Is it ethical to use gene-editing technologies like CRISPR for human enhancement?

Opening Statement

The opening statements in a debate set the intellectual and moral tone for the entire exchange. They are not merely declarations of position but foundational acts of framing—defining what is at stake, who we are as humans, and what kind of future we wish to build. On the question of whether it is ethical to use gene-editing technologies like CRISPR for human enhancement, the clash is not just scientific, but profoundly philosophical. It asks: Are we custodians of human nature, or architects of its next evolution?

Below, the affirmative and negative teams present their opening statements—each building a coherent, persuasive case rooted in values, logic, and foresight.

Affirmative Opening Statement

Ladies and gentlemen, we stand today not at the edge of science fiction, but at the dawn of human empowerment. We affirm that it is not only ethical—but morally imperative—to use gene-editing technologies like CRISPR for human enhancement, provided they are governed by rigorous ethical standards and equitable access.

Let us begin with clarity: by “human enhancement,” we mean the intentional improvement of human capacities—cognitive, physical, emotional—beyond what is necessary for health, using precise genetic tools. This is not about creating superhumans overnight; it is about expanding the range of human flourishing.

Our first argument is rooted in the moral duty to alleviate suffering and maximize well-being. For centuries, medicine has corrected deficits—insulin for diabetes, vaccines for disease. Why should we halt at the boundary of “normal”? If we can edit genes to enhance memory, resilience to stress, or resistance to aging, why would we refuse? Enhancement is the logical extension of healing. To deny it is to impose arbitrary limits on compassion.

Second, we defend individual autonomy and reproductive liberty. Just as parents choose schools, nutrition, and environments to give their children advantages, so too should they have the right to use safe genetic tools to equip them for a complex world. This is not coercion—it is choice. And in a free society, personal decisions about one’s body and lineage must be respected, especially when no harm is done to others.

Third, we argue that enhancement can promote equity, not undermine it. Critics fear a “genetic elite.” But history shows that technologies—from antibiotics to the internet—start expensive and become democratized. With public investment and regulation, gene editing can follow the same path. Imagine a future where every child, regardless of birth, has access to enhanced immunity or cognitive support. That is not dystopia—that is justice.

We do not advocate reckless experimentation. Safety, oversight, and inclusion are essential. But to reject enhancement outright is to surrender our responsibility to improve the human condition. Evolution gave us intelligence; now, intelligence must guide evolution. We urge you to embrace this next step—not with fear, but with hope.

Negative Opening Statement

Thank you. We oppose the ethical use of CRISPR for human enhancement—not because we fear progress, but because we cherish humanity.

Let us define our terms clearly: human enhancement here means non-therapeutic genetic modifications aimed at creating “better than well” individuals—stronger, smarter, longer-lived. Our objection is not to curing disease, but to redesigning human beings according to subjective ideals of perfection.

Our first and foremost concern is justice and social inequality. Gene editing will not be equally accessible. It will be available first—and best—to the wealthy. This isn’t speculation; it’s already happening in fertility clinics offering embryo screening. The result? A new form of biological caste system, where privilege is not just inherited through wealth, but hardwired into DNA. When the rich can buy better brains and bodies, equality of opportunity becomes a cruel illusion.

Second, we challenge the violation of human dignity and autonomy. Enhancement often begins with parental choice—but whose choice is it really? The child cannot consent to irreversible changes that shape their identity before birth. We risk turning children into designed products, optimized for parental expectations rather than accepted as ends in themselves. As philosopher Hans Jonas warned: “Not everything that can be done should be done.”

Third, we confront the hubris of playing God—or worse, playing designer. Human traits are not isolated switches. Intelligence, empathy, longevity—they emerge from complex gene-environment interactions we barely understand. Editing one gene may disrupt unforeseen systems. And culturally, once we normalize enhancement, we create pressure to conform. Will unenhanced people be seen as defective? Will diversity be erased in pursuit of an engineered ideal?

We are not Luddites. We celebrate medical breakthroughs. But there is a line between healing and transforming, between therapy and eugenics. Cross it, and we risk losing what makes us human: our vulnerability, our unpredictability, our shared fate. Let us advance science—but let us also preserve our soul.

