Rhetoric 3302 Questions

Frankenstein: This is a magnificent story about a professor and a monster that noone seems to understand except Frankenstein who made the monster. The technology they used to make Frankenstein is very high tech with all of the mechanical things that go into it!! I'm supprized that they even had enough technology to have the capabilities of making a man or I should say monster!! People thought the name Frankenstein was for the thing that was created, but really the thing that was created was the monster the person who created the monster was Frankenstein. This is just an amazing story that everybody should read.

Embryo Police: I can't believe that someone would actually try to decide what sex there baby is going to be by having doctors take out or distroy the ones that are not a boy or not a girl depeneding on which one they were trying to go for!! It does not make sense to me why soembody would not be happy with what they got out of each other. I know that I would be happy to get any kind of baby even if I do want a girl and a boy I would never manipulate my eggs to have me have a girl or a boy. I would be happy with whatever I got. I think it is nice for technology to make it possible for people who are not fertile to have babies, but I think it is not a good idea to have babies when you are 60 or 70 years old because it is not healthy especially if your going through metaphase!!

Frankenstein
This story is well written and it has a lot of implications about the power of science. Frankenstein was created by a man who came from a loving family background, and went off to college to study science and natural philosophy. The plot is kind of centered on the idea that science is the key to life and creation. One quote from the story describes the masters of chemistry like this, “They have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heaven, mimic the earthquake, and even mock the invisible world with its own shadows." In today’s world a Frankenstein type of operation is more likely to be successful considering the advances in modern genetics and biochemistry that allow people to create human life outside the womb. I certainly see the ethical implications associated with this, although it seems like most people do not mind. Do you think it is right for us to manipulate human life according to the traits and characteristics that we want?

Embryo Police
This article was about America’s allowance of IVF practices and how it conflicts with the rest of the worlds views. America has a positive attitude towards reproductive medicine to the point that it seems almost naïve. We support research on the grounds that it will lead to a cure or be able to prevent a disease, while other countries fear that the freedom of reproductive medical research might lead to a disturbing outcome like a formation of the perfect race. This is a controversial topic because of the freedom and rights that we all get to share. If both parties agree to go through with an IVF procedure than legally it should be allowed. However, the dangers of IVF make the operations risky and can result in multiple child births that might kill the birth mother. I think there should be more regulations on IVF in America because the procedure is not yet safe, aside from the ethical concerns.

The story of Frankenstein did a good job of showing the power of science. There is no doubt that being informed and studying something can put you ahead of everyone else. However, I think this story also showed what can happen when people get too power hungry. We humans like to feel in control, and there is no doubt in my mind that giving life to an unliving person would make you feel like you were in control. His invention didn't turn out as well as planned, and I believe this is a good example of what can happen when science goes too far. In the second article, it showed how treatments for infertility are now turning into a treatment for convenience. It was such a wonderful thing for people who had troubles bearing children, but I happen to think this wonderful technology is getting abused now. How far should we go?

Frankenstein: Undoubtedly, Frankenstein warns us about science going too far. As a little piece from chapter 4 puts it, “…how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.” It doesn’t get more obvious than that. I will grant the argument that science inherently has dangers, because it’s true. But you have to admit, science has produced a lot of benefits. Take “Frankenfood” or genetically modified crops for example. We could argue the potential risks all day, but you can’t deny that GMOs help farmers in developing countries and/or there are applications of GMOs that outweigh some risks. But moving back to the story, yes Victor Frankenstein used science in a very dangerous way, but you could also argue that had he been a little smarter, the consequences wouldn’t have been so bad. But then again, hindsight is 20/20.

