The resolution today, "Human Genetic Engineering is morally justified," poses a question not simply of justification, but of moral justification. Is it morally right to alter genes for all given purposes? As the negative, I will answer this question with a resounding "no." Before I go on with my case, I will present a few definitions for the purposes of clarification. Genetic Engineering is the altering, removal, or addition of genes through various genetic processes. Justified is something that is right or generally fair. Moral is pertaining to right conduct; ethical. My value today will be justice. As the negative, I will prove that human genetic engineering causes too much damage to our society to ever be justified, let alone moral. I will now present three contentions that will prove that by negating the resolution, we avoid the moral murder of human genetic engineering.

CONTENTION 1: "Beneficial" Human Genetic Engineering is difficult to differentiate from harmful genetic engineering. If we say that curing diseases such as cancer through genetic engineering is justified, do we then go a step further and using genetics to give all people blue eyes is justified? The line between the useful and ridiculous genetic engineering may exist, but it’s not always clear. Curing cancer may be useful, but then again giving all people blue eyes is anything but justified. Such an inability to differentiate between the good and the bad human genetic engineering leads us to believe that it cannot be possible to morally condone human genetic engineering. When we fail to understand what is good or bad, we see that human genetic engineering cannot support justice.

CONTENTION 2: Human genetic engineering will inevitably create an inequality within a society. Unfortunately, in everyday society, problems like racism and sexism still exist to a certain extent. This is an example of existing inequalities, yet genetic engineering creates further problems. Those who receive genetic engineering would then see themselves as better than everyone else. A society with those who are mistakes and those who "aren’t" is not a society that has been helped by genetic engineering. The inequality that human genetic engineering creates can never be morally justified.

CONTENTION 3: There are moral alternatives to human genetic engineering. Although all new technologies have some risk by virtue of their primitive beginnings, human genetic engineering has unparalleled risks because it deals with the genes, the building blocks of human beings. Genetic expert Dr. Mikael Denton explains this risk: "With the manipulation of genetic material, we open ourselves up to grave dangers, and no matter how much we may test a genetic experiment, the results are different for each person, and could most certainly be morbid." Common medicine is beneficial because we can understand, for example, the bacteria and viruses that may cause a person to become sick. However, with genetic engineering, we tamper with the genes that make up each one of us; but in doing so, we must remember that each of us differs enormously in terms of our genes and DNA. Dr. Denton and other doctors agree that the mutations from interfering at this basic level may be the greatest moral injustice of all. The risks and consequences that human genetic engineering creates cannot support justice.

Human genetic engineering is not the answer. If we wish to try and cure disease, or in any way help the society, we must turn to other options that are included in the field of medicine. We should not create an inequality in a society, nor should we take the enormous risks that may destroy the quality of life, but unfortunately human genetic engineering is synonymous with these problems. We may call the mutations of mice through genetic engineering at the very least "interesting," but when we see a fellow human become mutated through genetic processes, these mistakes are anything but funny. For these reasons, I negate the resolution and will now move on to my opponent’s case.