them.
6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can.
I think the biggest fallacy is that the writer doesnt give enough reasoning why all these possible
enhancements are needed. He briefly addresses that doctors want to help their patients but no details
beyond that.
7. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her
thesis? Why?
Michael J. Sandel impressed me as the most empirical of the two in presenting his thesis. To me
Sandel was more organized and detailed in his presentation. He seemed to be more passionate about
what he wanted to tell you too. I felt like Sandel had a point he wanted to make and he made it more
clearly.
8. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? Is so, why do they have these biases?
I believe that everyone has biases towards one thing or another including these writers. There are
many factors that create these biases including how you grew up, your interests, what you study, your
role models, personal experience, and many other things can create a bias.
9. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is the most correct now that you have reviewed
the material in these articles? Why?
I feel that Michael J. Sandel on the Yes side is the most correct. I think that medical
enhancements are coming and that they should be used to cure diseases and heal the sick and injured. I
believe that mankind is always wanting more and to improve themselves. These enhancements will
take away from our individualism and what makes us unique. I am religious and feel that God has
created us all the way we are for a reason and we shouldnt mess with that on such a big scale. There is
a difference from healing someone from being wounded to engineering someone to be 7 feet tall.
Being able to pick the sex of your baby is basically slapping God in the face and robs us of having a
baby we are supposed to have. Finally, people are greedy and these future enhancements will end up
being corrupted in one way or the other.