Negative Case: March/April 1999

The Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy once said, "Where technology is used in ways that threaten the access of all human persons to these basic goods, where it undermines principle of the equal worth and dignity of persons, or where it creates the illusion of total human control over and responsibility for human destiny, we believe that it becomes a destructive and morally corrupting force." Because I agree with the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy I have to negate today's resolution which states Resolved: That Human Genetic Engineering is Morally Justified.

{I would like to challenge the affirmative on the following definitions taken from Webster's Dictionary and Webster's American College Dictionary:
*genetic engineering- the development and application of scientific methods, procedures, and technologies that permit direct manipulation of genetic material in order to alter the hereditary traits of an organism.
*morally- to right conduct or duties
*justified- defensible; excusable}

For today's round I will support the value of individuality. Individuality is defined as the character or property peculiar to an individual, that quality which distinguishes one person from another. When we uphold the resolution we lose our individuality because cloning and the manipulation of genes will take away that distinctive existence by making people similar and totally changing that person's characteristics.

I will support my value through the criterian of cost benefit analysis. Cost benefit analysis is a theory based on the fact that something is if the benefits outweigh the costs. Genetic engineering is not moral because it leads to a loss of individuality and hurts society with no definite benefits.

I will negate the resolution with two contentions: Human Genetic Engineering would lead to the loss of individuality and the loss of individuality would hurt society.

Let's first direct our attention to Contention One: Human Genetic Engineering would lead to the loss of individuality.
It would do this by changing the individual drastically. Human genetic engineering would allow parents to choose the characteristics of their child. Already we can change the gender and eventually we could probably change even more. This is not moral when you take something and change it into something that is completely different. We should not be able to choose "options" in our children as if they were cars. According to Dr. Mark Palmer, "A human's genes actually control about 65% of a human's personality." We would not only change the physical aspects but also the physiological aspects. Every person is made of different characteristics that makes them unique or special. If they are so easily changed we lose this uniqueness. As the Mennonite Central Committee Canada once said, "When persons are the products of our technological interventions, we tend to view their "undesirable" characteristics as unfortunate human failures rather than as marks of their intrinsic worth as individuals." Not only would human genetic engineering lower individuality it would also hurt society which brings me to

Contention Two: The loss of individuality would hurt society.
Society would be hurt if we lose this individuality. Genetic engineering would allow for the choice of gender for their children. This could create a drastic difference in the boy-girl ratios in some countries. According to Michael D. Lemonick, "Sex selection will undoubtedly raise knotty issues as well. Societies that value boys more highly than girls, including China and India, are already out of balance; this could tip the scales even further." Also cloning could also hurt society. They would all have the same genes and very little individuality. If a clone were to commit a crime, it would be hard to punish anyone for the crime because the clones would look exactly alike and even have the same DNA. Unfortunately, the problems run deeper than uneven balances and unanswered to crimes. As David C. Reardon once said, "Some proponents of human engineering have proposed ideas that would drastically alter society in known and unknown ways. Among other proposals, proponents of human engineering have suggested the following: the cloning of organ donors that would be mutilated or destroyed for the benefit of others; the genetic creation of a half-human slave race to serve human kind; the genetic creation of specialized humans who would be designed to undertake dangerous environmental or combat situations; the design of a genetically "superior" super-race with the concurrent elimination of genetically distinct groups of human beings whom proponents of human engineering would classify as genetically inferior." Genetic engineering clearly would harm society by taking away our individuality.

I will now move on to my opponent's case.

In conclusion, I have given you two specific reasons and gone over my opponent's case to show why we must negate the resolution. {recap as time allows}. For all these reasons I must agree with Jeremy Rifkin when he said "Once we decide to begin the process of human genetic engineering, there is really no logical place to stop."

I am now open for cross examination.