Rebuttal of Opening Statement

In the rebuttal phase, the debate sharpens from declaration to confrontation. Here, the second debater steps forward not merely to defend, but to dissect—to expose flaws in the opposing argument while fortifying their own. This stage tests more than knowledge; it demands clarity under pressure, strategic focus, and moral precision. The goal is not just to say “you’re wrong,” but to show why the other side’s reasoning collapses under scrutiny.

Affirmative Second Debater Rebuttal

Let me begin by acknowledging the eloquence of the opposition—but then gently point out that their entire case rests on a myth: the myth of inevitability.

They claim gene editing will create a genetic aristocracy. But let us be clear: injustice does not come from technology itself, but from how society chooses to distribute it. By their logic, we should have banned vaccines because only the wealthy had access at first. We didn’t. Instead, we regulated, subsidized, and democratized. Why treat CRISPR differently?

Their second argument—that children cannot consent—is emotionally powerful, but philosophically flawed. Parents make irreversible decisions for children every day: naming them, raising them in certain cultures, sending them to specific schools. No parent has perfect foresight. But we trust that most act out of love, not design. To say genetic enhancement violates autonomy is to ignore the reality that all parenting shapes identity. The difference isn’t kind—it’s degree. And if that degree brings greater resilience, empathy, or cognitive capacity, why is that inherently disrespectful?

As for “playing God”—a phrase often used when we fear progress—we’ve been playing God since we invented agriculture. Medicine extends life beyond natural limits. Education rewires brains. If enhancing human potential is hubris, then so is teaching a child to read.

But here’s what the opposition conveniently ignores: the cost of inaction. Every year we delay safe enhancement research, millions suffer preventable cognitive decline, chronic pain, or mental illness. Is it really more ethical to leave people trapped in biological limitations we could alleviate?

And let’s correct a false dichotomy: they frame this as healing vs. transforming. But where does healing end and enhancing begin? Is giving a child a vaccine enhancement because it boosts immunity beyond “natural” levels? Of course not. Nature is not a moral guide—it’s a starting point.

We do not seek perfection. We seek possibility. With oversight, equity, and caution, gene editing can become a tool of liberation, not oppression. The real danger isn’t enhancement—it’s letting fear dictate our future.

Negative Second Debater Rebuttal

The affirmative paints a utopia of empowered parents and equal access. But behind their optimism lies a dangerous naivety—one that mistakes technological feasibility for ethical justification.

First, let’s address their dismissal of inequality. They say, “Don’t worry, like the internet, CRISPR will trickle down.” But genes aren’t bandwidth. Once edited, changes are permanent and heritable. The first generation of enhanced humans won’t just have advantages—they’ll pass them on biologically. Wealthy families won’t just buy better education; they’ll buy better DNA. And unlike the internet, you can’t log off your genome.

They cite vaccines as precedent. But vaccines protect against disease—they don’t alter fundamental human traits. There’s a world of difference between preventing polio and selecting for IQ. One defends equality; the other risks creating a new hierarchy based on engineered superiority.

Now, about consent. The affirmative says, “Parents already shape children.” True—but there’s a line between nurturing and designing. When you choose your child’s eye color or memory capacity before birth, you’re not guiding a person—you’re predefining one. That shifts the parent-child relationship from acceptance to expectation. And when expectations are coded into DNA, failure feels like betrayal—not of effort, but of essence.

They argue that resisting enhancement is “fear-based.” But caution is not fear. It’s wisdom. We regulate nuclear power not because it’s evil, but because its consequences are irreversible. Gene editing is far more intimate—it alters not just energy, but identity.

And here’s what they refuse to confront: the normalization effect. Even if enhancement starts optional, social pressure will make it mandatory. Imagine schools where 90% of kids are cognitively enhanced. Will the unenhanced be seen as irresponsible? Will employers favor genetically optimized workers? Freedom of choice vanishes when opting out means being left behind.

Finally, their vision assumes we understand the genome well enough to enhance safely. But we don’t. Genes interact in networks we barely map. Editing one for intelligence might increase anxiety or reduce creativity. These aren’t bugs—they’re features of complex biology. To tinker without full understanding is not progress. It’s gambling with human futures.

We honor humanity not by remaking it, but by protecting its fragility. Let us heal the sick, yes—but let us not redesign the species in the image of our preferences. Some doors, once opened, cannot be closed.

