Persuasive argument essay

The persuasive argument essay was the most challenging. I say that not because of the difficulty of the paper but more for personal reasons. I knew that it was our last so I needed to prove something to myself. I believe through this paper I finally picked good topic sentences. I learned as a writer that I must slow down and stop over thinking things. As a student, I realized that we are all at different levels but can always learn from one another.

My number one problem is always topic sentences. I believe I finally got it right. The reason I pushed pass this was with the help during peer review. During peer review I realized that the structure of my paper was off-set and confusing because of where my topic sentences were located.

Writing this essay made me realize how back and forth you can be when you lack certain aspects of a topic. I must’ve switched from being for genetic modification to not at least 6 times. The funny part of it all is I thought for sure I was totally for it. I believe that my decision was solid given all the info I researched. What helped me the most though was just discussing my topic with others to find opposing views or strong agreements.

Proposal- Genetic Modification

The topic I intend to address is, "whether or not we should have the option to choose which characteristics our children carry?" The battle between benefits and ethics is what is stopping us from genetic advancements.  This is a very important issue that needs to be addressed because of the multiple benefits it can deliver.  The major benefit, having the ability to “get rid” of a gene carrying a disorder that causes a less satisfactory life. For example, no one would consider a child with Angelman syndrome to be a positive thing, with genetic modification this could be avoided. It would not only benefit the child but also the parent’s mental state and finances over time. Another benefit, many are excited to hear about is the ability to choose our offspring’s sex. One of the downfalls is people could also use this technology to “enhance” their child to a “superior being”. These enhancements can be targeted towards a child’s height, intelligence, strength and more (Holtug 1). Many argue that “we” as a society would not be able to control ourselves over having the ability to enhance children. Simon M. Outram said it best, “Evolution is a form of genetic engineering, but evolution is “morally blind” to what it does.” We tend to abuse things, without recognition.  I believe possible outside readers would include other peers interested in human genome. My position on the topic is still undecided but I am leaning more towards it not being an alright option for parents to have a say to which genetic genes their children carry. My introduction will include my thesis statement along with some basic knowledge on the topic that lead me to research the issue. I believe I will continue my paper by discussing the benefits of genetic modification versus the downside because that is where I am leaning towards and I think it will help build into my conclusion.  The thought of the ratios between sexes becoming too uneven is concept that Sparrow addresses in his article, “Human Enhancement And Sexual Dimorphism” and I think it would help me support the downside of choosing ones characteristics. The controversy between morals and justice is something I want to make a main point. I was considering including all the different questions that arise from research and peer reviews of the information. What would happen if ratios between sexes became too uneven? How much power should one have in medical decisions? What makes something a genetic treatment versus genetic enhancement? Who determines such decisions? I would like to make some of these questions a main topic to discuss. My research didn’t lead me to many solutions for the issues but I did find one that sticks, adoption. Yes, it is amazing that technology has advanced so far that we can remove a genetic disease before birth but people with genetic diseases in their family history also have the chance for adoption. Not only would this be less costly and beneficial to many suffering children globally but it is also way less controversial and logically sound. I would assume many would argue that a child not having a disability would live a better life but I could refute it by saying a child with a disability’s life is still worth living. I would also argue that considering how costly it is how one would decide which disorders are considered “genetic therapy” vs “genetic enhancements.

 

 

 

 

Work Cited

Baird, Stephen L. "Designer Babies: Eugenics Repackaged Or Consumer Options?(Cover                Story). Technology Teacher 66.7 (2007): 12-16. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21               Apr. 2014.

 HOLTUG, NILS. "Equality And The Treatment-Enhancement Distinction." Bioethics 25.3 (2011): 137-            144. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

 Outram, Simon M. "Review Of Allen Buchanan, Better Than Human : The Promise And Perils

            Of Enhancing Ourselves." American Journal Of Bioethics 12.3 (2012): 43-45. Academic             Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

SPARROW, ROB. "Human Enhancement And Sexual Dimorphism." Bioethics 26.9 (2012): 464-

            475. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

Wasserman, David, and Adrienne Asch. "Selecting For Disability: Acceptable Lives, Acceptable             Reasons." American Journal Of Bioethics 12.8 (2012): 30-31. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31             Mar. 2014.

