Responce to Troy's Opening Statement

i was read Troy's interesting paragragh about how Parents should be able to modify their children's DNA, and i feel like i agree.  I especially like the idea that parents should have a lisense saying that they are sane, because pepole may be unfit to make the correct decision.  "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."  To add on, i think taht people should go through a  series of drug tests, to make sure they are not on drugs.  They should also check the parent's alcohol level to make sure that they aren't drunk and making a spur of the moment decision that might be wrong for them in the future. I really liked how troy made the paragraph more personal, with out so many sources.  this made me feel as though i have a connection with those parents.  Also, the informal writing style made me feel as though i was talking to him directly.  it enhanced my understanding and enjoyment of reading this piece.My favorite part of the essay was the beginning. He said: 

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.

This part was a perfect hook of the essay.  It made me feel connected to the piece on a level that just concrete details couldn't give me.  It was a wonderful aspect of DNA mutation.


One thing that i would point out to troy, is that he should put the sources and urls  and link the resources in the actual paragraph because it is more convenient for the reader.  Also, the paragraph should include more concrete ideas, because although i liked the personal level, i don't feel like it is strong enough by itself.  It would be a flawless essay if he was able to incorporate both parts.  Other than that, this paragraph was almost perfect.

Should parents modify their child's DNA?

Human DNA modification can drastically change a person's life. Genetic DNA could be used to create a "Designer Baby", where a parent has genetically customized their child's DNA to have certain genes and have none of another.  For example, a baby, was cured of cancer before he was able to walk because doctors were able to genetically mutate his genes.  They had to do this because his father's side of the family has had a long line of cancer and they didn’t want him to be diagnosed too.  They were lucky to be able to catch it earlier.  On the other hand, it could be used to change the appearance of a child, picking and choosing different traits.  It should be legal for a parent to choose whether or not they want to modify their child's genes (with some boundaries).  I believe that it is very beneficial to be able to change the genetics of one's baby, and  It would be okay for a parent to use this technology to prevent a genetic disease/ tumor but unethical for them to use it to change a looks of their child.

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.).  Restrictions and laws should be made to keep genetic modification safe.  People should never be able to use this new science to create a difficulty for the child in the future, such as causing a cancerous mutation.  A DNA modification pamphlet should be handed out to every single parent/ patient to read, so that they understand fully what the dangers, risks, and benefits of DNA modification really are.

Throughout reading the seven debates about whether or not one attends an elite school, it affects their future, two especially stuck out at me: Merit and Race, by Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, a professor of law at Indiana University, and What You Do vs. Where You Go, by Martha (Marty) O'Connell, the executive director of Colleges That Change Lives, a nonprofit organization.  Merit and Race caught my eye as the least persuasive, and relevant essay.  First of all, none of the statistics given were backed up with any concrete sources, and also, Fuentes-Rohwer based most of his debate on ethnicity, which had little to do with the actual prompt.  He barely mentioned his position: the higher ranking the college, the better, and backed it up with little, unverified information, and moved onto how colleges were important for minority groups to survive in the real world.  I do agree with what he was saying, that elite colleges help minorities get noticed when competing for a job, where the employer is racist of has stereotypes in mind while decide who the best candidate for the job is, But it has nothing to do with whether or not an elite college is better, and more beneficial for all. 

On the other hand, I really noticed Martha O’Connell’s debate about how it is how hard one works and how he carries himself into the next stage that determines how well he does in his lifetime.  I enjoyed the mention of the first hand experience with the high school kids that she displayed how many successful people didn’t come from elite colleges or colleges at all.  This made me feel as though I was on a more personal not with O’Connell than with any of the other writers.  Also, I liked that her writing over flowed, with an easy-to-read vocabulary.  It made it interesting to read without getting boring.  Instead of using information from research, she used her own, first hand data and data that is undeniable (the famous people not going to elite colleges, just working hard). She also added a layer of SAT scores to finish off the debate, and give some strong concrete detail.  Over all, it was an easy-to-read piece with a lot of great writing and points.