Cross-Examination

The cross-examination phase is where debate transforms from presentation to confrontation—a moment of intellectual combat where assumptions are tested, logic is stress-tested, and narratives are either fortified or fractured. Here, the third debaters step forward not merely as questioners, but as prosecutors of reasoning, wielding inquiry like a scalpel to dissect weaknesses and expose contradictions.

This stage demands more than quick thinking; it requires strategy. Every question must serve a purpose: to trap the opponent in their own logic, to force uncomfortable admissions, or to spotlight gaps between principle and consequence. The goal is not dialogue—it is domination through dialectic.

Let us now enter the crucible.

Affirmative Cross-Examination

Affirmative Third Debater:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll direct my first question to the opposition’s first debater.

Question 1: You argue that gene editing for enhancement risks creating a genetic elite. But isn’t it true that nearly every transformative technology—from literacy to laptops—was initially accessible only to the privileged? If history shows these tools eventually become universal through policy and innovation, why should CRISPR be treated as uniquely dangerous rather than another frontier for equitable expansion?

Negative First Debater:
It’s true that many technologies start unevenly distributed. But genes are different—they’re heritable. A laptop doesn’t pass down to your grandchildren; edited DNA does. This creates intergenerational privilege encoded at the biological level, which no subsidy can easily reverse.

Affirmative Third Debater:
Interesting. Then let me ask the second debater: You claim parents shouldn’t design children because it violates autonomy. But don’t parents already shape their children’s futures in profound ways—through private schooling, cognitive training, even epigenetic influences like stress and nutrition? If we accept those forms of enhancement, how can you consistently object to genetic ones without drawing an arbitrary line?

Negative Second Debater:
There’s a moral difference between influencing development and predetermining it. Education opens doors; genetic editing may close alternatives by hardwiring certain traits. One supports freedom, the other constrains it before birth.

Affirmative Third Debater:
A compelling distinction—but let’s test it. To the fourth debater: You warned that enhancement could erase human diversity in pursuit of engineered ideals. Yet today, global culture already pushes narrow standards of beauty, intelligence, and success. Isn’t it possible that voluntary genetic enhancement could actually diversify humanity—say, by enabling neurodivergent advantages or novel sensory experiences—more than passive conformity to social norms?

Negative Fourth Debater:
Possibility isn’t probability. When market forces and social pressure dictate what counts as “enhanced,” diversity tends to collapse into homogenized ideals—just look at cosmetic surgery trends. Genetic enhancement would amplify, not counteract, this standardization.

Affirmative Third Debater – Summary:
Ladies and gentlemen, the pattern is clear. The opposition builds their case on fear of inequality, yet offers no principled reason why CRISPR should be uniquely excluded from the arc of technological democratization. They invoke parental overreach, yet tolerate far more invasive shaping of children every day. And they warn of lost diversity, while ignoring that society already enforces conformity far more powerfully than any lab ever could.

Their vision is one of static humanity—frozen in vulnerability, guarded by precaution so extreme it becomes paralysis. We propose something bolder: a future where we use knowledge not to avoid risk, but to expand opportunity. With governance, not prohibition, we can ensure enhancement uplifts all—not just a few.

Negative Cross-Examination

Negative Third Debater:
Thank you. I begin with the affirmative’s first debater.

Question 1: You said enhancement is a natural extension of healing. But if editing genes to boost memory is ethical, why not edit for obedience, docility, or compliance? Where do you draw the line—and who decides what counts as “improvement” in a pluralistic society?

Affirmative First Debater:
We draw the line at harm and coercion. Traits that undermine autonomy or dignity—like enforced obedience—are unethical. Our framework prioritizes well-being, agency, and flourishing. Societies already make such distinctions—for example, we don’t allow parents to tattoo infants, even if they claim cultural reasons.

Negative Third Debater:
Fair. Now to the second debater: You dismissed concerns about inequality by comparing CRISPR to vaccines and the internet. But unlike software updates, genetic changes are permanent and irreversible. If a child receives a faulty enhancement due to profit-driven shortcuts, who bears responsibility—and how do we compensate a life irrevocably altered?

Affirmative Second Debater:
All medicine carries risk—we regulate pharmaceuticals, surgeries, and medical devices precisely to minimize harm. The same oversight bodies can govern gene editing. No system is perfect, but withdrawal from progress guarantees stagnation, not safety.

