"I don't see the problem," Harold Lucas said. "We have the opportunity to eliminate at least one form of hereditary blindness forever." "I'm not exactly in favor of blindness," Amy Lament said." know many blind people have a hard time in our society." "So, let's slice out the defective gene that causes it, and splice in one that does the job right," Lucas said. "With germ-line therapy we can modify the sex cell of tine camera and get rid of that form of the disease." Lamont shook her head. "It sounds humane, but it's not so easy as that: she said. "Minting to eliminate blindness suggests there's soniething wrong with blind people and that its better for them not to be born." "1 think it's better fur them not to be born Mind." "Also, getting rid of that gene means n rodityi human beings," Amy Lamont said. "If we start doing that, T don't know when we would stop. We might do anything at all with them." "You're afraid of some kind of wild eugenics scheme?"
"That's one problem," Lamont said. "My objection is deeper than that, though. I don't like the idea of tampering with human life and human destiny. To change ourselves deliberately is,
1 think, to make us something Icss than human." 1. Rephrase. Lamont's arguments so they am explicit.
2. Does wanting to eliminate hereditary blindness imply that blind people art less worthy or less human than sighted people? Why or why not? 3. is Lamont's objection to eliminating hereditary' blindness a slippery slope argument? If so, how? If not why not? 4. How useful is it to consider the elimination of blindness therapeutic and any change going beyond the "normal" range of human abilities enhancement?