In arguments there are three major types of classifications, forensic, deliberative, and epideictic. An example of a forensic argument would be the article “The Assassination in Israel That Worked” by Roger Cohen for the New York Times. “Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering” by Chris Seck for the Stanford Review, and “Crowd Fill Washington For Inauguration” by Carol Morello, Allison Klein, and Donna St. George for the Washington Post are great examples of deliberative and epideictic arguments, respectively. I will examine the article by Chris Seck, specifically for it’s qualifications of a deliberative argument. In this article, Seck is examining both sides of genetic engineering issue. The article states that Seck is an undergraduate
...he reader, which creates many questions about the particular subject of genetic engineering. It also conveys the authors idea, that we really need to be careful about what we do with this new scientific marvel, effectively to the reader, thus raising the reader's awareness about genetic engineering.
In this case, when individuals argue about events from the past, they make use of judicial rhetoric and forensic argument assists individuals in determining who did something rather than what individuals are supposed to do (Sheard, 1996).
Sarah Ly is a PhD candidate at the University of Pennsylvania where she studied biomedical sciences and neurobiology and at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory where part of her work involved genes and genomics. Ly received the National Merit Scholarship as well as the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship. In her article, “Ethics of Designer Babies,” author Sarah Ly explains that the concept of in vitro fertilization has become a reality and with that, genetically engineered embryos are evolving, thus many people believe regulations are needed. The article states that many believe it should just be used when the child is at risk of a genetic disease and should not be used to permit parents to decide the fate of their children by picking traits.
The ethics behind genetic engineering have been discussed and argued for years now. Some arguing points often include competitive advantages, playing God, and the polarization of society, but Sandel takes a different approach in explaining society’s “unease” with the morality of genetic engineering. Broadcasted through several examples throughout the book, Sandel explains that genetic engineering is immoral because it takes away what makes us human and makes us something else. He states that by taking control of our genetic makeup, or the makeup of our progeny, we lose our human dignity and humility. Our hunger for control will lead to the loss of appreciation for natural gifts, whether they are certain talents, inherited from the genetic lottery, or the gift of life itself.
Lucassen, Emy. “Teaching the ethics of genetic engineering” Journal of Biological Education 29 (Summer 1995): 129-139.
“The Remastered Race” is an article written by Brian Alexander a journalist who won the John Bartlow Martin award for Public interest journalism from Northwestern University’s Medill school of Journalism. His work has also appeared in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Esquire and Wired amongst others. The Remastered race is an article about genetic engineering and how to use it to the advantage of humans. Throughout this article, Alexander mentioned different ways Eugenics has evolved from time and how it is still evolving but stated his main concern as to how far geneticist should go in reference to engineering embryos.
Savulescu, Julian. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Human Beings.” Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Ed. David Kaplan. 2nd ed. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield, 2009. 417-430.
Science and technology are rapidly advancing everyday; in some ways for the better, and in some, for worse. One extremely controversial advance is genetic engineering. As this technology has high potential to do great things, I believe the power genetic engineering is growing out of control. Although society wants to see this concept used to fight disease and illness, enhance people 's lives, and make agriculture more sustainable, there needs to be a point where a line is drawn.
In order to understand the arguments for and against genetic enhancement, one must first understand what it entails. In 19...
These articles compare and contrast the pros and cons of genetic engineering. Both articles are representations of the scientific and ethical reasons. First article implements the scientific reasons. Being able to save a person from a genetic disorder can save them from a life
Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing god?: Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. University of Chicago Press.
Wheale, Peter R. and Ruth M. McNally. Genetic Engineering: Catastrophe or Utopia? St. Martin's Press, NY; 1988.
"Are we the United States of America or the Democratic/Republican States of America. Or maybe the Black/White States of America. And even the Christian/Muslim States of America. We are not the United States until a man can walk out his front door, say hi to his gay neighbor, converse about the weather with his black friend, ride a commuter train sitting next to a Muslim, go to work for a female boss that gets paid the same as her male predecessors, then come home to a wife that he respects. That's the United States of America.
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
Coker, Jeffrey Scott. "Genetic Engineering Is Natural and Should Be Pursued." Genetic Engineering, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,