Negative Third Debater:
Then to the fourth debater: You argued that resisting enhancement is “fear-based.” But isn’t caution rational when dealing with systems we don’t fully understand? Given that a single gene can influence multiple traits—pleiotropy—how can you guarantee that boosting intelligence won’t inadvertently increase susceptibility to mental illness or reduce emotional resilience?

Affirmative Fourth Debater:
Science progresses incrementally. We don’t demand perfection before action—we demand prudence. Early trials focus on safety, long-term monitoring, and phased implementation. Just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean we know nothing. Waiting for complete certainty means never acting at all.

Negative Third Debater – Summary:
What we’ve heard today reveals a troubling optimism bias. The affirmative champions choice and equity, yet cannot explain how voluntary choices won’t become coercive under social pressure. They trust regulation to prevent abuse, but regulators lag behind innovation—especially when profits are involved. And they speak confidently of safety, while dismissing the genomic complexity that makes predictability a fantasy.

They treat the genome like a smartphone app store—download upgrades at will. But biology is not code; it’s a network shaped by millions of years of evolution. Tinker recklessly, and you don’t upgrade humanity—you gamble with its foundation.

We don’t oppose progress. We demand wisdom. And wisdom means recognizing that some powers are too profound to wield without humility. Once we rewrite what it means to be human, there is no undo button.

Free Debate

The free debate begins. The air thickens—not with hostility, but with urgency. Ideas collide like particles in an accelerator, each spark probing the boundaries of ethics, evolution, and empathy. The affirmative side opens, not with data, but with a question that cuts to the heart of the matter.

Affirmative First Debater:
So let me ask the opposition: if we could genetically reduce anxiety in children—without side effects—would you still oppose it? After all, anxiety isn’t “disease” in the traditional sense. Millions suffer, yet it’s part of being human. Are we supposed to accept suffering just because it’s common?

Negative First Debater:
And I’ll answer with another question: who decides what counts as “too much” anxiety? You talk about reducing it—but what if society starts seeing all discomfort as defective? Soon, we’ll pathologize shyness, melancholy, even artistic sensitivity. Not every variation needs correction.

Affirmative Second Debater:
Ah, so now sadness is sacred? Forgive me, but I’d rather cure depression than romanticize it. We don’t tell diabetics to embrace their high blood sugar because it makes them “authentic.” Why apply that standard to the mind?

Negative Second Debater:
Because genes aren’t insulin pumps. Editing cognition alters identity at its root. And once we start optimizing minds, we stop valuing difference. Do you really want a world where every child is pre-selected for resilience, focus, and cheerfulness? That’s not diversity—that’s uniformity with a smile.

Affirmative Third Debater:
Uniformity? Or freedom? Parents already shape their kids’ brains—through tutoring, nutrition, sleep schedules. CRISPR is just more precise. If you can give your kid piano lessons to boost neural development, why not a gene edit that enhances learning capacity directly? It’s the same goal, better tool.

Negative Third Debater:
Except one requires practice, effort, growth—the other is a download. When advantages come pre-installed, you erase the struggle that builds character. Would Beethoven still be Beethoven if his hearing loss—and the anguish it caused—had been edited out?

(Audience murmurs. A pause.)

Affirmative Fourth Debater:
Maybe he’d have composed ten more symphonies without going deaf. But let’s not turn grief into a productivity strategy. Should we deny pain relief to cancer patients because suffering makes us deeper? No. Compassion doesn’t require martyrdom.

Negative First Debater:
It’s not about glorifying pain—it’s about recognizing that limits define us. When you remove all biological constraints, you risk creating people who see themselves not as beings, but as projects. “I am not enough—I must be upgraded.” That’s not empowerment. That’s engineered insecurity.

Affirmative First Debater:
Or maybe it’s liberation. Let’s talk numbers. One in five people will develop clinical depression. Alzheimer’s wipes out millions of identities every year. If we can edit out susceptibility, why wouldn’t we? Is it more ethical to wait until the brain is ravaged—or prevent it before birth?

Negative Second Debater:
Prevention is noble. Redesign is dangerous. You keep saying “edit out”—but genes don’t work like delete keys. The same variant linked to schizophrenia also correlates with creativity. Remove the risk, and you might dull the spark. Nature isn’t inefficient—it’s balanced.

