The Case Against Perfection (English 15)

[Rachel V Jenna D Breyana G]

1.) How do you feel about the type of genetic engineering that relates to your candy? (gummies = muscle enhancement, Smarties = memory enhancement, Reese's = sex selection, Twizzler's = height enhancements) Would you consider that procedure? Why or why not?

2.) When do you feel it is okay to use these types of genetic engineering?

3.) After viewing the clip of My Sister's Keeper, what are your thoughts on engineering a child to benefit someone else? Do you think it's justifiable?

[Casey Emge]

2) When talking about this types of genetic engineering, I think it should be only acceptable to use them on someone who may be injured or have a disorder of some sort. People who have these genetic modifications done to them are cheating what was actually given to them, and what they were blessed with the day they were born. For instance, if you want to modify your height to become taller for a sport or other reason, you are being unfair to those who don't have these treatments and remain the height they were meant to be. Also, if you are taking drugs for memory to become smarter, you are also being unfair to those who work really hard throughout their lives to be successful. I feel it acceptable to use certain modifications when one has a severe disorder or a learning disability, which is then acceptable to take such memory enhancers.

[Jenna D]

Casey,
I do see your side to things. Genetic engineering could be such a hard choice, especially if people have the money to do so. But I do agree that it is acceptable to do in cases of some severe diseases - that's when Sandel talks about the promise of it (avoiding diseases).

[Austin Krompasky]

3. I feel as though engineering a child in the manner that takes place in My Sister's Keeper is ludicrous. While that is an extreme example, creating a human being for the sole purpose of keeping another alive just isn't right. As we discussed in class, it makes the person created to save the first feel as though they're less important, and could have damaging psychological effects.

Any parent who would willingly "sacrifice" a second child merely to save the first is being extremely selfish, and trying avoid feeling the guilt and/or anguish that would come from their child dying. I do not believe situations such as those portrayed in the movie should be allowed, however I fear they do based on the amount of references to it in popular culture (there's also a House episode dealing with something similar).

[rachelverhagen]

Austin -

I agree with you that creating a child for the sole purpose of saving another is not right. But what if the family was planning on having more children anyways? Would that make it "okay" to use the child for the sake of the sick child? I'm not sure if I have a strong opinion on this question, I just thought it was an interesting one to pose. It would most likely depend on the situation and risks/benefits involved.

[Ricky Pooler]

3) After having seen the 'My Sister's Keeper' clip, I have a problem with genetically engineering a child for the benefit of another child. It's not fair for the child you are engineering. If I were a parent I would want to do anything to save my child, but it's seriously wrong put another child in a situation like that. That child would never be sure that you even wanted him or her or if you just wanted them for their organs.

[Lina M]

1) I had smarties as my candy. (Thanks for the candy, btw!) I think genetically engineering children to be smarter will lead to a catastrophe of events. Every parent wants their child to do 'good' in school, so they would definitely jump at an opportunity to ensure that type of future for their children. My thoughts on this type of engineering is mostly in relation to Flowers for Algernon. It doesn't seem like a positive outcome when we try to enhance ourselves with medicine and medical procedures. So overall, I would have to say that I don't like the idea.