Sasa Macura

The Question on Every Parents Mind

Genetic manipulation and enhancement is becoming more and more of a hot topic to
discuss in modern society due to the advancements in technology. These technologies could
enable us to help cure diseases and advance the human race, but they also set a dangerous
precedent for over-use and tools for more class gaps. Here we analyze the two sides of the
arguments as stated by Michael J. Sandel and Howard Trachtman.
Michael J. Sandel argues that genetic modification and manipulation is wrong due in part
to the fact that there would be a never ending arms race for improvement. In his piece he
describes the 4 items that to him were the largest areas of argument; muscles, memory, height,
and sex. His arguments for all of the stated seemed to be more religiously based than anything
else. He seemed to imply that people should not be able to choose what they are supposed to be
given naturally.
Muscle should be kept at a natural behavior instead of a designed behavior were some
would basically be born with an advantage in muscle development over others. Concern was
raised that athletes would use these developments to give themselves an edge over the
completion and that it would be unfair. Memory recovery and strengthening would be a fantastic
advancement to explore when problems like Alzheimers is concerned. It would help a lot of
people with the problems either associated with similar diseases or with the natural progression
of memory loss. If we were to be able to control the height of ourselves and our children then
there would be an endless race to the tallest, because as we all know taller is better in most
aspects. He asks if we want to live in a society were parents feel compelled to spend a fortune

Sasa Macura

to make perfectly healthy kids a few inches taller. The most typical iteration of genetic
enhancements is whether or not parents should be able to choose their offsprings sex. There are
a number of reason people may want to choose but the social implications could be huge. Some
have had abortions just because their child was not the right sex. Sandel seems to hit the nail
on the head with all the reason to say no to enhancements, most concerning being the separation
of classes due to some not being able to afford the treatments and other being able to.
Trachtman on the other had believes that we are all born with choices. These choices
should logically include any type of enhancement we would like. In his argument he talks about
how we have been genetically enhancing things since time immemorial. He specifically talks
about how doctors have been doing this for years to improve patients lives. There is no way to
perfect any form of enhancement and thus there would always be something to work towards.
People would not adopt enhancements immediately even if they can afford it because there are
those that wont immunize their children or themselves due to a reluctance to take the words of
doctors on faith. Here the thinking is more about the undeniable reality that there will never be
an end to the enhancements that are already on their way.
I personally believe that genetic enhancement in any form is a good thing. There are
downsides to everything but here we could cure diseases and help people in need. Everyone
should have equal opportunity and access to procedures that would enhance their lives. In the
current world people are always trying to enhance themselves and they are applauded for
wanting to be who they perceive themselves as. Doctors have been working on these things
since time immemorial and there is a reason for it. A need can be found even in the most niche
of things. As people we deserve to be who we see ourselves as, the only difference being that
some will choose the hard road and some the easier.

Sasa Macura

If genetic enhancements became an easily available and safe thing to do than there would
be a lot of change in society. As Sandel stated there would be parents spending massive amounts
of money to have a higher achieving child but the rules for certain things would have to change.
There may be a rift in the social hierarchy but it would be no different than currently. Instead of
people being of a different class due to the amount of money they have they will be different due
to the amount of enhancement they could afford. A whole new form of discrimination would be
born, but we as a society will move beyond it and in the future enhancements will become
common place even among those that are poor.

Sasa Macura

Sources
Trachtman, Howard. "Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology?" Biology
1090, Human Biology - SLCC - Taking Sides Readings. By Michael J. Sandel. N.p.: McGrawHill, 2014. 40-52. Print.

Sasa Macura

Reflection Statement
This assignment made me question my personal beliefs about genetic enhancement. It seemed to
me that there would be no question in my mind that people should be able to do what they want
but after reading both of the arguments for and against it seems to be much more complicated
than I had originally anticipated. I had to ask myself which side I agreed with most, looking past
the fact that the argument against had more to it then the argument for. It was very well thought
out and it made it extremely difficult to choose. I simply decided in the end that there are more
positives than negatives in this case. I have not done an assignment that made me look at my
personal beliefs in such a way before.