Embryo Police: Is it just me, or does the fact that tattoo parlors have more government supervision than fertility clinics seem a little scary? I can see why Capper paired this with Frankenstein. But again, inherent dangers might not be so bad if you know what you’re getting yourself into. I think most people will agree that engineering a baby for specific social standards is a no-no. You’d just be asking for trouble. But I think HFEA’s got the right idea when it confronts “even the stickiest moral quandaries with a cold, rational eye.” I mean, it really does suck for the Mastertons, but there is no significant reason why they should be able to “design” themselves a girl. If it involved hemophilia or another sex-specific disease, I see no problem with sex selection. So like Frankenstein, embryo manipulation does have its dangers, but if we’re smart about it, the benefits can outweigh the risks.

The chapters from Frankenstein are interesting and well-written. It seems that Frankenstein’s obsession with re-creating life is part of some sort of selfish desire to accomplish a feat which would satisfy his perversions and demonstrate his scientific abilities. I found the most relevant line in this reading to be Frankenstein’s belief that “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs.” The notion that the creature he created would be some sort of glorious symbol of his intellect and power, as well as a subservient creature owing its life to him, seems to be the reason for his pursuits. Could this quote be loosely applied to a bio-engineered child, who, because of the insistence of his parents and the wonders of technology, is created in a ‘model’ image free from defects and limitations? Would such a child face unyielding expectations for greatness, because his parents feel the child ‘owes’ them something great in return? A child with a genetic disease usually doesn’t blame his parents for defective traits, but does the child freed from these genes owe his parents for his ‘perfection’? There does seem to be a loose parallel between the Frankenstein’s vision and the implications of ‘designer embryos’.

I was amused by the ‘embryo police’ article when it discussed the HFEA panel make-up. The panel’s composition is rigidly controlled by a charter and the actions of the current members, such that they go through a rigorous selection-and-exclusion process of their own in the attempt to create a ‘perfect’ panel. The panel weeds out applications based on what they deem to be desirable and undesirable traits. (Ironic!) Having said that, I think the panel plays an important role in looking at these issues, and I don’t know that their decisions are much different that my own would have been... I think they bring up a lot of good points, such as the potential that children would be created simply to ‘fill a void’ in the lives of the parents or to donate stem cells or non-essential organs to existing children, rather than for the sake of the child itself. Really, would a child conceived in such a manner always be expected to donate non-essential organs because of their compatibility? Would a child created to replace a deceased child be put under a heavy burden of direct comparison that no child should have to endure? Is it right to seek out a perfect child, casting aside all other potential children in the process? Are the Mastersons damaging their sons in their maniacal quest for a daughter? (it seems to me this would demonstrate the parent’s low value for males compared to females, which can’t have a positive impact on the male children!).

There were two things I found interesting in in the excerpt from Frankenstein. First was the questions that Viktor was asking himself as he was studying, questions about how life first started and what makes organic matter into a living thing. Questions we still don't have the answers to. The second was how Viktor's story parallels that of Oppenheimer's. Both spent years working and planning in secret to create something new and wondrous and both end up being horrified by their creations.

I had one reaction in particular to the Masterson's story in the Wired article, “Get over it already.” I don't mean to sound callous or uncaring, but it is clear that these people are unable to grieve. That aside, this kind of obsession is unhealthy, whether it is trying to recreate something you lost or striving for a perfect child. Should people, rich people frankly, be able to custom build their children? I say sure, it's their cells to do with as they wish, but don't be surprised when things don't turn out the way you want them to. Both Robert and Viktor would be the first to warn them of that. Don't be surprised when they cut out something we need, something that makes us human.