Rebuttal: Abortion- PRO Yen and Melissa

Rebuttal: Abortion PRO

Pro Opener:
Abortion is not an act of murder, it is rather a case of a decision on whether or not a baby should be kept for the better or struggle through life. We believe that abortion cannot be called murder because a fetus is not yet an infant until born. According to W.G. Derbyshire, PhD and senior lecturer at the University of Birmingham fetuses are unable to feel pain until birth. Having an abortion is a mothers choice. They should be able to decide the options in which can benefit the incoming child. For example, if a fetus is diagnosed with handicapped abilities and the parents are unable to afford certain necessities for the child, it is unfair to bring the baby into the world if it cannot be treated correctly.

Con Opener:
Our opponents, Alex and Victor, stated that abortion is murder of a child, and should not be legalized. (A fetus is not a child until born, also they are unable to feel pain until birth.)  Another one of their arguments was about the hypocrite oath in which doctors swear that they will not abort a baby. (This cannot be proven because there have been many cases of abortion.)  They also stated that 2 million parents are looking to adopt a child, while only 130 thousand are actually up for adoption.  They made an invalid statement that future heroes may be aborted, and never have the chance of contributing to the world(they have no proof of this because how many heroes of America have actually been aborted?).  Alex and Victor also referred to the Bible as one of their sources. We believe that it is an ineffective and unreliable way of collecting information. Religion is not a good way to get information. They responded to the Bible saying that abortion is not humane and should not be done. Yet this is not enough information to persuade us to make abortion illegal. The last statement they spoke about in their opener was that mothers who abort a child may have remorse about their action, and that it may lead to depression and/or suicide(we are debating on whether or not it should be legal, so it is the mothers decision on the abortion. if the government forces a mother into having a baby, it may affect the mother and/or the child in the future.)

Abortion should be legal -PRO Yen and Melissa

Pro: Abortion should be legalized

Mothers who wish to have an abortion should not be penalized for the mistakes that they have made in the past.  Stated by the Supreme Court, “It is a woman’s fundamental right to make the choice to have an abortion.”  Abortion cannot be considered murder because a fetus is not a human being. Having an abortion is relative to terminating a pregnancy, not a defenseless child.  Also, according to Stuart W.G. Derbyshire, a senior lecturer at the University of Birmingham, fetuses cannot feel pain until birth, therefore having an abortion will not harm the developing infant. Fear of unsafe procedures during abortions are common, but modern, professional abortions are quite safe;the numbers prove that: 1 in every 100,000 women die in an abortion, while an average of about 13 women die out of 100,000 from pregnancies.  Keeping abortions legal, prevents women from having to preform illegal, unsafe abortions, that may cause death and diseases because of unsterilized tools, or amateur experience; according to the World health Organization, over 68,000 deaths have occurred because of non-official abortions in countries that outlaws it. 1 in 800 babies are born with Down Syndrome, and 1 to 4000 males/1 to 8000 females are diagnosed with X syndrome; It is unfair to bring a child into the world who will face a lifetime of handicap-ability.  

Having an abortion is a mother’s choice.  73% mothers who have abortions do so because their finances would not be able to support another human being, while 38% say that their baby would interfere greatly with their studies or pursuit of their career.  If the mother is unable of providing for her incoming infant then it should be her choice on whether or not to keep the child. Legalized abortion lowers crime rates by 50% . When a teenager or poor parent is forced to raise a child because of a mistake he/she made in the past, they must resort to crime to pay the bills and keep the baby alive.  But when a baby is raised in a crime filled neighborhood, he will grow up seeing crime all around him, and wont be able to differentiate crime from survival from unnecessary crimes.  They will grow up thinking that exploiting theft, or other sorts of crimes, not because of bad parenting, but the environment they were forced to grow up in because the parent was not financially ready to support a child.They cannot bring up a healthy child because of the influences around them.  By having an option to have an abortion it gives mothers a second chance to decide if they want to raise their kid in an unsafe environment.