Response to Yen's Opening Statement

I decided to respond to Yen’s opening statement. As I was reading I saw we had the same viewpoint, so instead of rebutting to him I am going to respond to him by giving him tips about what he should add to his statement. The first thing that I noticed was that he had linked the sources in the statement, but they didn’t have anything to do with what he was talking about. For instance one thing he talked about was a baby who was cured of cancer by genetic mutation, but the link didn’t say anything about a baby being cured of cancer. I’m not sure if he put the wrong link or did it on purpose, but next time he should look over what he has done so far. Another thing I noticed was that he didn’t have a list of his sources at the end. He really needs to make sure he does that, or he could be caught for plagiarizing other peoples work. I don’t think he did it on purpose this time, and I was probably an accident.

I was reading the rest of his piece when I came across this. “First of all, it is the parent’s decision on how they raise their child, whether being hard on them school wise, or letting them decide their future, etc. In the same way, they should have all the right to mutate their children’s genetics. If the family is ready to put their child through genetic customizations, then they should. The same should be held for such actions on the physical appearance of the child (but I think this is completely unethical. Children should be born the way they were meant to, not the way they are artificially made. Their appearance is one of the factors what shapes their life, and changes of that may result in a completely different person.)” I don’t think that this could have been written any better because I agree with everything he said. All of his points were on target, from children being born naturally, to ‘changes may result in a completely different person’. All he needs to work on is his citation and he should have a solid statement.

Opening Statement

I think that parents should definitely be able to modify their child’s DNA because it is their choice. Right now people are allowed to change the DNA to avoid mental illness and birth defects. If they already have the technology I see no reason why it shouldn’t be used. I was reading the news when I came across a couple from Australia who had a miscarriage. They saw the baby’s face and instantly fell in love. They wanted to have another girl who looked just like her, so they tried again. This time they got twin boys. Since they wanted a girl the aborted the twins. I am against abortion, but I understand their view point. They want to use a program called IVF which will basically make sure they get a girl. However in their state IVF is illegal. This is why I think that modifying DNA should be legal. If they really want a girl this bad I think they should be able to. People might say that altering DNA is wrong because birth and perception should be natural. I say that it is the parent’s choice, but they need to have some sort of license that signifies that they are capable to make the right decision. I also think it should be up to the parents because it’s not like the fetus can choose for itself. In the case of the Australian couple I think they should be able to use IVF because the wife says she will become depressed if she doesn’t have a girl. If this is causing so much trouble in their lives there is no reason that they shouldn’t be able to use it. Expanding our scientific knowledge is a good thing. One day we might even be able to manipulate our DNA while we are middle aged to just switch up our lives because to be honest sometimes I get bored of being myself. We need to embrace the new world that we are living in and things are just going to keep changing.

Sources:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/08/couple-aborts-twin-boys-because-they-want-a-girl-using-ivf/

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7222

Response to Billy's Post

When I was looking for something to respond to this week I stumbled upon Billy’s post about global warming. I thought the point he gave were very valid and made sense. Here is what he said:

“So is global warming caused by humans or is it natural? I think that global warming is caused by humans. In the past there have been cold and warm weather periods and some scientists believe that it’s natural, but most scientists say that humans are the main cause. In recent graphs and scales CO2 levels seem to be rising up off the charts and the temperature seems to follow along meaning the more Co2 in the air the higher the temperature. We Americans live in a place were industries and companies are big in money and in pollution. For years, scientists have been arguing about this but no one can find the correct answer. I say we don’t take any chances that whether it is natural or not and we should stop polluting the air and drive more eco-friendly cars to save this planet.”

All of his points were great. For example when he says he thinks global warming is caused by humans it immediately made sense to me. If human never existed or they used fewer resources from the earth, the earth wouldn’t be as bad as it is now. Two scientist, Raymond Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, did a study that proven over the last 1000 years temperatures have raised a large amount compared to all of the years before that. They also saw that the greenhouse gases were the main problem. I believe there are ways to stop global warming, but we have to start doing it now if it is going to work. The first step we have to do is produce less garbage. If we all produced less garbage that would be more space that isn’t a landfill and that is less gas that goes into the air from garbage trucks. Just doing that could help grandly. Another thing you can do is turn off lights or appliances when you aren’t using them. I remember reading somewhere that if you turn of lights enough power is saved to power a small town for a day or something like that. The point is if we treat the world right it will be here for many years to come.

free topic

I couldn’t think of what to write of for the longest time and then it hit me. So I have decided to write about the atom bombs that were dropped on two cities in Japan. I want to talk about if they were necessary. In my own beliefs I believe dropping an atom bomb on a whole city of innocent people is ridiculous. After seeing picture of what those things do to people it just make you think how horrible it is. Instead of dropping an atomic bomb they could have used regular bombs which are much more humane. In my opinion dropping something that devastating on such a small place is kind of like putting firecrackers in an ant hill. It is just overkill.

Some people might try to counter this argument in a couple of ways. First they might say,” look what they did to Pearl Harbor. They deserved it.” I disagree with this because yes, they did attack us first, but as Gandhi said,” an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”. This is basically saying that if people are in a conflict they will both encounter pain and they both would have better if they just left the conflict in the first place. The second argument would be,” they deserve it because of what they did in Nanking”. Yes what they did in Nanking was horrible and disgusting, but if we do what we did are we any better? The answer is no. There are better ways to solve problems than through violence, but they don’t always work. My point is that it is not okay to do what we did.

I know many people might disagree with me and others will be behind me. I hope this has made you at least think differently than you have before.