I find sex selection to be scientifically excessive. One should not play God and piece together theirown child. If genetic engineering is used to detect and prevent sickness and deformation then that is one thing, but to select the sex or appearace of a child is superficial and is only a predictor or rich naïve parents. The case made in the article was a weak one, so their daughter died which is a terrible event, but it is not logical to have that pain be reason enough to scientifically pick the sex of your child. How about they adopt a girl if they want a female child so bad, not pay thousands of dollars on cosmetic surgery for their offspring. If someone is so wrapped up in what they want their child to be don’t you think no matter they will be disappointed. What if the girl is unattractive, or doesn’t like makeup, or doesn’t fit the parent’s idea of what that ideal girl would be. The whole process of genetic engineering involving humans, to me, is only a predictor of how the shitty the parents will be. The people who use these types of technologies for unnessisary reasons I find them to be rich egotistical glutons, who will never be satisfied, because they cannot even be satified with a unborn child.
I will read Frankenstein this evening at work, so I will not be able to post on it.

embryo police-
this was an interesting article about the contraversy in great britain about IVF. in my opinion, this topic is one that is far from cut and dry. in the case of the masterson's, i would have to agree with the HFEA's decision, not neccessarily not to hear their appeal, but to not allow them to go through with the procedure. on the other hand, in cases where someone's son or daughter is dying and can potentially be saved by this technology, then i think it is perfectly valid. i cannot understand the relentlessness in which the masterson family pursued their case. not to say that their daughter dying wasn't terrible, but i'm not sure that strengthens their case. it's just depressing to me to imagine all of the money and time devoted to trying to concieve a daughter and going through the process in romania, and still having a boy. the thought that that child must be such a great dissapointment to them because of its gender is confusing to me. this is why the issue is very difficult to consider. it only seems right to save one's life if you have the medical means, but to manipulate the creation of one's life is an entirely different topic.

I thought that the “Embryo Police” article was very interesting. I was unaware about a lot of information in this article. I did not know that United States fertility clinics do not need government licensing like tattoo shops or veterinary hospitals. I don’t understand why the US does not have a government panel like the HFEA set up. Tampering with genetics at fertility clinics leads to major implications. The article compares these implications to the film Gattaca. This would be a frightening scenario to see that degree of genetic engineering. I think it is ok for fertility clinics to intervene for health reasons, but for matters of preference is unacceptable. You want to sympathize on a case-by-case basis, like the Masterton family, but you also need to factor in the implications and possible outcomes. Science can now drastically change the natural process of life, and taking a closer look at its present rate, we need to take a serious look at the future. Also, I don’t understand why the Mastertons didn’t consider adoption. I think they should just be grateful for the four sons they already have. There are some couples who don’t even have one child.

Frankenstein: This story is really a great story that will tell the story of what the world will become when you interfere with human life. The story of Frankenstein is an extreme case were the creation actually turns into a monster. The thing is though just imagine all the failed test there are or will be when trying to improve the human race. There are always stories and movies on the improvement of humans, and the end of the story is always bad for the "normal" humans, and the perfect ones rule the world.
Embryo Police: In this article it showed how people could start engineering there own babies. I think this would be good for preventing birth defects and certain illnesses, which are hereditary. The real problem I have is when people start creating their children before hand. The thing would be that all children would be made into perfect pretty people and then the poor people who couldn't afford the treatments, would have ugly children (compared with the engineered children). There was a movie on this problem, Gattaca was about one man would was natural birth in a world with genetic people. The natural people were the low working class. The point of this rant is that people shouldn't play God and create what there children look like or are good at. The only reason embryo genetic should be used is to prevent birth defects.

Embryo police: There are a LOT of topics covered here. First, I'd like to start by saying that while creating a "master race" etc sound like a bad sci fi movie, the advances in medical technology are certainly on the way to being hypothetically able to do just that. It is difficult to decide where to draw the line. I think it is very important for parents to have the right to make sure their fetus is not severely disabled or diseased, but do they have the right to make sure they have superior intelligence and blonde hair? The biggest clash here is the right of the parents and women over their reproductive choices vs. possible medical morality, issues with bad eugenics, etc. And if you automatically favor the latter--what becomes of women's right to chose (a question this article really does not address!)? Clearly, there would be a conflict with Roe v. Wade. If a woman was pregnant with a severely retarded baby or one without brain function, etc., shouldn't she have the right to abort in order to have a healthy child? Is it fair to saddle that parent(s) with unhealthy children when it can be avoided very early on? Medical expenses for conditions like that can be outrageously expensive, not to mention the child could have a horribly bad quality of life. Does life itself matter more than quality of life? And in recent events, if a mother wants to abort a damgaged fetus which would make her sterile otherwise, doesn't she have that right? (I believe that case is being heard in the Supreme Court right now....) So many questions, where are the answers?

