans (Stock par. 19). Nonetheless, the arguments of religion and individuality are not significant factors when discussing the benefits of preventing deformities.
Gene editing should be legal to prevent internal and external abnormalities of a child. If humans have the technology to produce healthy humans, then they need to undoubtedly utilize it. Presently, there are an enormous amount of largely uncommon but vile diseases that can be linked to a single gene deviation (Ball par. 25). Correspondingly, these technologies would allow almost all humans to be healthy such as a six-month old baby girl named Amberlyn. She did not inherit the crippling neuromuscular illness that her brother has been diagnosed with (Kalb and Springen par. 5). Correspondingly, this marvel was only possible through the act of genetic engineering. Additionally, with continued research and experimentation, gene editing could soon be utilized to cure many other diseases such as eye disorders. Elizabeth Simpson, a researcher at the University of British Columbia, claims, "We restored vision in a mouse model of blindness and we are thrilled. We hope that that will make its way to children with those kinds of blindness" (Mansbridge par. 83). The essences of Simpson’s argument is that she believes new advances in genetic editing will hopefully begin curing a range of illnesses in humans. On the other hand, genetic engineering has priorly been practiced for years but with more tedious and inefficient techniques.
Ultimately, gene editing is merely more effectively performing what scientists are already practicing. Gene researcher Dr. Tim Newsome asserts, "CRISPR-CAS 9 is doing some of the things we do already, but just in a much more efficient way, such as correcting genetic disease" (“New Advances in Gene Editing Raise Expectations for Correcting Human Defects” par. 20). Also, a technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis has been used by doctors on couples that are at risk for certain hereditary diseases. The procedure involves couples allowing gene-editing scientists to pinpoint and select embryos that do not have those certain genes (Ball par. 21). Yet, opponents believe that no act of gene engineering should be used including solving infertility in humans.
Gene editing should be legal to prevent internal and external abnormalities of a child. If humans have the technology to produce healthy humans, then they need to undoubtedly utilize it. Presently, there are an enormous amount of largely uncommon but vile diseases that can be linked to a single gene deviation (Ball par. 25). Correspondingly, these technologies would allow almost all humans to be healthy such as a six-month old baby girl named Amberlyn. She did not inherit the crippling neuromuscular illness that her brother has been diagnosed with (Kalb and Springen par. 5). Correspondingly, this marvel was only possible through the act of genetic engineering. Additionally, with continued research and experimentation, gene editing could soon be utilized to cure many other diseases such as eye disorders. Elizabeth Simpson, a researcher at the University of British Columbia, claims, "We restored vision in a mouse model of blindness and we are thrilled. We hope that that will make its way to children with those kinds of blindness" (Mansbridge par. 83). The essences of Simpson’s argument is that she believes new advances in genetic editing will hopefully begin curing a range of illnesses in humans. On the other hand, genetic engineering has priorly been practiced for years but with more tedious and inefficient techniques.
Ultimately, gene editing is merely more effectively performing what scientists are already practicing. Gene researcher Dr. Tim Newsome asserts, "CRISPR-CAS 9 is doing some of the things we do already, but just in a much more efficient way, such as correcting genetic disease" (“New Advances in Gene Editing Raise Expectations for Correcting Human Defects” par. 20). Also, a technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis has been used by doctors on couples that are at risk for certain hereditary diseases. The procedure involves couples allowing gene-editing scientists to pinpoint and select embryos that do not have those certain genes (Ball par. 21). Yet, opponents believe that no act of gene engineering should be used including solving infertility in humans.