    

 

                       

 

 

Room to Improve

The most important thing that I learned from writing a synthesis essay were the strategies for shaping the analytical section of the essay. I learned as a writer that I still have plenty room to grow. Through this process I learned how many elements one topic can have. As a student, I realized how much time needs to set aside for great research.

The thing I struggled with the most was trying to choose which research to include in my essay. I  believe choosing such a new topic made it a little more difficult. There were so many things I wanted to include but couldn't because of word count. The next time I will pick a less complex issue to discuss.

Peer review, this time around gave me that "ah! now I see" moment. It made me realize how much I have grown, but also how much I still need to grow. Reading my peers' papers also helped me to see how many angles I could address my topic. The biggest benefit of all was seeing how well my peers gave examples of topic sentences following the thesis because it is something I need to improve on.

Build-A-Child

     The human body has always intrigued me throughout life. Last month while searching the web, I came across a very interesting blog about genetic engineering. Genetic engineering also known as genetic modification is the process in which manipulation on an organism's genome is performed. It is quite impressive how much we have learned about the human genome over the past few years. The more knowledge I gain about genetic engineering, the more questions I have. Imagine a world where you handpicked which genetic characteristics your child would have. Do you think we should even have the option to choose which characteristics our children carry?

     The article "Human Enhancement And Sexual Dimorphism" written by Rob Sparrow takes an in depth look at the different reasoning behind choosing your children. He brings up the debate over human enhancement concerns that "the ethics of interventions designed to improve the lives of those who are 'enhanced'." The one consequence that stuck with me was the thought of the ratios between the sexes becoming too uneven could drastically change the quality of life. A good point he makes about the benefit of choosing your child is if the technology is available and you have a choice why not choose what you and your partner agree upon?

     After reading Sparrows article I found myself curious about where morals had a role in human enhancement.  Simon Outram's "Review of Allen Buchanan, Better than Human: The Promise and Perils of Enhancing Ourselves1" brings up many different moral challenging issues with genetic modification. A major issue with having such power is the ability to have self-control over what is morally right or wrong. Outram makes a good point when he says "Evolution is a form of genetic engineering, but evolution is "morally blind" to what it does." I definitely would agree, we are so intrigued by new technology that we don't pause and look at the possible effects on society. Outram talks about how expensive the procedure would end up costing in his article, and how only the rich would be able to afford it. Which would make it a world of inequality.

     Naturally after reading such an article based on the arguments against genetic manipulation, I needed to find some benefits to creating a perfect child. I came across the website bionetonline.org that covered the rights and wrongs for "creating designer babies". The ability to modify offspring would be extremely beneficial to those couples in which refuse to have children because of genetic diseases they carry. Preventing genetic diseases is something many have searched for throughout time and now it is possible. Should we let morals destroy this advancement or simply make laws against unethical behavior?

     David Wasserman and Adrienne Asch in the article "Selecting for Disability: Acceptable Lives, Acceptable Reasons" give great perspective of what might come if we decide to set limits on genetic engineering. The most important idea of setting limits is to balance the duty of physician and the patients’ rights. How would we decide what would be an unreasonably request versus a reasonable request when it comes to patients? Should all patients be treated differently? A good point made was that children no longer need to live with such disabilities. Should society have a choice as to whether our children should be born?

     I wanted to further explore the regulatory aspect of genetic engineering so I went to www.genome.gov for more info. In an article covering genetic enhancement I discovered that on September 11, 1997, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) met and could not decide whether it was ethical to perform experiments on healthy individuals so, the FDA regulates enhancements of any sort. They also state the lack of regulatory control the FDA has over genetic enhancements can become a problematic. How can one regulate something that is still being debated against and can be characterized in many different ways? This seems to be the ultimate issue at hand when it comes to genetic engineering, the lack of clarity.

