Extreme Language

With new technology it allows us to further research to attempt to benefit humanity and the environment people live in. As well as the genetic engineering playing a positive role in helping with “agriculture, aquaculture, bioremediation, and environmental management, both in developed and developing countries. However, deliberate or inadvertent releases of genetically engineered organisms into the environment could have negative ecological impacts under some circumstances”(Coker 24). With the engineering of plants and medicines, there seems to be no harm done if something were to go wrong and hurt the plant or the medicine just doesn’t turn out right. There comes a point when scientists cross a line and that is when they start to create designer babies. With designer babies, it gives the mother and the father the ability to change and enhance the outcome of their child. The parents are given the opportunity to improve the way their child's “eyesight could be greatly improved, perhaps even allowing [them] to see wavelengths of light that are currently ‘invisible’ to us” (Coker 26). Having a child with not only enhanced eyesight, but with them having your choice of hair color, the eye color you have chosen, or allowing them to have enhanced strength people are interrupting the natural way a child is supposed to be created. A child who has been genetically engineered to have enhanced strength is a child how going to ruin the way sports are played fairly. A child who has been born naturally and has had nothing altered about him will be no match against a genetically engineered one. Some people would take into consideration that the religious church would believe that genetically engineering anything is not moral. Inside “the moral evaluation of germ line cell therapy is different. Whatever genetic modifications are effected on the germ cells of a person will be transmitted to any potential

I agree with your opinion in how genetic technology could leave a negative impact to our society. I believe the idea of genetic engineering is not natural. We have no idea of the harm that could result from this technology. Genetic engineering is another step in giving humans their desires. I believe that altering the DNA of any life form is not just. Genetically manipulating a life form could put an imbalance in nature and society. No one should have the right to manipulate the genetics of other life forms. The idea of genetic engineering is be consider unethical because it is enforcing animal cruelty. Furthermore, I am appalled that some parent choose their child’s appearance, rather than go through the ‘natural’ process, to prevent bullying and discrimination.

In his article Is Gene Therapy a Form of Eugenics, John Harris discusses the concept of Eugenics when it comes to using Gene Therapy. Harris defines Eugenics as adapting to the production of “fine” offspring, or artificially producing offspring to fit certain criteria. He stresses on how this concept should be achieved. His main argument is that we should be in favor of Eugenics when it comes to potentially saving a child from living a potential disabled life. Harris believes that his view is not wrong, but believes that it is a matter of indifference whether we call it Eugenics or not. Harris argues that Gene Therapy is ethically sound, and

Worryingly, there has been minimal public debate regarding this technology that could irreversibly alter the human race. Instead, ethical discourse has been largely contained to scientific and political circles. It is extremely problematic that a large majority of the general public is unaware of the research and debate regarding human gene modification. In addition, the current debate has stagnated, with researchers and politicians being unable to find any common ground. However, upon close examination of the three main ideological groups within this controversy, a key similarity becomes apparent: each group, regardless of whether they are proponents or opponents of human gene

Just think about a human race free of genetic disease where everyone is intelligent and where society and technology advance at staggering rates. This is the future that is envisioned by those who advocate eugenics. Eugenics is the study of methods to improve the human race by selection of parents based on their inherited characteristics (Hartl). The idea was first discussed by Sir Francis Galton in the 1880’s, but was widely unaccepted by people at first due to fear that it would take away their basic human rights and be misused (Hartl). In the early 20th century, eugenics was a very popular and widespread idea in the United States and there were laws created to encourage certain people to have children, while discouraging others from procreating (Morris 66). The main reason eugenics has fell into such disfavor is because the Nazis cited it as the reason for the Holocaust (Morris 66). The use of eugenics by the Nazis can be compared to the use Islam by ISIS, or the use of Christianity by the Westboro Baptist Church. It is a concept that can be misused based on interpretation and extremism. Eugenics itself is just an idea to improve the human race by selective breeding, not by killing millions. Forms of eugenics should be implemented in society because they eliminate genetic diseases and problems, spread favorable traits and attributes, create a more intelligent and less flawed society, and help advance the human race as a whole.

