Reflection Reading about genetic enhancement as an acceptable use of technology brought me to many points on both sides of the argument.

One side claiming it is ok, and the other side claiming the opposite. Personally, I believe that both sides have good arguments but genetic enhancement should be ok as long as it is carefully controlled. This reading helped me side more with the its ok side thanks to their points on benefits that the genetic enhancement can produce. Of course there is a line or a limit to the capabilities and we should monitor those with caution. On the yes side The major thesis of this article is that genetic enhancement is grinding with ethics and morals, and in doing so we are giving ourselves undue power and manipulation of natural nature, and that will in turn lead to a downfall 1. We have reproductive technology which allows control over the gender and traits a new baby will be. 2. We have technology called human growth hormone treatment which can enhance the growth of humans. 3. Many athletes today already engage in performance enhancing drugs (suggests that they will be eager for genetic enhancement. ) 1. In our day today science moves faster than moral understanding. 2. Enhancing genetic height will in time create two classes of human beings, the enhanced and the normal or non enhanced. The widespread use of steroids and other performance -improving drugs in professional sports suggests that many athletes will be eager to avail themselves of genetic enhancement Creating the two human classes, one who is genetically enhanced and the other who is normal The author says that the promise is that we may soon be able to treat and prevent a host of debilitating diseases. The predicament is that our newfound genetic knowledge may also enable us to manipulate our own nature- to enhance our muscles, memories, and moods; to choose the sex of our children, etc.. those cause and effect are based on genetic enhancement On the NO side The main thesis here is that man has traveled a long way and at each turning point we learn and grow and adapt; humans are in a never ending cycle of that and so we should embrace the genetic enhancement as a development for the progress of humans. 1. In the early 1970s immunizations and antibiotics were administered and practiced, and the effect was illnesses such as smallpox and polio were vanishing. 2. Francis Fukuyama wrote soon after the fall of the Berlin wall that history was at an end and that the world was entering a golden age. 3. Mankind has made undeniable progress in the aid of illnesses and cures. Howard Trachtman feels that physicians and bioethics have unrealistic views and apprehensions about prospective therapeutic interventions. 2. Howard believes that there should be no inherent reason to fear enhancement or limit its applications. Howard states that no enhancement or treatment has ever turned out to be all it was cracked up to be. The author stated that by embracing our capabilities in genetic enhancement, we can in turn better the quality of our lives. The yes side is more biased because of the many opinions and points brought into the argument that are biased. Not many facts presented and the main argument was against moral and ethics. The no side is more empirical because the argument consists of applicable points that include all parties, the human kind. He focuses on using past performances and accomplishments to attach them to the benefits that genetic enhancement has for us, as mankind. I side with the no side. I side with them because their argument made more sense to me. They applied their argument to the human species as a whole, and how we have progressed and expanded our science mostly for the betterment of our well being, and he showed that genetic enhancement can be another one of those benefactors for the human race.