A counterargument for those who are opposed to every example of human enhancement is that all cases are unnecessary quick fixes. Since there is no way to define what makes an individual's life good or bad, a person is not guaranteed to suffer if they are born with a disease or a genetic mutation. For this reason, enhancement is unnecessary because it falsely “may foster beliefs about some people being fundamentally inferior to others,” something that history has taught us to try and avoid. (Bostrom and Roache 142). Overall health is more than a genetic makeup. So, automatically deeming anything that is a little different as bad, does a huge injustice to all of society. It is just as possible that an individual and society as a whole is improved with variability in what is defined as healthy. Contrastingly, a counterargument for those who support all cases of human enhancement, is that all individuals should be able to choose what they do to and with their bodies. In the same way that no one …show more content…
This is in part due to the fact that no person is exactly the same. It is true that there is no way of knowing “who can be expected to have the best life” (Bostrom and Roache 141). If an individual is happy with who they are and bring no harm to others, they have the right, as already living beings, to live as they please without anyone else questioning their existence and choices. Therefore, the same metrics and rights must be applied to legitimately motivated human enhancement. For instance, parents of an unborn fetus also deserve the right to choose the kind of life their family will have. In the case of genetic selection, the parents have the right to determine whether or not they want to birth a life that is unwanted or cannot be provided for in a way they need and deserve. This choice can prevent future suffering, and in the end, is still a case where human enhancement is worth the