The Right to Be Unedited: Genetic Engineering and the New Frontier of Human Rights Violations -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka

The discussion of genetic engineering is invariably presented as a feat of mankind. A future without disease, less pain and better life at its source. Indoctrinates us with a narrative that is hard to refuse. But behind this seductive scenario there is a far more disturbing question that remains unasked: As the power to edit life itself soars beyond the systems of morality and law that keep our passions in line… where are we then?

Into an era we now enter where the most basic aspect of human existence, our genetic identity, is no longer fixed but programmable. And into this new reality, a fundamental human right is being erased: the right to remain unedited.

For decades, human rights law has been about protecting the body from harm, coercion and exploitation. Genetic engineering changes all that. It does not merely act on the body, it remoulds it. It changes, not only individuals, but also people who are yet unborn and hence cannot give their consent. They cannot object or reject such decisions made on their behalf

This is not creativity. It is irreversible intervention.

New gene editing technologies like CRISPR have made it technically possible to cure hereditary diseases. That hope is real, real and important. But the line between therapy and enhancement is a very, very fine one and increasingly blurred: What starts out as an effort to Once cure will even quickly degenerate into a market-driven quest of “desirable” traits. intelligence, physical beauty even behavioral inclinations.

By that point, genetic engineering is not medicine. It is choice.

And choice, as history reminds us, is never a gentle process.

Nor is the risk purely theoretical. It is inherent. In a world marked by disparities of wealth, access to gene-editing technologies will not be universal. Those with means will enhance themselves; the poor will remain unedited. Over time, this could lead not only to societal inequality but biological apartheid, a society in which advantage is engineered at birth into the genome itself.

All this is not progress, but rather the architecture of a new type of unequal rights under law. It is one which will eventually outproduce and quickly substitube any other form permanent, inheritable, and legally unassailable. The law, meanwhile, is almost perilously unprepared. The existing frameworks are still struggling to define what is an acceptable limit for genetic intervention let alone where these lines should be drawn. International regulations are patched together, lacking teeth, or otherwise easily gotten around. National laws are not uniform, and they accord regulatory havens where controversial practices can proceed with little scrutiny from the outside. This legal vacuum is not accidental. It reflects a deeper failure: the inability or refusal of global governance systems to confront technologies which offer a challenge to the very concept of humanity itself. And so, the void is filled with power. Biotechnology companies, research institutions, and state actors are shaping the future of genetic engineering. Often, this is done with little transparency and even less accountability. The language of “innovation” is used as a shield. It discourages scrutiny and often casts ethical concerns and obstacles in the way of progress. However, progress unlimited is not progress. It is domination. What is most ominous about genetic engineering lies not in what it can do, there are always uses for less apparent it is those without consequences! But that when genetic editing becomes normalized such refuse may simply disappear. Social pressure may mount, economic incentives could kick in and cultural expectations may coalesce to make not merely the availa. Parents who choose not to edit their children could be seen as neglecting one of their primary responsibilities. Individuals who stick with the natural composition may become second-class citizens. Over time, the human body now unedited can devolve into an illegal exception, or worse still? A nagging liability.

When rights disappear, it’s not through banalism but wholesale normalization of privilege.The right to be unchanged isn’t a denial of science; it’s an acceptance that we ought to draw a line here or there. It’s not that everything which can be improved must be improved. The human genome is neither a simple technical basis for our existence nor merely a collection of genes -it’s also the very foundation and substance of our selves, our dignity and our self determination. For if people can be shaped and improved, so too can humanity. The world community must act-and act decisively. This means establishing obligations that set clear boundaries between therapeutic and enhancement applications of molecular genetics. It means forbidding any alterations in the genetic data until ethical controls and legal frameworks are secure. It means ensuring that consent -genuine, prior and meaningful remains paramount in cases where future generations might be affected above all others.And finally, it means establishing a new discipline over the limits of power.No company, no country and no scientific establishment should be permitted to alter the human genome at will without responsibility. The stakes are too high, the results too enduring and future abuses too great a possibility.Building A society where people are born rather than made is not just an act of scientific manipulation: it’s also one that makes for ethical error.A system that purports to improve but also erodes human rights at its core is not only a failure. It’s a redefinition of what it means to be human-that does not even stop to ask if that should happenSet an agenda The end of this text is rewritten

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya Indonesia