Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Genetically Modified Humans? No thanks

No description
by

艾玛莉

on 7 November 2016

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Genetically Modified Humans? No thanks

Logos
"...80 percent of medical school students he surveyed said they were against such forms of human genetic engineering, and that public opinion polls show equally dramatic opposition" (Hayes 501)

"...nearly forty countries-including Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, and South Africa- have adopted socially responsible policies regulating the new human genetic technologies. They allow genetic research(including stem cell research) for medical applications, but prohibit its use for heritable genetic modification and reproductive human cloning" (Hayes 501)
Pathos
"At what point do children become artifacts designed to someone’s specifications rather than members of a family to be nurtured?" (Hayes 500)
Ethos
Mentions the opposing argument multiple times:
Appeal to Fear
Parade of Horrors
"If misapplied, they would exacerbate existing inequalities and reinforce existing modes of discrimination. If more widely abused, they could undermine the foundations of civil human rights" (Hayes 500)
Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks
-Richard Hayes

Works Cited
Hayes, Richard. “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks.”
Hasty Generalization
"Even parents opposed to manipulating their children's genes would feel compelled to participate in this race, lest their offspring get left behind" (Hayes 500)
Recap
Maribel Aguirre & Alex Marquez
"...in a world still barely able to contain the forces of nationalism, ethnocentrism, and militarism, the last thing we need to worry about is a high-tech eugenic arms race" (Hayes 500)

"Once we begin genetically modifying our children, where do we stop? If it's acceptable to modify one gene, why not two, or twenty, or one hundred?" (Hayes 500)
"...to create children with a host of 'enhanced' athletic, cosmetic, and cognitive traits that could be passed to their own children who in turn could further genetically modify their children, who in turn... you get the picture" (Hayes 500)
Richard Hayes disagrees with Ronald Green's statement that the vision of the human future of designer babies is "desirable and very likely inevitable" (Hayes 500).
Response to Ronald Green's essay which is in favor of using genetic modification technology

Hayes picks apart Green's argument to show why this technology is dangerous
"new human technologies have real potential to help prevent or cure many terrible diseases, and I support research directed towards that end" (Hayes 500)
"We want all these things, yes, and genetic technology might help us attain them, but we don't want to run the huge risks to the community..." (Hayes 501)
His use of non-rational appeal overwhelms his use of rational appeal. Furthermore,
he does not summarize Green's essay fairly
:
"Ronald Green asks us to consider a neoeugenic future of 'designer babies,' with parents assembling their children quite literally from the genes up" (Hayes 500)
Current Issues and Enduring Questions
, tenth ed, Bedford/St.Martin’s, 2013, pp. 500-501.
Designer babies-To be or not to be....That is the question.
1.) How would educational institutions or athletic departments be impacted due to genetic modification?
3.) We already 'design' our children by choosing reproductive partners, sending them to private schools, and giving them music lessons. Parents rightly have a great deal of control over various aspects of their children's lives, is pre-selecting their traits really that different? If so, how?
2.) Would this create controversy within religious and/or social groups?
Full transcript