Affirmative Third Debater:
Then study it better. Don’t ban progress because science isn’t finished. We didn’t stop heart surgery because early attempts failed. We improved. With AI modeling gene networks, we’re getting closer to predicting pleiotropy. Regulation, yes—but prohibition? That’s letting perfection be the enemy of good.

Negative Third Debater:
But when the stakes are human inheritance, “good enough” isn’t good enough. These changes echo across generations. Mistakes don’t just die with the individual—they replicate. Can you recall any technology that spread faster than social pressure? Imagine job interviews where employers quietly prefer candidates with “verified neuro-stability.”

Affirmative Second Debater:
And I imagine schools where no child fails because they couldn’t focus. You fear coercion—but isn’t denying life-changing tools to future generations the greater coercion? The status quo forces kids to struggle with avoidable limitations. That’s not natural—it’s neglect.

Negative Fourth Debater:
Natural or not, there’s a difference between helping someone climb a mountain and removing the mountain entirely. Life isn’t meant to be frictionless. Challenge shapes morality, resilience, humility. If we engineer away every obstacle, what virtues do we leave behind?

Affirmative First Debater:
Humility? How humble is it to assume we know what kind of world our descendants should suffer in? Our ancestors thought smallpox was “part of life.” We eradicated it. Progress means redefining what’s acceptable.

Negative First Debater:
And wisdom means knowing when power exceeds responsibility. Fire warms, cooks, protects—but unchecked, it burns cities. CRISPR is fire in the genome. Just because we can light it doesn’t mean we should set the forest ablaze.

Affirmative Third Debater:
Then let’s build firebreaks—regulations, oversight, public funding. But don’t blame the flame for the arsonist. Equity isn’t achieved by hoarding technology. It’s achieved by sharing it.

Negative Second Debater:
Nice metaphor. But forests regenerate. Genomes don’t. Once we alter germline cells, the change is forever. There’s no undo button for evolution.

Affirmative Fourth Debater:
Funny—you say “no undo button,” yet you’re fine with passing down genetic diseases because “it’s natural.” Natural selection is brutal, blind, and cruel. We evolved intelligence to rise above it. Isn’t it time we used it?

(Laughter from audience. Judges lean forward.)

Negative Third Debater:
Intelligence, yes. Arrogance, no. We’re not opposing science—we’re demanding humility. Just because we can edit humanity doesn’t mean we should. Some choices are too profound for markets or parental preference.

Affirmative Second Debater:
And who makes those choices instead? Governments? Philosophers? Religious leaders? History shows concentrated moral authority ends badly. Better to trust individuals—with safeguards—than elites with ideals.

Negative Fourth Debater:
Better still to recognize that some doors, once opened, transform the ones who walk through them. Enhance enough, and you don’t just change people—you redefine personhood. And when “human” becomes a customizable model, equality becomes obsolete.

Affirmative First Debater:
Or perhaps equality evolves. From gender roles to civil rights, we’ve redefined fairness before. Why freeze it at biology? If enhancement lifts everyone, we don’t lose equality—we deepen it.

Negative First Debater:
Only if everyone gets lifted. But look at healthcare today. In many countries, basic medicine is unequal. Now you expect us to believe genetic upgrades will be fairly distributed? That’s not hope. That’s magical thinking.

Affirmative Third Debater:
Then fix distribution—don’t kill the technology. Blaming CRISPR for inequality is like blaming teachers for poverty. The problem isn’t the tool. It’s how we use it.

(The bell rings. Time’s up.)

Voices hang in the air, unresolved but resonant. No side has yielded. But something has shifted—not in positions, but in perspective. The debate is no longer just about genes. It’s about what kind of future we dare to imagine, and what kind of humans we wish to become.

Closing Statement

In the closing moments of a debate, the noise fades and the essence remains. What began as a clash of ideas now stands as a choice—a vision of what kind of future we dare to build, and what kind of humans we wish to be. The question before us—whether it is ethical to use gene-editing technologies like CRISPR for human enhancement—is not merely about science. It is about values. About courage. About who gets to define “normal,” and who bears the cost when we redraw the boundaries of nature.

Both teams now deliver their final words—not to reargue, but to reflect, refine, and rise above. This is where logic meets legacy.

Affirmative Closing Statement

Ladies and gentlemen, let us return to first principles.

