Communication 103 Persuasive Outline Stock Issues April 8, 2

Communication 103persuasive Outline Stock Issuesapril 8 2015general

Communication 103 Persuasive Outline, Stock Issues April 8, 2015 General Purpose: To persuade Specific Purpose: I. INTRODUCTION A. Imagine a world where you get to choose the type of child that you bring into it. You could pick their hair color, height, personality, intelligence, and many other aspects. You would get to design your baby. Would this be good or bad? B. If you have an opinion on this, then you will be interested in the concept of designer babies. C. I have read over ten articles on this topic and am well informed. D. I am here to convince you that the creation of designer babies will be negative to our society. E. If designer babies become a reality, they will affect everyone. While there can be some positives to certain aspects of this technology, they do no outweigh the negatives. The idea of perfection is a major barrier that our society needs to overcome in order to get past the want to genetically design children. II. BODY A. In the near future we may have the genetic technology needed in order to change an embryo and choose desirable characteristics for it. If this becomes a reality, it will affect everyone. 1. The concept of creating a child with specific traits is not far-fetched. A procedure already being widely used is called IVF, which helps couples that have infertility problems have children by pre-selecting embryos before implantation. Another procedure called PGD screens embryos for different genetic traits before they are implanted and physicians can choose ones that are not predisposed to certain genetic conditions, like serious diseases such as cystic fibrosis (Ly, 2010). 2. A major issue with the concept of designer babies is the fact that it would be a very expensive process. This technology would only be available to wealthy “affluent couples and would be used in ways that could increase inequality. The last thing we need now is a genetic elite” (Steere, 2008, para. 8). 3. In addition, there are many ethical and moral issues that go along with all this. When doctors helped infertile women have children or when they determined if a child would have certain diseases, they were praised. However, when they started helping paying people to change the sex of their child, many began to question this. Choosing the sex of a child, especially in some countries, could lead to even more sex discrimination (Sandel, 2004). TRANSITION: The beginnings of creating a designer baby are already in place today. B. Some of the reasons that we are getting closer and closer to a complete designer baby is because there can be some positives. However, all of these positives have two sides, one where they are ethically or morally okay, and one where they are not. 1. There is the concept of a savior child. This child could be considered the beginning of designer babies. The parents in this situation usually have another child who is very sick and needs a donor of some sort. Therefore they create a child that will be the correct match for them. While this may sound wonderful for some because they are saving a child’s life, they could also be ruining this savior child’s life in the process. The creation of these children is just the beginning, who knows how far we could take it (Wilkinson, 2003). 2. Another positive some people may see is found within the disabilities community. For example, a couple with deafness could choose the have a child that is also deaf so that they could be a part of their cultural community. Even if it is not seen as a disability to the parents, it is not ethical for someone to bring in an innocent child into this world with such characteristics just because they want to (Savulescu, 2002). 3. A huge problem in our society is the belief that everyone should look and act a certain way. “7 in 10 girls believe they are not good enough or do not measure up in some way including their looks, performance in school and relationships” (Shapiro, 2009, para. 6). It is a huge barrier that needs to be overcome in order to realize that there is no need to genetically design a baby. No one needs to be perfect, and the fact that everyone is so unique is what helps make our world so wonderful (Darnovsky, 2001). TRANSITION: In order to help solve this problem, people need to help make a change. C. If we do not stop this downward spiral towards designer babies, it will most likely lead to much discrimination in all aspects of life. 1. The fact that our society places so much importance on looks and perfection is one of the main reasons parents are interested in creating a designer child. Being perfect, or our idea of perfect, will not make anyone happy. In order to change this belief, we all need to stop judging others based on looks or their ability to play sports or get amazing grades (Brown, 2013). 2. Not everyone can or should be good at everything. Being different is not a bad thing. We all need to start accepting everyone for the way that they are, and if we do this, there will be no need for designer babies. This issue of perfection in our society is a whole problem of itself, and it is a big reason why people would support designer babies. 3. To more directly help prevent the creation of designer babies simply google designer baby petitions and many websites will come up where you can sign a petition and voice your opinion. III. CONCLUSION A. I have tried to convince you that creating designer babies will not be a positive. B. Designer babies have many negative aspects and they will affect everyone in one way or another. People need to overcome this idea of perfection and accept others for their differences so that we do not end up a society where everyone is the same. C. Next time you’re judging someone for being different or not skinny enough or not pretty enough, think of a world where everyone is the same. Think of what it would be like if everyone were smart and athletic. I do not know about everyone else, but that is not a world I would like to live in. References Brown, B. (2013). Want to be happy? stop trying to be perfect. CNN. Retrieved from Darnovsky, M. (2001). The case against designer babies. Center for Genetics and Society. Retrieved from Ly, S. (2010). Ethics of designer babies. The Embryo Project. Retrieved from Sandel, M. (2004, April). The case against perfection. The Atlantic Online. Retrieved from Savulescu, J. (2002, October 5). Deaf lesbians, “designer disability,” and the future of medicine. PMC. Retrieved from Shapiro, H. (2009). Girl’s self-esteem. In Examiner. Retrieved from Steere, M. (2008, October 30). Designer babies: Creating the perfect child. CNN. Retrieved from Wilkinson, S. (2003, July 30). Should selecting savior siblings be banned? Journal of Medical Ethics. Retrieved from

Communication 103persuasive Outline Stock Issuesapril 8 2015g

Communication 103 Persuasive Outline, Stock Issues April 8, 2015

General Purpose: To persuade. Specific Purpose: To demonstrate that the creation of designer babies is problematic and poses societal risks, outweighing any potential benefits.

