Rhetorical Analysis Of Choosing Our Genes By Gregory Stock

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.

In your excerpt, “Ethics and the New Genetics,” you presented the discovery of the advancement in genetic technology. You mentioned how scientist are able to change the genetic makeup of living things. Another key point presented in your article is the idea of cloning, where one is therapeutic while the other is reproductive. The article discussed that the advancement in technology and genetics should only be used to benefit people. However, you believed that using these advancements in the wrong way can leave a long term consequence to the present and future of the human society. (The Dalai Lama).

2. The most effective argument in his essay is when he says “Millions are suffering. This is precisely the argument that research-cloning advocates are deploying today to allow them to break the moral barrier of creating.” In this argument he points out how the research advocates can't be trusted because a year ago, they assured they only wanted to do stem cell research on discarded embryos. He also points out that the research advocates create new excuses in order to keep breaking the moral barrier. In addition, they promised to only grow human clones only to the blastocyst stage. In other words, they would not create a human embryo in the laboratory. Today, they are campaigning hard to permit research for the creation of human embryos. This shows us that the research advocates are not keeping their promise because they are campaigning in order to create human embryos. The author's

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

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

Darnovsky suggests that although many genetic scientists support germline engineering because it can potentially resist transfer of hereditary mutations, these scientists fail to mention that preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) does the same effect in allowing a technician to screen embryos for traces of diseases and simply deliver any non-infected embryos to the mother’s body. In conjunction, Darnovsky endorses the alternative of prenatal screening with the option of abortion to avoid the use of in vitro fertilization. Cohan, however, observes that it would dubious for the Court to restrict a woman’s reproductive rights to use germline technology while people are already using reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and surrogacy. He asserts that the right to use these reproductive technologies is protected by law, and implies that it would be hypocritical for the government to restrict use of germline technology while these other reproductive technologies are still in effect.

In the essay, titled "Building Baby from the Genes Up?" Ronald M. Green proclaims his approval of genetic selection and extraction of human genes. He gives reasons that support his outlook on the matter, that this will be useful to civilization. Ronald M. Green is in violation of several ethical codes, with his view on genetic modification. I am against genetically modified humans, and I will explain to you, why this is my stance on the subject. First, I will summarize exactly what Ronald M. Green says in his article about his view on genetic modification and why practicing it is vital. Second, I will describe research

Technology is developing every day. The automobile was revolutionary, and then they introduced the plane. Cell phones can connect us with people around the world. Self-driving cars are in development today! Revolutionary inventions are the expectation nowadays, but a new discovery is sparking controversial questions in the science world. Is it acceptable to alter a baby’s genes to make it a better human? Genes are the instruction book of the body, and they determine everyone’s attributes and how people act in their environment (Medical News Today). Some people say that everyone is different for a reason, and others think customizing the genes of children was meant to happen. Altering an infant’s genes is acceptable to prevent hereditary diseases, but the line should be drawn at making an artificially smarter, stronger, or prettier human.

The article, “Unnatural Selections” by Barry Schwartz is an inspirational article that shows us all of the default choices that we take for granted in this world. He uses several examples to help give you the overall impression of the article. Along with the examples, Barry creates logic and emotion by the writing style he uses. He creates logic and emotion in his article by using persuasive elements such as evidence and reasoning. Barry Schwartz is a highly known professor of psychology, and has written several books. Therefore, we can be convinced that we are able to trust him as an author. He makes valid points and he does a magnificent job of persuading the readers into believing what he says with his examples.

Stock uses ethos, pathos, and logos in his essay to varying degrees of success. Stock starts off using logos. He is showing the reader that gene alteration can be very beneficial to individuals and society. Stock uses this to good effect, he provides a great argument for gene alteration being a good thing. The only thing that this section lacks is a citation of any sort to where he is getting this information. Next, he uses pathos which was used less effective and probably the least effective of his persuasive techniques. His word choice and how he used these words made him seem irate on what America has decided to do. With this he may come off as ill-tempered and quick to draw conclusions on certain things. He also uses ethos, when talking about the morality of being able to choose a children’s genes and what makes us human. He does acknowledge the issues that might arise from being able to use gene alteration and the effects that it can have on kids in the future. He validates the other sides point then quickly states that the problems that may arise from this will be outweighed by benefits that it can bring. He also addressed the topic of humanity and how such treatments may affect the proception of it. He provides a clear and almost inspirational counter point to ease any worries that people who oppose gene alteration may have.

The use of genetic engineering shouldn't give parents the choice to design their child because of the act of humans “playing” God, the ethics involved in interfering with human lives, and the dangers of changing human genes. Because of recent technological advances in "designer babies", parents

What if there was a future where having a child was as simple as selecting desirable genes out of a catalogue? A future where technology granted parents the ability to design and perfect their children. The notion of “Designer Babies” seems absurd; however the rapid development of technology and the potential of gene manipulation could make this a startling reality.

However, Stock states that “prevention of disease will likely be the initial goal of germinal choice” and that embryo modification could “[Reduce] the incidence of cancer and heart disease” in further generations. It appears that the use of bioenhancement (which germinal choice falls under) would help ensure that less people need to be healed or restored to health, due to the fact that they would be genetically predisposed to less health problems.

Science is now able to better improve human health and safety thanks to the advanced modern technology and medicine that are available. Yet with today's technology being implemented into science comes the questions of human morality, or bioethics. One of the bioethics debates is on the coined term “Designer babies”; on if or where society should draw the line on genetically altering our children before they are born. With the technology able to stop hereditary diseases, the scientific development’s are able to change the child’s “eye color, hair color, social intelligence, right down to whether or not your child would have a widow’s peak” before the child is born. From the options on choosing whether or not your child will look or act a certain

The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.