ANTONIN: We are here today to debate the merits of being able to choose the sex of one's

child or the genetic modification of embryos. I'd like to start by giving the floor to Mr Taylor
and Mr Davies, who will tell us why they support these two actions.
LUCAS: I really appreciate the possibility that science gives us of being able to choose the
sex of our future child. I already have 5 girls and I'd really like a boy to continue our family
name. But it's not just a question of the name, I also want to share specific activities with
my son, things that I can't do with my daughters, I want him to fulfil my dream, it will be my
Mbappé Junior project.
MAEL: What? A boy for the family name? What century are you living in? Women can
choose to keep their own name or add it to that of their husband. You're a retrograde!
LUCAS: I'm not backward-looking, but I want a boy for the family name, but also so that I
can do lots of things with him that I can't do with my daughters.
MAEL: Girls can do anything these days. People's abilities and aspirations don't depend on
their sex.
MATHEO: It's not just that. For my part, I accept this selection because in my family we
have a serious illness that is only passed on to boys. That's why I'd like to have only girls, to
break this infernal chain.
ANTONIN: Madam, gentlemen, let's calm down a bit. Let's ask our two scientists, who have
been working on this subject for a long time, for their opinion.
Scientist 1: Yes, science can be a great help to families affected by a genetic disease
transmitted to one sex but not the other. It ensures that the next generation does not
suffer. Parents can protect their children from suffering or disability.
Scientist 2: The balance of a family is also important if parents and children are to feel good.
Parents can bring up their offspring with peace of mind if there is a good balance in the
number of girls and boys.
MAEL : What nonsense! Parents love their children equally, regardless of gender. I'm in
favour of letting nature take its course. Science should be looking at curing these various
genetic diseases.
Scientist 1: Science can do both. We could strike a fair balance between curing diseases and
allowing parents to choose the sex of their child.
Scientist 2: I support my colleague. A balance between choice and care is necessary for the
future and well-being of children.
MATHEO: Yes, the right balance to help future generations be healthy, to avoid genetic
diseases, but also to avoid a numerical imbalance between men and women.
ANTONIN: I think we're going to reach an agreement in our debate.
MAEL: No, let's leave it to nature. Interfering in the natural process can have unexpected
consequences.
MATHEO: Nature sometimes gives us strange gifts and I don't want my children to go
through what I'm going through with this disease.
Scientist 2: That's why I'm coming back to balance. Let's let nature take its course, but let's
intervene when we can and when it's necessary for the future and the well-being of our
children.
MAEL: I understand the arguments in favour of balance and the prevention of genetic
diseases, but I remain concerned about the ethical implications of the genetic modification
of embryos. Are we playing god by manipulating nature and deciding the fate of our
children before they are even born?
LUCAS: I understand your concerns, but I think it's important to see scientific advances as
tools that can improve the lives of our children. If we have the opportunity to prevent
genetic diseases or establish a more harmonious family balance, why not take advantage of
it?
Scientist 1: I understand the ethical concerns, but it's also important to stress that science is
advancing with the aim of improving the human condition. Research into genetic
modification can pave the way for more effective treatments for serious illnesses and
enable parents to give their children the best possible chance of health.
Scientist 2: Absolutely, it is essential to establish strict regulations and rigorous ethical
standards to govern the use of genetic modification of embryos. This will ensure that this
technology is only used in legitimate cases, such as the prevention of serious illnesses and
the promotion of family equilibrium, while avoiding abuses.
MAEL: However, I remain sceptical about the possibility of putting in place sufficiently strict
regulations to prevent abuses. What's more, aren't we running the risk of creating even
deeper social divisions if only those with the financial means have access to these genetic
modification technologies?

ANTONIN: These are legitimate and complex questions that require careful thought. It's
important to strike a balance between scientific progress, ethical concerns and the interests
of society as a whole. We must continue to explore these issues and debate them in order
to make informed decisions.

MATHEO: Ultimately, I think the key lies in public education and awareness. It's essential
that people understand the implications of genetic modification and the choices they can
make as parents. We need to encourage an open and respectful dialogue to address these
complex issues.
ANTONIN: I totally agree. This debate is not over, but it's important to continue the
discussion and involve a variety of perspectives to find common ground. Thank you to all
our participants for their interesting points of view. We'll be coming back to this subject in
other broadcasts.