GSW 1120
Essay # 2: Multiple Source Assignment # 1
Task/Objective
For your second essay, you will be synthesizing information from five or more sources to
support your position of an issue.
Preparation
Read Chapter 4 “Explanatory Synthesis” and Chapter 5 “Argument Syntheis,” in WARAC.
Read Chapter 18 “Summarizing, Paraphrasing, and Quoting Sources” and Chapter 19
“Synthesizing Sources” in Kirzner & Mandell’s The Brief Wadsworth Handbook.
Topic Choice
You must develop an issue based off only the thirteen articles found in WARAC, Chapter 7 “The
Changing Landscape of Work in the Twenty-first Century” and the list of seven approved
sources listed below:
These “outside sources” come from Jerome Library’s EBSCO Academic Search Complete and reputable
websites, resources that student may choose to use for future essay writing.
 “Did You Know: Shift Happens” video on globalization in the Information Age
(http://youtu.be/ljbI-363A2Q)
 Sandra Beasley’s “Robo-Nation” from EBSCO Academic Search Complete (http://0search.ebscohost.com.maurice.bgsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=25502194
&site=ehost-live&scope=site)
 Vijay Kumar’s Ted Talk video “Robots That Fly…And Cooperate”
(http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/vijay_kumar_robots_that_fly_and_cooperate.html)
 Lindsay Blackwell embracing technology video: http://www.dearlisarudgers.com/
 Interview on The Employable website (http://theemployable.com/2012/02/20/the-endof-dear-lisa-rudgers-we-interview-the-job-seeker-who-launched-an-internet-campaign-toget-her-dream-job/)
 Nigel Marsh’s Ted Talk “How To Make Work-Life Balance Work”
(http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/nigel_marsh_how_to_make_work_life_balance_work.
html)
 Brendan I. Koerner’s article “Coming Home” (http://0search.ebscohost.com.maurice.bgsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=67262086
&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Structure or Organization
Introductory Paragraph(s)
• An effective hook which makes the reader want to read the rest of the essay (i.e. an anecdote, a
surprising example or statistic, a memorable quote) and general information on the topic that
leads to your thesis. The thesis must be argumentative and should include your points/reasons
that support your argument.
Point/Reason Paragraphs
• Topic sentence --your point/reason in your own words, not from source --reflects what the
paragraph is about --serves as a transition between points/reasons
• Explain your point first
• Then, incorporate sources (at least 2 different ones) --introduce sources used for the first time-full name, information on author(s), name of work, etc.; once they're introduced the first time,
you may refer to just their last name(s) --discuss the source info you integrate (explain what the
author means, its relationship to your point/argument); don't just "stick" your quote in (no standalone quotes); remember to cite source info. Use words to signal synthesis between sources and
between sources and your argument. Wrap up your point in your own words, not a source's.
• Tie discussion back to your point of argument.
Counter-arguments
• What does your opposition say about your argument as a whole or some of your main
points/reasons that support your argument? Explain how they disagree with you in a counterargument paragraph.
• Place counter-argument either before or after the point/reason that it addresses or if it is a
counter-argument to your argument as a whole, place it after your introduction
• You must either refute (argue back) or concede (make concession that they bring up a valid
point but that your argument is still the most reasonable for certain reasons) the counterarguments.
• Make it clear to the reader that someone else is presenting the counter argument and also make
it clear that you are speaking when the answer to the counter argument begins.
Concluding Paragraph
• Wrap up your argument
• Highlight/Remind readers of your main points
• Explain why your argument is important or should be considered
• Consider pointing out consequences if your argument isn't considered









Checklist for your Multiple Source essay
Has a clear and debatable thesis--not stating a topic or making an assertion.
The focus is on an argument--not a descriptive or informative focus.
Is organized according to points and not around sources.
Shows a true synthesis and integration of sources.
Sources are not used to argue the thesis, but used for support of your argument.
Shows your involvement in the debate of the issue--the sources do not dominate the essay.
Includes all the elements of an argumentative essay.
Consistently maintains a reasonable tone and attitude--no ranting or raving.
Reads clearly, logically, smoothly, and coherently.