Frankenstein: This is a terribly fatalistic work. Fate or destiny or the Angel of Death all seem to have more control over the protagonist's mind than he himself does. It is a good way to set up a literary tragedy (with a character flaw), but in terms of reality and science in our time it is moot. Nothing is written in stone. Men do not have to be created artificially, or revived from the dead-- perhaps our science will even never reach that knowledge.

Embryo Police: The idea of choosing one’s child’s sex seems ridiculous to me. I find it ethically wrong and quite sad to think that parents may not love one child as much because they were not the “right” sex they were hoping to have. And to mess with one’s eggs seems horrible. I believe that if a couple really wants a boy or girl, they should adopt. This way, they will know the sex of their child and will also be helping save another person’s child. It’s all a very odd thought to me. I will tell people I want to have boys, but I would never scientifically try to have boys. And I will definitely still love my child if she is a girl.

Frankenstein: As many others have mentioned, this is an example of how science has gone too far. However, I know that science is usually (except in this case and Embryo Police) a very good thing for human kind.

Personally, I have no real problem with fertility treatments. It seems a little hypocritical to me to say that treating, say, genetically-linked cancer is fine, but fertility treatments aren’t. Infertility is a medical issue, and if we have the technology to deal with it, then it seems reasonable to me that it be dealt with like other medical issues. The argument that it‘s interfering with natural selection is seems dumb because a great deal of medical treatment is “interfering with natural selection.” These are people who often have no control over what they have to work with. Like we do for other people with medical issues, we should do what we can for them.

Genetic engineering is more difficult. Truth be told, I can completely understand parents who might want to select traits in their children; who *doesn’t* hope that their children will be healthy, intelligent, attractive, successful? However, as is the case in many of these issues, a good, understandable, reasonable intent (parents wanting the very best for the children) can often lead down a slippery ethical slope.

One thing that I think should be considered is this: is the genetic manipulation being done for the benefit of the parents or the child? I don’t have any issues with screening for debilitating diseases or genetic issues that are going to seriously, adversely affect the quality of the child’s life. If it’s possible to edit those out and allow people to live healthy, normal lives that would otherwise be unable to, I think that’s a good thing and an example of genetic engineering being used in a positive, useful way.

However, I have my reservations about the couple in the article. While it’s clearly tragic that they lost their daughter, their concern seems to be less about the welfare of the child and more about what THEY want. Selecting the sex of the child seems like a type of tampering that’s entirely unnecessary. Their reason for wanting the child appears to be to complete some idealized vision they have for their own lives. It has nothing to do with improving the quality of life for the child.

Of course, you could also make the argument that tweaking a child’s genes to give him better than average health, intelligence and looks is also in his interest, but that seems clearly on shaky ethical grounds. While that sort of selection isn’t happening yet, it’s not at all hard to imagine it becoming an issue in the not too distant future. I think a possible line could be drawn between changes that are made to give a child an advantage (or fulfill some trivial desire of the parents) and changes that are made to prevent the child from being at a significant disadvantage. But still, those distinctions are awfully difficult to define. In situations like this, where you’re juggling what’s good for the individual(s) and what’s good for society as a whole, there are probably no perfect answers.

wots the impact on the rest of the novel in chapter 5 on frankenstein?

Whether there are clinics where it is possible to receive free-of-charge health services, whether there are programs on transplantation of bodies for poor? WBR LeoP

This article or a similar one is available online with other works by the author.

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! rhkbldmqwie

Hi, its really interesting read about Frankenstein in medical vision