Designer Babies

In these modern times, the main discussion centered on human genetics involves the ethics of genetic engineering. If we could improve the human race by adding a few genes here and there, does that make it ethically right to purposely “improve the human gene pool” and “breed better people?” (Darnovsky). At the same time, “breeding better people,” sounds unethical. If we thought of genetic engineering as improving the qualities in humans, such as disease or disability, then would that make manipulating the human genome DNA more ethical?

Krautberger, Gernot. "Science Clarified." Genetic Engineering. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2012.

Koepsell the associate editor of Free Inquiry and a professor of philosophy at the State University of New York said, “some religious critics perceive genetic engineering as ‘playing God’ and object to it on the grounds that life is sacred and ought not to be altered by human intention” (Koepsell). I believe there are some circumstances human life should be allowed alterations: to prevent disease, to prohibit certain family traits that could be detrimental, or to better the chance of a fetus’ survival. Genetic engineering is a way to help create stronger beings and what a better way to use the scientific knowledge we’ve been blessed with than progressing a future child’s life.
There are, however, certain instances when I do not believe genetic engineering is considered fair. For instance, a parent decides they want their child to excel as a basketball star, so they elect for traits dealing with height, strength, and athleticism (Koepsell). This genetically enhanced individual will not have to train as hard as the most motivated, unenhanced person. Their mutated traits will be their super power over society, and the rest of us unenhanced individuals will be competing in a world full of enhanced intelligence, athleticism, and physical attractiveness.

"Evolution Machine: Genetic Engineering on Fast Forward." Extremum Spiritum. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2012.

Conger, a science writer on the staff of the Stanford School of Medicine's Office of Communication and Public Affairs, bluntly said, “why bother trying to improve ourselves, anyway? Aren’t we already at the top of our game?” Genetic engineering should be used sparingly. To prevent disease and aide in producing a healthy fetus are ways one can use genetic engineering to benefit; however genetically enhancing for cosmetic purposes or creating a “super race” is taking advantage of the system.  

"What is Genetic Engineering??"Mr Covington's Science Wiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012.

Works Cited

Conger, Krista. "Parents Should Be Free to Use 'Designer Baby' Technologies." Reproductive Technologies. Ed. Clay Farris Naff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "As Good As It Gets?" Stanford Medicine Magazine (Summer 2006). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.
Darnovsky, Marcy. "Humans Have a Right to Be Born Without Genetic Manipulation." Human Genetics. Ed. Noël Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Human Rights in a Post-Human Future." Rights and Liberties in the Biotech Age: Why We Need a Genetic Bill of Rights. Ed. Sheldon Krimsky and Peter Shorett. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.
"Evolution Machine: Genetic Engineering on Fast Forward." Extremum Spiritum. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2012.

Koepsell, David. "Genetic Engineering Is Not Unethical." Genetic Engineering. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego:      Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Ethics of Genetic Engineering: A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy." Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy, 2007. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 28 Oct. 2012.

Krautberger, Gernot. "Science Clarified." Genetic Engineering. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2012.

"What Is Genetic Engineering??" Mr Covington's Science Wiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012.

The Grand Canyon: Fate for the Feds or the Arizonians

          This November a major proposition is on the ballot for the citizens of Arizona.  If passed, it will transfer control of a significant geographical monument to the state. Proposition 120 will transfer control of the Grand Canyon to the citizens of the state of Arizona, raising a question of whether this landmark will be better conserved in the hands of the state, or the federal government.

            This initiative was passed by the republican controlled legislature and, if approved, will amend the state constitution and transfer to Arizona the Grand Canyon and all of its “ air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife, and other natural resources.”  Many believe this has become an issue due to the recent movement called the “Sagebrush Revolt” in which Western states are attempting to repossess federal land (Weber).

            The proposition transfers to the state millions of acres, excluding Indian reservations and military installations; however, the Grand Canyon is the prized possession.  State Senator, Sylvia Allen, says this proposition should be passed because the federal government has broken its promise of returning some of the lands to the Western states.  This has restricted the ability to attract new businesses and jobs, which increases revenues to fund public education (Weber). As you can see below the Grand Canyon would not only help the economy of Arizona, but it is also a beautiful landmark they hold.

Photo: Jackson, Stephen. Web. 31 Oct. 2012

          Many question the proposition since Arizona can barely fund and take care of its state parks.  They will need money to take care of and protect the additional 25 to 30 million acres they will acquire if this bill passed.  This land encompasses anywhere from 34% to 41% of the state (Reuters). Many do not know how they can handle all this land but Sylvia Allen disagrees.  She says, “ We do not have the ability in rural Arizona to provide jobs for our citizens due to the fact that the federal government controls all the land.  It leaves us at a great disadvantage.  We’re not able to bring in industry and provide jobs that we need” (Weber).

          For some, they believe more local control over federal lands will provide the state with additional revenue sources.  This proposition can only bring Arizona a flourishing economy and pride in the citizens who care for this marvelous landmark. The Arizona voters will determine if they can take on the responsibility of properly conserving this landmark come this November election.       

Works Cited

Jackson, Stephen. Web. 31 Oct. 2012.

Rueters, Thomson. Arizonans to vote on taking Grand Canyon, other lands from federal control. NBC News. 23 Oct. 2012. 31 Oct. 2012.

Weber, Joseph. Arizona to vote on taking control of Grand Canyon. Fox News. 24 Oct. 2012. 31 Oct. 2012.