Format / Length
The essay should be approximately 4 ½ + pages, word-processed or typed, double-spaced using
MLA page format. The works cited page does not count toward 4 ½ pages; it’ll be page 6. Use
one-inch margins on all sides of the pages, standard 12-pt. font. No handwritten, sloppily
presented, or late work will be accepted.
Required:
 You must have at least 5 cited sources for this essay. All sources must be a combination of
articles only from WARAC , Chapter 7 “The Changing Landscape of Work in the Twentyfirst Century” the list of approved library database articles.
 You must document (MLA style) your sources parenthetically and on a works-cited page.
Follow the MLA documentation.
Important: Save all your prewriting, including the research proposal, assignment sheet, note
synthesis sheets, source annotations, peer review worksheets, and all rough drafts, including the
rough draft with my comments. You must submit these, along with your self-evaluation sheet
and final draft, and during the portfolio submission.
Final Comments
Final drafts receive final evaluations; however, a revised final draft can be submitted within one
week after the finals are returned in class. I encourage you to schedule conferences with me
and/or with a Writing Center tutor, as you need assistance with your essay.
*adapted from an assignment sheet by Dr. Cheryl Hoy
Cheryl Hoy
BGSU: GSW 1120
MSE Initial Proposal: Arguing a Position Style I
Proposals play an important role in shaping ideas into a workable written argument. They help you look
closely at your claim and determine why you feel as you do. They also help with audience awareness as
you recognize, acknowledge, and develop opposing views as well as your response to them. Finally, they
help you effectively organize your essay. Important Note: Think about where in your essay the CA
should be placed and adjust this proposal accordingly.
Your Name:
Issue (in the form of a question):
Thesis (Answer the question and include your supporting points):
Opposing view(s)/Counterargument(s)
CA # 1 (¶):
Response(s)/refute(s)
Refute # 1 (¶):
Supporting Point # 1(¶):
Supporting Point # 2(¶):
Supporting Point # 3(¶):
Cheryl Hoy
BGSU: GSW 1120
MSE Initial Proposal: Arguing a Position Style I
Proposals play an important role in shaping ideas into a workable written argument. They help you look
closely at your claim and determine why you feel as you do. They also help with audience awareness as
you recognize, acknowledge, and develop opposing views as well as your response to them. Finally, they
help you effectively organize your essay.
Your Name: L.V.
Issue: Genetic Engineering
Should Americans use genetic enhancement to increase a child’s intelligence or IQ, or even
change their eye color, height or weight?
Thesis (Answer the question and include your supporting points):
Although we have the technology to do almost anything we desire, designer babies should not be
legal because, it would be unfair, unethical and unsafe.
Opposing view(s)/Counterargument(s)
CA # 1 (¶):
Some may think that using human genetic enhancement and producing designer babies, will
eventually limit diseases that are passed on from person to person through generation after
generation.
Response(s)/refute(s)
Refute # 1 (¶):
However, even if diseases passed on from generation to generation could be limited, it would be
extremely difficult for us to draw the line between preventing a disease and enhancing.
Supporting Point # 1(¶):
One major reason why designer babies should not be legal is because it is unfair.
Supporting Point # 2(¶):
Another contributing reason why designer babies should not be legal is because of ethical issues.
Supporting Point # 3(¶):
A final reason why designer babies should not be legalized is because of safety issues.
Cheryl Hoy
BGSU: GSW 1120
MSE Sources Proposal: Arguing a Position Style I
Proposals play an important role in shaping ideas into a workable written argument. They help you look
closely at your claim and determine why you feel as you do. They also help with audience awareness as
you recognize, acknowledge, and develop opposing views as well as your response to them. Finally, they
help you effectively organize your essay.
Your Name: L.V.
Issue: Genetic Engineering
Should Americans use genetic enhancement to increase a child’s intelligence or IQ, or even
change their eye color, height or weight?
Thesis (Answer the question and include your supporting points):
Although we have the technology to do almost anything we desire, designer babies should not be
legal because, it would be unfair, unethical and unsafe.
Opposing view(s)/Counterargument(s)
CA # 1 (¶):
Some may think that using human genetic enhancement and producing designer babies, will
eventually limit diseases that are passed on from person to person through generation after
generation.