It is incredible to see how far genetic engineering has come. Humans, plants, and any living organism can now be manipulated. Scientists have found ways to change humans before they are even born. They can remove, add, or alter genes in the human genome. Making things possible that humans (even thirty years ago) would have never imagined. Richard Hayes claims in SuperSize Your Child? that genetic engineering needs to have limitations. That genetic engineering should be used for medical purposes, but not for “genetic modification that could open the door to high-tech eugenic engineering” (188). There is no doubt that genetic engineering can amount to great things, but without limits it could lead the human race into a future that no one

Das points out that “[Editing genes] reduces the risk of genetic diseases and ensures that a defective gene gets obliterated from the family line.” Regardless of the opportunity for genetic improvements, there is always room for error. As previously stated, “Possibility of damage to the gene pool also becomes a real threat” (Das 1349). Designer babies have the potential to benefit society by eliminating horrendous genetic diseases, but they could also destroy the human genome by eliminating vital

“Humans have the will to live, and if gene medicine can improve our lifestyle, then we should be accepting of of this new technology.” In the science fiction novel, Flowers for Algernon, by Daniel Keyes Charlie wants to live a better lifestyle, and wants to become smarter, so he has gene surgery. Gene modification can cure genetic diseases, create a more enhanced human, and enhance our lifestyle. Genetic engineering should be, and can be used, because we can change the future by using it, we can ensure that future generations won’t have to deal with genetic disease, because we eliminated them, or being unintelligent.

Genetic Engineering could harm future generations, our society and us. Making babies and making sure their child won’t have any birth defects may lead to everyone being “perfect”, which is not the way the world is. B. Humans can be engineered to live longer, live around the age 100 to 150 years old, to live a life without disorders, which may take a little longer from them to achieve this, but this may cause over population. Main Point 2 A.

It is very important to name, challenge, and question oppressive language because it is concerning to teachers and students, it’s offensive to people's identities, and it uses lots of sexism. In addition, people don't realize how bad the language we use is due to the normalization of our vocabulary in the world and in society.

Right now other options exist such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to help families who genetic vulnerabilities to debilitating disease. In fact the PHG foundation published an article by Dr. Philippa Brice in which she focuses on PGD versus genetic modification. Brice quotes a stem-cell biologist, Dr. Paul Knoepfler, who says, “[i]n a match up of say CRISPR versus PGD, PGD would win almost 100% of the time as by far the best choice to tackle genetic disease” (citation needed). She also provides a quote from a BBC interview with Dr. Marcy Darnovsky, from the Center for Genetics and Society, who says, “There is no persuasive medical reason to manipulate the human germline because inherited genetic diseases can be prevented using embryo screening techniques, among other means’” (citation needed). There fact alone that we have other options for families who fear the possibility of genetic defects in their offspring refutes the haste to extinguish disease for future generations. We can’t allow emotional rhetoric to cloud our judgement. How long have humans existed so far without genetic modification? Why is there such a rush now? This is not simply a religious debate of “Are we playing

Their contrasting arguments bring up the question, is it our moral obligation to eradicate detrimental illnesses for future generations at the cost of opening the door to selective gene editing. Darnovsky finalizes her argument saying, “…opening the door to one kind of germline modification, we are likely opening it to all kinds. Permitting human germline gene editing for any reason would likely lead to its escape from regulatory limits, to its adoption for enhancement purposes, and to the emergence of a market-based eugenics that would exacerbate already existing discrimination, inequality, and conflict.” We can assume that future generations will get to reap the benefits of gene editing, but the benefits of gene editing are at the moment unknown which poses a major problem. If genetic engineering proves to be successful at the human level, a door to all kinds of opportunities opens up for parents. And this can lead to selective gene editing, where parents can essentially pick the traits they want their child to have. This obviously in no way guarantees ultimate life success of the child once it is born, but it certainly creates inequality among children whose parents couldn’t afford to edit their child’s genetic traits. Thus comes the upsurge of the “designer baby”. Unless strict regulation on genetic engineering exists after its successful experimentation on human embryos, it would be unethical for this sort of engineering to be allowed. Selective genetic engineering would only decrease the diversity among people and the opportunity to be social equals would diminish. After the successful eradication of genetic diseases such as Alzheimer’s and cancer, it would only be ethical on behalf of governments internationally to ban selective genetic editing and heavily regulate

Because of those concerns, the government right now put heavy restriction on experiment with gene editing. It would take away the chance to cure many children and benefit for the society any many different way. Birth defects are “contributing substantially to health care costs and the nation’s burden of disease, illness, and long-term disability” (Centers, 2015). With gene treatments, we can avoid those cost and change the future for many

Genetic editing could save many people’s lives. For example the Chinese modified genes to try to eliminate a fatal blood disease (text 2, paragraph 4). Scientists refer to this type of gene editing as “gene therapy”(text 2, paragraph 3). Some think gene editing is unethical or “strange” (text 2,paragraph 3), although it will save the lives of many. Scientists are working on eliminating malaria and other harmful diseases (text 3, paragraph 1). Banning this practice would not allow scientists to help cure and make the human race more healthier.

Language affects people. Teenagers often use their own jargon and feel like they belong. Jonathan Winawer said that Russians can distinguish different blue color well than people who use other languages. This is because there are more words about blue color in Russian, it helps to recognize different colors of blue. Also, you've heard about the results of an experiment that onions that continue to sound bad have faded and the onions that keep on saying good things grew well. Language is even affecting plant life. And I wonder how language can influence dystopia.