     Should one be able to build-a-child? I have to admit, I am still on fence about the topic. My research has given me insight to the benefits and downsides of genetic engineering but yet I still lack the research of how this could impact the world as a whole. If we could decide as a whole what is ethical and what is not, I feel like this could greatly improve the quality of life, naturally extending it. If I were to continue my search I would like to see statistical research covering what society considered acceptable.

                                                                   Work Cited

SPARROW, ROB. "Human Enhancement And Sexual Dimorphism." Bioethics 26.9 (2012): 464-475. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

Wasserman, David, and Adrienne Asch. "Selecting For Disability: Acceptable Lives, Acceptable Reasons." American Journal Of Bioethics 12.8 (2012): 30-31. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

HOLTUG, NILS. "Equality And The Treatment-Enhancement Distinction." Bioethics 25.3 (2011): 137-144. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

Outram, Simon M. "Review Of Allen Buchanan, Better Than Human : The Promise And Perils Of Enhancing Ourselves." American Journal Of Bioethics 12.3 (2012): 43-45. Academic Search Premier. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/db_eth.htm

S.R. Reflection

The most important thing I have gained from writing a summary response paper was every aspect, considering this was my first. I've learned that it is best to brain storm as many ideas that you grasp from the reading prior to writing. As a writer I have learned that organization is key to a successful paper. As a student, I learned that it is important to pay attention to the details defined in the assignment.The most challenging aspect of writing my summary and response paper was trying to summarize such a large article with only 250 words. I tried my best to condense my paper down but still struggled at the end when choosing which sentences to keep. The next time I write a summary down, I will be sure to read the instructions, prior to beginning my summary.

The quote written by Norman Maclean fits perfectly with my experience writing my summary and response paper. When I originally read my article, I had a pretty good idea of what my response would look like but as I typed it out things changed. The more I wrote my response, the more angles I realized I had to respond to. When I typed out my final copy, I couldn't help but check back and change little things here and there.

Double-Entry Log Entry for the article "The Tipping Point"

3 March 2014

Gladwell, Malcolm. “ TheTipping Point.” 2000. Back to the Lake. Ed. Thomas Cooley.2^nd ed. New York: Norton, 2012. 675-81. Print.

New Yorker feature article in journalistic style.

 Malcolm Gladwell develops a great theory of how epidemics, other than diseases, in every-day life stem but he even admits others have other explanations for the events taken place.

The 3 characteristics of a social epidemic                                                   

-I disagree with this theory because where is the science behind this

“the idea that epidemics can rise and fall in one dramatic moment  ̶  is the most important, because it is the principle that makes sense of the first two”                  

                       

- I would like to argue how this does not apply to all occurrences ( athletes, music)

In the article Gladwell talks about how human behavior plays a role in social epidemics                                                                         

                          

-he doesn’t explain what can cause us to react in that certain manner

His story depicting the crime rate in New York                                            

-poorly explained, uses angle of vision

"Within five years, murders had dropped..."                    

                                

-what happened in those five years. 

Gladwell states that others have different reasoning behind the crime epidemic in New York                

 -makes me question the theory’s logic

He ends with two questions   

                                                                   

-made me question if his theory made any logical sense

The bigger picture

While reading Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point, I couldn’t help but think about what in my life could have been part of an epidemic or something close to it. The only thing that comes to mind is pregnancy in threes. In the article Gladwell speaks of epidemics having to be contagious, small but effective and happen abruptly, not gradually over time. The “baby bug” is definitely an easy thing to catch around pregnant women.

When I got pregnant, two of my friends were expecting as well. Although this was something I was always told about, it was never something I believed. Until a couple weeks after one of our friends delivered and I got a call from another friend informing me she was pregnant. It has been a continuous cycle of three pregnant friends ever since then.

I enjoyed Gladwell’s illustration of how the little things in life, may cause drastic changes. I couldn’t help but wonder what made him look in depth at the big picture to have even noticed the impact of the little things. And now I find myself asking, what have I missed by not looking? For instance, I would have never considered the impact snow could have on a puppy. Reading his story about his puppy, reminded me of mine. I remember my puppy, only five weeks old, reacting in the same manner in which he speaks. The only difference being that he saw how the little things could cause a bigger action. My eyes are now open and I will be paying more attention to the little things.