Stock, Gregory. “Choosing Our Genes.” The Futurist (2002). Rpt. in Aims of Argument.
5th ed. Eds. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. Boston: McGraw
Hill, 2006: 672-677.
Response(s)/refute(s)
Refute # 1 (¶):
However, even if diseases passed on from generation to generation could be limited, it would be
extremely difficult for us to draw the line between preventing a disease and enhancing.
Naam, Ramez. More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhacnement.
New York: New York, 2005.
Supporting Point # 1(¶):
One major reason why designer babies should not be legal is because it is unfair.
Botkin, Jeffery R. and Maxwell J. Mehlman. Access to the Genome: The Challence of
Equality. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1998.
Chapman, Audrey R. and Mark S. Frankel. Designing Our Descendants: The Promises and
Perils of Genetic Modifications. Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 2003.
Supporting Point # 2(¶):
Another contributing reason why designer babies should not be legal is because of ethical issues.
Collins, Francis S. Playing God?: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom. New York:
Routledge, 2003.
McGee, Glenn. The Perfect Baby: A Pragmatic Approach to Genetics. Maryland: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 1997.
Supporting Point # 3(¶):
A final reason why designer babies should not be legalized is because of safety issues.
Fukuyama, Francis. In Defense of Nature, Human and Non-Human. World Watch Magazine
(2002). Rpt. in Aims of Argument. 5th ed. Eds. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E.
Channell. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2006: 672-677.
Chapman, Audrey R. and Mark S. Frankel. Designing Our Descendants: The Promises and
Perils of Genetic Modifications. Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 2003.
Cheryl Hoy
BGSU: GSW 1120
MSE Source Material Proposal: Arguing a Position Style I
Proposals play an important role in shaping ideas into a workable written argument. They help you look
closely at your claim and determine why you feel as you do. They also help with audience awareness as
you recognize, acknowledge, and develop opposing views as well as your response to them. Finally, they
help you effectively organize your essay.
Your Name: L.V.
Issue: Genetic Engineering
Should Americans use genetic enhancement to increase a child’s intelligence or IQ, or even
change their eye color, height or weight?
Thesis (Answer the question and include your supporting points):
Although we have the technology to do almost anything we desire, designer babies should not be
legal because, it would be unfair, unethical and unsafe.
Opposing view(s)/Counterargument(s)
CA # 1 (¶):
Stock explains that “to do what is best for our children is a very human response” (674).
Stock, Gregory. “Choosing Our Genes.” The Futurist (2002). Rpt. in Aims of Argument.
5th ed. Eds. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. Boston: McGraw
Hill, 2006: 672-677.
Response(s)/refute(s)
Refute # 1 (¶):
Ramez Naam emphasizes this idea in the book More Than Human, as he points out that
“scientists cannot draw a clear line between healing and enhancing, for they’re integrally related”
(5).
Naam expands on this idea as he states, “Promising research on curing Alzheimer’s disease, on
reducing the incidence of heart disease and cancer, on restoring sight to the blind and motion to
the paralyzed is the very same research that could lead to keeping us young, improving our
memories, wiring our minds together, or enhancing ourselves without also halting research
focused on healing the sick” (5).
Naam, Ramez. More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhacnement.
New York: New York, 2005.
Supporting Point # 1(¶):
One major reason why designer babies should not be legal is because it is unfair.
Maxwell J. Mehlman and Jeffery R. Botkin, in Access to the Genome: The Challenge of
Equality, agree with this idea as stating that genetic enhancement “would be available only to a
narrow, wealthy segment of society” (98).
Mehlman and Botkin expound on this idea, stating that “providing access to genetic
technologies according to current coverage policies would create a widening gulf between the
genetically privileged and the genetic underclass” (99).
They posit, “There would be little opportunity for the average person to ascend the genetic
ladder” (Botkin and Mehlman99)
Botkin, Jeffery R. and Maxwell J. Mehlman. Access to the Genome: The Challence of
Equality. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1998.
Audrey R. Chapman and Mark S. Frankel support Mehlman and Botkin in their book Designing
Our Descendants: The Promises and Perils of Genetic Modifications, as they state, “members of
minorities are less likely to receive organ transplants, bypass surgery, the best diagnostic tests
and treatments for cancer, and the most sophisticated treatment for a range of diseases” (137).
