I tried debating

The first point is that if we can cut off obstacles by genome editing, we can reduce medical expenses. The second issue is to reduce inherited diseases inherited with high probability by genome editing. The third point is that even for designer babies the same economic advantages are outweighed by ethical issues.

First of all, it is about the first issue. Naturally it costs money to genome editing. Is it meaningful to satisfy life until changing the nature that human beings originally paid?
Next is about the second one. This means that if there is something that fails in the fertilized egg by genome editing, it is ethically not good to discard it.
Lastly on issue 3. It is said that genome editing has higher safety than genetic recombination technology, but I think that there are many things that we do not know yet. There is a possibility that a risk that an abnormality occurs in some gene may be born, and I think that there is a problem with safety.
From the above three points, we deny the legalization of genomic editing for medical purposes.

Issue 3 is about. Will not it lead to certain kinds of human rights violations against people with disabilities, such as having been born disabled?

Regarding Issue 1, social security expenses can cover the expenses related to manipulating lives with money.
Regarding Issue 2, we can utilize fertilized eggs that were planned to be destroyed.
Regarding Issue 3, if the probability of being inherited by disability is 100% and 3%, I think that 3% is better.

Even a person with a disability wants to cure if he can cure the obstacle, this is the same as a healthy person wants to cure the disease. So I think that the creation of a designer baby that was born in advance by removing the disability will not send a negative message to people with disabilities who are alive now.

A problem arises as to whether it is possible to cover social security expenses related to manipulating life with money in Japan with a lot of debts. Also, as the elderly society advances, the social security related expenses increase, and the country does not necessarily give the cost of genome editing.

Editing genomes led to no risk and there was no possibility of losing their lives by prenatal diagnosis, but there is risk in genome editing itself, so it is unlikely that risk will not go away. Moreover, when genome editing is carried out, a situation arises in which the fertilized egg is destroyed, so that a problem arises in terms of ethics as well.

Since there is nothing without risk in the first place, I think the risk is about the same for now.

By genome editing, the possibility that the number of people with disabilities will be reduced is high enough, so will it really float? I do not think so.

Regarding social security expenses, I think that I will not be paying social security to people with disabilities, so I can turn that amount to others.

I think that there is a certain merit such as social security expenses slightly floating, but I think that it is ethically unfavorable to reduce the number of people with disabilities by increasing the amount of healthy people by using money.

On the contrary there is no need to solve money without using it, and that is why I think there is something called genomic editing.

In response to our opinion that genomic editing, etc. will violate the human rights that disabled people possess and hurt, countries such as countries where the disabled are also easy to live It was said that it is enough to make. However, I think that it is different somewhere to solve with money like that.

　　Some people are trying to correct obstacles not only by solving money but also trying to get rid of sickness. But there are rules like that. I think that some people are hurting in that part. Whether the line should not be done before birth, or not,            It is our opinion that we do not clearly understand such as.       

Cure the disease by editing the genome, and the medical expenses corresponding to that will float, so turn it to the cost of genome editing. In doing so, genome editing is effectively used, so I think that it is necessary to raise safety while setting laws and letting everyone know about genome editing.

It can not be thought that social security expenses are so easy to float, I think that it is ethical to say that using money to reduce people with disabilities is ethical. It is possible to use it for other things while saying medical purpose, so I think that should not be legalized.