GENETIC ENHANCEMENT: CUSTOM KIDS AND CHIMERAS
By Marilyn E. Coors, Ph.D.

I am going to analyze Dr. Coors paper “GENETIC ENHANCEMENT: CUSTOM KIDS AND CHIMERAS” in a attempt to identify fallacies and mistaken assumptions, while checking for accuracy of factual claims and determining if there is enough evidence on Dr. Coors’s claim to support her conclusion.

Dr. Coors’ conclusion, which can be located at the paper’s final paragraph on the last sentence, “Our impending power to alter our genetic heritage, coupled with a limited ability to predict the consequences of those alterations, cries out for a cautious and humble approach” is clearly a behavioral conclusion, which attempts to tell us how to feel, or which moral values to embrace in reference to genetic enhancement. In other words, Dr. Coors’ conclusion prescribes that “genetic enhancement should be approached with caution and reservation.”

Now that we have identified the conclusion we can try to identify the Minor Premise report, which is the factual claim Dr. Coors is using to justify why we should approach genetic enhancement with caution and reservation. Dr. Coors states this Minor Premise at the middle of her final paragraph: “For these reasons genetic enhancement of human embryos is immoral under Catholic teaching.”
Accordingly, we can frame the conclusion and the minor premise of Dr. Coors’ paper as follows:

Minor Premise report: Genetic enhancement of human embryos is immoral under Catholic teaching.

Behavioral Conclusion: So, genetic enhancement should be approached with caution and reservation.

The major premise rules links the Minor Premise report to the Behavioral Conclusion, so we can now add this rule to Dr. Coors’s argument and derive from her argument a valid form of Hypothetical Syllogism, whereas the Minor Premise affirms the antecedent and the Major Premise prescribes an action if its antecedent is satisfied:

Major Premise Rule: If genetic enhancement of human embryos is immoral under Catholic teaching, then genetic enhancement should be approached with caution and reservation.

Minor Premise Report: Genetic enhancement of human embryos is immoral under Catholic teaching.

Behavioral Conclusion: So, genetic enhancement should be approached with caution and reservation.

This argument sounds reasonable, but where is Dr. Coors getting the information to prove that Genetic enhancement of human embryos is immoral under Catholic teaching? There is a sub-argument embedded in Dr. Coors final paragraph that supports the minor premise.

To support the minor premise that, genetic enhancement of human embryos is immoral under Catholic teaching, Dr. Coors claims that the present state of the scientific process does not respect the origins of life and the integrity of the human person as a unity of body and soul; hence it is not beneficial for society. The Minor Premise of the main argument becomes the conclusion of the sub-argument.

The sub-argument can be set as follows:

Major Premise: If the present state of the scientific process does not respect the origins of life and the integrity of the human person as a unity of body and soul, then genetic enhancement of human embryos is immoral under Catholic teaching.

Minor Premise: The present state of the scientific process does not respect the origins of life and the integrity of the human person as a unity of body and soul.

Conclusion: So, genetic enhancement of human embryos is immoral under Catholic teaching.

At first glance the argument presented above is in a valid form and the premises present enough evidence to support the conclusion, so you could say that this is a sound argument; but, although the premises are true, and the derived conclusion is deemed to be true making this argument a sound argument, what is truly behind Dr. Coors assumptions is the belief in God as the creator and that life begins at conception, which is the basic belief of the Catholic Church. Major religious traditions have strong opinions on the moral status of life before birth. Dr. Coors article was published by The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as part of Pro-Life activities and her opinions have been highly influenced by her religious beliefs. Dr. Coors accepts the Roman Catholic Church’s views as her own, thus one could say that Dr. Coors is jumping on the Catholic Church’s bandwagon and she fails to prove her argument.