Patty Kittrell

Taking Sides
Topic 3 (Genetic Enhancement)
M,W,F 11:00A
10/19/15

1. Genetic enhancement is not favored on the Yes side. As it reaches moral gray areas it is
best to never explore genetic enhancement to prevent possible societal issues. When there
are advancements in healthcare, such as the controvertial use of human growth hormone
for abnormally short kids, people will use them to construct a more perfect human being.
Choosing the sex of a child and implementing specific genetic material to change a
persons physical traits can also be very harmful to the child who did not have a choice in
this matter.
2. The No side says that assuming we will even find exactly what gene or physical trait
we want to change, who says society will be so quick to agree with the methods and
procedures and agree that genetic intervention is even something they would agree with
or be open to as a possible treatment.
3. On the Yes side, genetic enhancements are commonly pushed in sports and poses a
potential threat on a societal level for developing kids in school and private sports, as
well as the age old question, should performance enhancing drugs be allowed in sports?
Another fact on the Yes side, is that academic careers are heavily pushed in youth by
parents. There are many possible outcomes associated with morality with the use of
genetic enhancements to create the perfect child.

4. On the No side, it is said that when a new controversial aspect of heath care is being
explored, many times, the intention was not found. For example, improvements in
neonatal care cause more complications associated with low birth weight survivors.
Another fact on the No side is that people still refuse immunizations for their children
everyday. It is possible that a section of the population will be effected by the negative
effects associated with possible outcomes of advancements in genetic enhancement
science.
5. I think that the Yes side is mostly unscientifically based. Most arguments are based on
assumption, and I think it is mostly biased. It goes in depth with many examples of how
kids, parenting, and society will be affected.
6. I think the No side is broad, and supports science, and the further exploration of
science. It encourages education to prevent the negative outcomes. If people are educated
to know that good parenting comes from loving the child for their traits and the natural
way they were born. It also states that healthcare and treating the sick only glorifies
humanity because people are able to survive these diseases and grow from that and get
better, sometimes better than they were before and go on to do great things for society.
7. On the Yes side, a fallacy is that people will follow societal trends for the worst, and
use genetic enhancement for evil.
8. A possible fallacy of the No side is that is offers education and awareness as its only
problem solver to the Yes side. I dont think that simply a strive for the world to just
understand is the best or only way to prevent the misuse of genetic enhancements and to
avoid possible moral gray areas in testing.

9. I think the No side is correct. It is always important to study science as it speaks to

humans on a basic human level. It is the fundamental building blocks to humanity,
society, and the world today. Assuming that science is bad because is uncovers
information that can be used for evil is some ignorant bigotry.
10. The No side, supporting exploration in science, was the more empirical side with
more facts and logical statements to support education, learning, exploration, and
technology.
11. The less empirical Yes side was very assuming that society would be quick to use
genetic enhancements and ruin the integrity of science and healthcare. Possibly Michael
J. Sandel was biased to think that genetic enhancements would ruin the Worlds children
because his parents wanted him to succeed and they pressured him to take mind altering
drugs to enhance his cognitive capabilities, or he was forced steroids for football practice
so he could get into a good college.