In this outline, I will explore the ethical, social, and moral issues surrounding the development of genetically engineered children, known as designer babies. The discussion will include current technological capabilities, societal implications, and possible solutions to prevent misuse of this genetic technology.

Paper For Above instruction

The concept of designing babies with specific genetic traits has evolved from speculative science into a reality supported by current reproductive technologies. Techniques such as In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) have paved the way for potential future applications of genetic editing to select desirable characteristics. While these methods currently help prevent serious genetic diseases, the extension into customizing traits like intelligence, physical appearance, or athleticism raises profound ethical, social, and moral concerns (Ly, 2010). This essay will argue that although these technologies may offer benefits, their broader societal implications, including increased inequality and moral dilemmas, suggest deleterious long-term effects that outweigh immediate advantages.

One of the main issues associated with the development of designer babies is the high cost of such genetic modification procedures. Advanced technologies like gene editing are likely to be accessible only to affluent populations, thereby exacerbating existing social inequalities. This economic barrier could lead to a 'genetic elite,' people who have enhanced traits simply because they can afford it, which threatens to create a new form of social stratification based on genetic privilege (Steere, 2008). Such an uneven distribution of genetic enhancement fosters a society where the gap between the rich and poor becomes biologically entrenched, reinforcing class divisions and discrimination.

In addition to economic disparities, ethical considerations play a critical role in the debate over designer babies. Historically, reproductive technologies used to help infertile couples or prevent genetic diseases have been viewed positively. However, when these technologies are used for non-therapeutic means, such as selecting sex or physical traits, societal concerns about moral boundaries intensify. For example, gender selection raises issues of sex discrimination and gender imbalance in certain countries (Sandel, 2004). Furthermore, the prospect of choosing traits related to appearance or intelligence fundamentally challenges notions of human individuality and respect for diversity, potentially leading society toward mono-criteria standards of perfection.

Despite these concerns, some argue that genetic modification can be beneficial. For instance, the creation of a 'savior child'—a genetically matched donor for a sick sibling—illustrates a potential life-saving application. Parents with a gravely ill child might choose to conceive a genetically compatible sibling to serve as a donor, thus saving the child's life (Wilkinson, 2003). Similarly, some deaf individuals advocate for the continuation of certain genetic traits, such as deafness, believing they are integral to certain cultural identities rather than disabilities. However, these positive cases are often marred by ethical dilemmas, including the risk of reducing children to mere means for parental ends or cultural preferences, and ignoring the broader societal impacts of genetic discrimination (Savulescu, 2002).

The societal obsession with perfection, appearance, and performance further fuels the desire for designer babies. Studies show that many young girls and women suffer from low self-esteem, feeling they do not measure up based on superficial standards (Shapiro, 2009). This pervasive desire for flawlessness and societal validation can lead parents to opt for genetic enhancements, perpetuating unrealistic standards and social pressures. Such behavior intensifies the harmful belief that worth is linked to genetic perfection, which can diminish acceptance of natural human diversity (Darnovsky, 2001).

If the pursuit of genetic perfection continues unchecked, it could lead to increased discrimination in various aspects of life, including employment, social integration, and personal relationships. Society’s emphasis on physical beauty and high achievement fosters a climate where genetically 'enhanced' individuals are valued over others. This would marginalize those who are 'genetically unenhanced' or possess traits deemed undesirable, leading to pervasive social inequality and prejudice. To counteract this trend, it is imperative to promote acceptance of diversity and challenge societal standards that equate worth with genetic perfection (Brown, 2013).

Addressing this issue requires collective action. Public awareness campaigns, educational programs, and legislative measures such as petitions against certain uses of genetic technology can help curb the development and application of designer babies. For example, signing petitions or advocating for regulations that restrict embryo selection to prevent serious diseases, while banning designer traits for aesthetic or performance enhancement, can serve as early preventative measures. Promoting ethical guidelines in genetic research and fostering public discourse are essential steps toward ensuring responsible use of genetic technologies.

In conclusion, although genetic engineering offers promising possibilities for medical advancements, the societal, ethical, and moral consequences of designing babies are profound. These practices risk deepening social inequalities, infringing on human diversity, and fostering discriminatory attitudes. Society must prioritize acceptance of natural human variation and establish strict regulations to prevent misuse. Only through collective effort, ethical consideration, and comprehensive policy-making can we prevent the potentially dystopian future of a society driven by genetic perfection.

References

  • Brown, B. (2013). Want to be happy? stop trying to be perfect. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com
  • Darnovsky, M. (2001). The case against designer babies. Center for Genetics and Society. Retrieved from https://www.geneticsandsociety.org
  • Ly, S. (2010). Ethics of designer babies. The Embryo Project. Retrieved from https://embryo.asu.edu
  • Sandel, M. (2004). The case against perfection. The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com
  • Savulescu, J. (2002). Deaf lesbians, “designer disability,” and the future of medicine. PMC. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  • Shapiro, H. (2009). Girl’s self-esteem. The Examiner. Retrieved from https://www.examiner.com
  • Steere, M. (2008). Designer babies: Creating the perfect child. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com
  • Wilkinson, S. (2003). Should selecting savior siblings be banned? Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(4), 241-245.
  • Additional scholarly articles and policy statements from reliable health and ethics sources.

Related Assignments