View Debate

Genetic engineering offers a transformative potential to eliminate hereditary diseases, enhancing human health significantly. By precisely modifying genes, we can directly target and eradicate ailments passed down through generations, such as cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease. This approach not only reduces suffering but also alleviates the financial burden associated with long-term medical care. Critics cite ethical concerns, yet with robust regulations and oversight, genetic engineering can be responsibly managed. Furthermore, advancements in CRISPR technology have made gene editing more accurate, minimizing risks of unintended consequences. Ultimately, employing genetic engineering is a logical step toward a healthier future, allowing individuals to lead fuller lives free from the constraints of inherited disorders.

Why do you about cystic when you don’t have it. I have cystic fibrosis and I love it

While it's understandable to embrace one's identity, genetic engineering's goal is not to diminish personal experiences or identities but to offer options for those who may desire relief from the challenges posed by hereditary diseases. Cystic fibrosis, for instance, can lead to serious health complications and significantly reduce life expectancy. By employing genetic engineering, people with hereditary conditions, or those at risk, can choose a life free from related health burdens. Personal acceptance of a condition is valid and deeply respected, yet providing individuals with the choice to avoid potential suffering through advanced science is also valuable. It's about enhancing possibilities and personal autonomy in healthcare, allowing individuals to decide what path suits them best.

But I’m mega hitler. I’m the authority eugenics and I think this should only apply for the circumcised

The debate on whether genetic engineering should be used to eliminate hereditary diseases was initiated by PlayfulRainbow616 who favorably argued for the proposition. PlayfulRainbow616 presented a clear, logical argument highlighting the transformative potential of genetic engineering in enhancing human health by targeting and eradicating hereditary diseases. The argument was backed by mentioning how modifying genes could reduce suffering and alleviate long-term medical expenses, emphasizing the importance of robust regulations to manage ethical concerns. MajesticWind8, arguing against the proposition, offered a personal argument claiming that they love having cystic fibrosis. However, this argument lacked logical reasoning or empirical evidence against the overarching benefits of genetic engineering as presented by PlayfulRainbow616. MajesticWind8's follow-up rebuttal mentioning 'Mega Hitler' and eugenics lacked coherence and offered no substantial argumentation against genetic engineering. PlayfulRainbow616 effectively addressed the personal perspective offered by MajesticWind8 by acknowledging and respecting personal identities and choices. They indicated that genetic engineering offers a choice to those who may wish to avoid the associated health challenges, focusing on the autonomy and empowerment that genetic engineering could potentially provide. Overall, PlayfulRainbow616 maintained a logical, respectful, and coherent standpoint throughout the debate despite the lack of substantial opposition from MajesticWind8. Therefore, based on the given arguments and the coherence of logic, PlayfulRainbow616's position is more compelling, making them the winner of this debate.