Good morning, respected judges, distinguished teachers, my witty opponents, and my dear friends in the audience. Today, I stand firmly for the motion: Yes, it is ethical to use gene editing to prevent hereditary diseases.
Imagine a young couple. Both carriers of Huntington’s disease — a brutal genetic condition that condemns their future child to a life of suffering, with no cure in sight. Now picture this: thanks to gene editing, doctors can literally snip away that faulty gene. That child is born free of disease, free of pain, free of a fate they never chose. Tell me honestly, is that not ethical or is it the most ethical thing we can possibly do?
Ethics isn’t about abstract rules. At its heart, ethics is about reducing suffering and enhancing well-being. If curing a child before they’re even born doesn’t fulfil that definition, nothing else does. Today, we have CRISPR-Cas9, also called molecular scissors, with an accuracy level that makes genetic correction as routine as spell-check. Already, scientists have successfully edited embryos to remove beta-thalassemia, a devastating blood disorder common in India.
In labs around the world, animals predisposed to blindness or cancer have been cured before symptoms began — thanks to gene editing. So, if we can prevent the heartbreak of parents carrying children through repeated stillbirths caused by genetic illness… why would we call that unethical?
My opponents may thunder: “But this is unnatural! We shouldn’t play God!” Well, by that logic, shouldn’t we throw away insulin? Vaccines? Eyeglasses? All of these are “unnatural interventions” that save millions. If patching a faulty gene is called “playing God,” then saving lives through medicine was also “playing God.” Ethics lies not in obeying nature, but in protecting life.
And let’s get practical. Data from the World Health Organisation shows that 1 in every 100 babies worldwide is born with a severe hereditary disorder. Families spend lakhs, even crores, on long-term treatment — not to cure, but to manage suffering. Gene editing can reduce that lifelong burden. It prevents misery and saves healthcare systems billions. If economics and empathy both point to “yes,” why are we still hesitating behind moral fog?
Now, yes — gene editing can be abused. Designing blue-eyed “designer babies” or height modifications. But misuse does not make proper use unethical. Just because cars can cause accidents — do we ban them all? No, we refine laws and controls. Similarly, we must regulate gene editing for diseases only, and you draw a line between compassion and vanity.
Respected judges, the real ethical question is not “Should we?” but “How dare we not?” How dare we stand by and watch babies born into avoidable pain when science has given us scissors sharp enough to cut away that pain? So I say again — yes, it is ethical. In fact, it is our duty. Thank you.
AGAINST
Good morning respected judges, thoughtful opponents, and a very curious audience. Today, I rise to argue against the motion: No, it is not ethical to use gene editing to prevent hereditary diseases.
Let me start with a chilling example. In 2018, a scientist in China announced the birth of twin girls whose DNA he had edited to resist HIV. The world didn’t applaud. The world gasped in horror. Why? Because the line between medical miracle and moral nightmare had been crossed. Embryos, humans, not lab rats, became experiments. And that’s what this debate is really about.
Yes, the intent may be noble — to prevent diseases and save children. But ethics is not only about intentions. Ethics is about consequences. And the consequences of gene editing stretch far beyond what we can control. If editing Huntington’s or thalassemia is ethical, what stops ambitious parents from editing for beauty, height, IQ, or skin colour? Today it’s compassion, tomorrow it’s consumer choice. We are balancing at the edge of a slippery slope where designer babies become a luxury item — and equality collapses. Do we really want a future where biology is for sale?
Let’s not pretend CRISPR is flawless. It is powerful, yes, but imprecise. Off-target mutations happen — snip in one place, and you might unintentionally silence another gene. An “edited cure” could become a brand-new disease. And when side effects show up 20 years later… who takes responsibility? Not the scientist. Not the state. It’s the child left paying the ethical debt of our gamble.
My opponents may mock the phrase “playing God.” But think carefully: evolution works through trial and error across generations. When we bypass that and hack code directly, we’re rewriting millions of years of balance without knowing the consequences. Remember DDT — invented to save crops, ended up nearly wiping out bird species. Gene editing could well become the DDT of humanity.
Is gene editing the only way to prevent hereditary diseases? No. We already have genetic screening, IVF with embryo selection, adoption, counselling. Parents can avoid passing on risky genes without cracking open DNA like a video game. So the desperate choice others may paint which is “suffer the disease or use gene editing” is quite frankly, misleading. There are ethical alternatives available to us.
Finally, think about justice. If gene editing is allowed, who benefits? The wealthy. The privileged. They’ll edit out illness, create “genetically finer” kids. Meanwhile, the poor remain vulnerable. The result? A two-tier humanity, edited elites versus non-edited masses. And once superiority becomes genetic, discrimination isn’t just about money or caste or race, it’s about biology. Friends, that’s not curing disease. That’s manufacturing inequality.
So, respected judges, I ask you this: Do we want a future where human life is edited like a Microsoft Word document? Where compassion gets hijacked by commerce, and the child becomes a product on a genetic assembly line? No. That is not ethical. That is dystopia dressed as medicine. Yes, hereditary diseases are tragedies. But science must heal within boundaries. Because the moment we cross this line, we don’t just cure disease. We cure humanity of its very essence. Unpredictability, diversity, imperfection and creativity are all things that make us human and wonderful. And that is why I stand firmly against the motion.
Thank you.
Leave a Reply