Press Briefing Room Red House Essay

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

Humanity is always trying to find a way to make themselves better. In recent news, this has led to a moral debate on weather or not using performance enhancing drugs for sports is morally correct or not. But, what if we had already manipulated the human body to make it better before we were even born? This is what Bill McKibben is referencing in his essay “Designer Genes”, on the morality and the biological arms race that could result when dealing with genetic manipulation and engineering. Though the cat isn’t out of the bag for genetic engineering he references what scientists are doing to skim the fine line that laws and ethics have laid down for us. McKibben’s audience is people who can make laws

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

Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary

Have you ever wondered what it would be like if everyone was smart, athletic, and beautiful? Well, recently, scientists have been experimenting with human DNA to make a “better” person. Mostly all of these embryos died off, and those who lived were the same as your average human (OI) . I do not believe it is morally right to use human DNA and genes to alter the appearance and abilities of people. Although people may argue otherwise, I know that this is not right.

Though excelling in means of pathos and ethos, the argument has a shortage of strong logical evidence such as statistics to convince wavering readers. The paper also lacks a strong thesis and structural argument, which is necessary when writing to both a wavering and hostile audience. Bauer's unique position as the mother of a daughter who has down syndrome would potentially allow her to exploit the emotion of readers specifically those in a wavering audience, though her stories are deficient of an in depth description of the pain and hardships contributed directly to the term retard. The argument contains factors that would allow it to be fully effective such as a touching personal experience and connection to both the media and the United States dilemma of discrimination and derogatory language. Despite including these positive aspects for a strong argument the author fails to seek a solution, take a fighting stand, and deliver a passionate

Although this may be the case in many areas of people’s lives today, it is not always beneficial, or necessary. People may have trouble deciding whether messing with human genes and cells is ethical. Designing the “perfect child” in many parent’s eyes becomes a harsh question of reality. The concept of a parent’s unconditional love for their child is questioned because of the desire to make their child perfect. If genetically engineering humans becomes a dominant medical option, people could have the chance to create their child however they like: from physical appearances, genetically enhanced genes, and the possibility to decide what a child thinks and acts, parents have access to designing their entire child. Naturally, people could be creating a super-human. Issues between different races, and eventually creating new prejudices against genetically engineered humans may increase. People may not realize how expensive genetic screening is at first. With only the rich being able to “enhance” their children, another social issue might occur, giving the world another type of people to outcast.

Picture a future where everyone is perfect, where judgment would not exist because no one is ugly, everyone is beautiful and flawless. In this “perfect” world each individual would be gifted in a specific category that they would excel in and go beyond what an average mundane could. This is a possible scenario we may encounter in the future if we allow the research of genetically- modified embryos (GM babies) to continue. Discussed by many, this topic has become increasingly popular. For some people this interests them in the sense that we can become the best versions of ourselves, simply by changing our genes. Another reason people support GM babies is that there is experiments that can prevent babies from being born with genetic health problems. Although the creation of these altered GM babies has some advantages, there are several problems that people must consider before we decide to go ahead with these plans. For example, genetic research will disrupt the natural order, which can lead to designer babies or GM babies born with side effects. The dangers of these experiments will greatly affect the world we live in. We must not rush into the practice of GM babies without letting the populations know the outcomes these GM babies can have in our society. Try to help everyone grasp the definition of GM babies and also explain how experiments on embryo can lead to designer babies.

In the article “The Life of a Disabled Child, From Taunts to Hate Crimes” in The New York Times Margaret Carlson uses pathos, logos, ethos and kairos to appeal to her readers about the pain that disabled children and their families feel because the segregation of disabled people is still occurring. Carlson wrote this article right after the Chicago hate crime to raise awareness about how disabled people are treated unfairly and why we need to protect them. Although Carlson includes many convincing emotional appeals in her article to connect with her readers through use of her personal narrative and the narrative of the Chicago attack. Carlson fails to add hard evidence and credibility which causes the reader to doubt her knowledge about the

The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to

No matter how old you are, you can do something huge by working together. I,Q: The White House, by Roland Smith is a mystery short story. Q, Angela, Boone, Ziv, and Malak are a team and are trying to stop a terrorist group called the ghost cell. By the end of the story, they learned that they can do anything no matter what age they are, as long as they work together. Q, Angela, Ziv, and Malak are only teens, but they helped save the White House and also many lives.

WASHINGTON, D.C - With this current session of congress wrapping up we look back at things that happened during this session and things that didn't happen. During this session over 50 pieces of legislation was submitted. Of those 50+ bills submitted only 4 have been signed into law so far. While there are still some bills awaiting senate vote results this number doesn't look like it’s going to go up any time during this session. Sure many of the bills were not the best bills and should have never been submitted in the first place but there are also some great pieces of legislation that were shot down during this session. I do agree mostly on how the House voted but if we turn our attention to the senate we see a sieve with mesh so fine it will not even

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

How does it sound to walk into the doctor’s office, choose what attributes you want your baby to have, and then having that exact baby 9 months later? Although this may seem quite harmless to most, the negative effects of designer babies are tremendous: the lack of diversity in our population, violation of a specific set of laws designed to protect humans, going against Christian views, and even destroying the roots of human nature. With genetic engineering biotechnology, such as Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (or CRISPR), new and unique altercations are being done to revolutionize many aspects of our lives. Along with astounding benefits that can come from these biotechnologies, many people have come up with crazy ideas, such as these designer baby ideas, that could be potentially harmful to our society.

Purpose: To inform readers of the effects the recent terrorist attacks have on society today.