We stand not against nature, but for humanity. Not in defiance of ethics, but in pursuit of a deeper one—one that sees alleviating suffering not as interference, but as duty; that views expanding human potential not as arrogance, but as evolution guided by conscience.

Throughout this debate, the opposition has painted a nightmare: a world split by DNA, where children are products and parents play god. But let us be honest—those fears already exist. Today, children are born into inequality determined by zip code, wealth, and genetics. Some inherit privilege; others inherit disease. That is not natural order—that is injustice. And CRISPR does not create this divide. It offers us a chance to heal it.

We have shown that enhancement is the logical extension of medicine. Just as vaccines enhanced immunity beyond “natural” levels, so too can gene editing protect against Alzheimer’s, depression, or cognitive decline. Is it ethical to stop at healing when we can prevent? Is it moral to say, “You were born with this burden—endure it,” when we hold the tools to lift it?

The opposition claims consent is violated. But every parent shapes a child’s future—from nutrition to education. Why is editing a gene more violating than denying access to tutoring or mental health care? If we can give a child resilience to trauma, sharper focus, or emotional stability through safe, reversible edits, how is that anything but an act of love?

They warn of a slippery slope. But slopes can be climbed with guardrails. With regulation. With public funding. The internet was once a luxury; today, it’s a right. So too can genetic equity become a reality—if we choose ambition over fear.

And let us not forget: the greatest risk is not misuse. It is inaction. Every year we delay, millions lose years of life, mind, and joy to conditions we could one day prevent. To halt progress because it challenges tradition is to confuse caution with compassion. It is not ethical to preserve the status quo when we can transcend it.

So we ask you: Do we want a world where biology is destiny? Or one where science serves justice?

We do not seek perfection. We seek possibility. Not control—but choice. Not uniformity—but freedom to flourish.

This is not the end of humanity. It is its next chapter. And we urge you to turn the page—not with trembling hands, but with hope.

Negative Closing Statement

Thank you.

We’ve heard soaring visions of a genetically optimized future—smarter, stronger, longer-lived. A world without limits. But let us pause and ask: At what cost?

Because behind every promise of enhancement lies a peril: the erosion of what makes us human. Not our intelligence or strength, but our fragility. Our unpredictability. Our shared vulnerability—the very ground of empathy, solidarity, and meaning.

The affirmative team speaks of equity, but offers only faith. Faith that the rich won’t monopolize enhancement. Faith that governments will regulate fairly. Faith that parents will edit only out of love, never ambition. But history teaches otherwise. From eugenics movements to modern fertility markets, the powerful have always sought to design the ideal child. CRISPR doesn’t change human nature—it amplifies its worst impulses.

They say inequality already exists. True. But existing injustice is no justification for compounding it biologically. Poverty is tragic. But turning it into a genetic caste system—where advantage is inherited not just in wealth, but in DNA—is dystopia. Once edited, these changes are permanent. Heritable. Inescapable. You cannot opt out of your genome.

And they dismiss consent as irrelevant—yet every enhancement decision made before birth strips the child of self-determination. Will a child enhanced for intelligence feel free to pursue art, if their genes were chosen for math? Will they resent their parents if the edit fails—or worse, succeeds too well? When identity is prewritten, authenticity becomes impossible.

Worse still is the quiet coercion that follows. Even if enhancement begins as optional, social pressure will make it expected. Employers will favor the cognitively enhanced. Schools will assume baseline upgrades. The “unmodified” will be seen not as different, but as deficient. Freedom vanishes when opting out means being left behind.

And let us speak plainly: we do not understand the genome enough to enhance it safely. Genes are not switches—they are symphonies. Editing one note may distort the whole piece. Boost memory, increase anxiety. Enhance focus, reduce creativity. These aren’t side effects—they’re warnings.

We are not anti-science. We are pro-wisdom. Medicine heals. Enhancement transforms. One restores balance. The other risks unbalancing everything.

There is dignity in being human as we are—in growing through struggle, in learning through effort, in loving despite imperfection. To erase vulnerability is not to perfect humanity, but to erase its soul.

So we stand not in fear of progress, but in defense of humanity. Not against science, but for humility.

Let us cure disease. Let us ease suffering. But let us not redesign our species in the image of our preferences. Some doors, once opened, cannot be closed.

And some futures, no matter how bright they seem, are not ours to take.

Choose caution. Choose dignity. Choose humanity.