Chapman, Audrey R. and Mark S. Frankel. Designing Our Descendants: The Promises
and
Perils of Genetic Modifications. Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 2003.
Supporting Point # 2(¶):
Another contributing reason why designer babies should not be legal is because of ethical issues.
Francis S. Collins expands on this idea in his book Playing God?, as he states, “Genetic
discrimination will be closely followed by numerous other problems such as selective abortion—
that is, as prenatal testing expands we can forecast wholesale aborting of fetuses because they do
not meet genetic standards” (123).
Collins, Francis S. Playing God?: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom. New York:
Routledge, 2003.
Glenn McGee in his article, The Perfect Baby: A Pragmatic Approach to Genetics, reinforces
this idea quoting, unnamed scholars who say they “fear that in addition to losing the vital
uncertainty of natural reproduction, genetic interventions will take from us the sanctified status
of being God-created” (45).
McGee, Glenn. The Perfect Baby: A Pragmatic Approach to Genetics. Maryland:
Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 1997.
Supporting Point # 3(¶):
A final reason why designer babies should not be legalized is because of safety issues.
Francis Fukuyama supports this point in his article, “In Defense of Nature, Human and NonHuman.” .” He describes the consequences of altering natural processes, stating, “We will be
constantly tempted to think that we understand this casualty better than we really do, and will
face even nastier surprises than we did when we tried to conquer the non-human natural
environment” (Fukuyama 669).
Fukuyama expands on his idea by giving an example of a case where “a human child whose
parents, seeking to give her greater intelligence, will saddle her with a great propensity for
cancer, or prolonged debility in old age, or some other completely unexpected side effect that
may emerge only after the experimenters have passed from the scene” (669).
Fukuyama, Francis. In Defense of Nature, Human and Non-Human. World Watch
Magazine
(2002). Rpt. in Aims of Argument. 5th ed. Eds. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn
E.
Channell. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2006: 672-677.
Chapman and Frankel agree with Fukuyama in their book, saying that upcoming technology
dealing with genetic enhancement and medicine “is inherently and inevitably fraught with error”
(229).
Chapman, Audrey R. and Mark S. Frankel. Designing Our Descendants: The Promises
and
Perils of Genetic Modifications. Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 2003.
ANNOTATIONS: Aqua highlights source introductions;
Pink highlights source material explanations;
Yellow highlights words that signal synthesis
L. V.
Cheryl Hoy
English 112 -000
28 January 20XX
Designer Babies: More Than Human
What might the future be like if scientists could reduce the chances of developing cancer
or other serious illnesses? Or, if they could cure those diseases altogether? This idea certainly
appeals to most people since nearly everyone has personally known someone who has suffered
through a serious illness or someone who has passed away. Gregory Stock, in his article,
“Choosing Our Genes,” emphasizes the need to find a cure and says that in the future, “Reducing
the incidence of cancer and heart disease, for example, or retarding aging are health
enhancements that will be seen as very, very desirable” (673). Stock is essentially stating that
people today are more interested in finding ways in which they can live longer, perhaps through
genetic enhancement. Using genetic enhancement to improve the condition of diseases is
certainly desirable especially if we could ensure a safe method with few side effects. The article
“Staff Background Paper: Human Genetic Enhancement,” describes the Presidents Council on
Bioethics discussion which took place during their December 2002 meeting. Human genetic
enhancement “means the use of genetic knowledge and technique to bring about improvements
in the capacities of existing individuals or future generations” (“Staff”). In essence they are
saying that human genetic enhancement is a way to improve ourselves and to allow us to live
longer happier lives. But even though human genetic enhancement could help us fight illnesses,
how far should we go? In the United States today, sex selection has already become legal. Sex
selection is only the beginning to the genetic opportunities that are to come. Should Americans
use genetic enhancement to increase a child’s intelligence or IQ, or even change their eye color,
height or weight? Although we have the technology to do almost anything we desire, designer
babies should not be legal because, it would be unfair, unethical and unsafe.
One major reason why designer babies should not be legal is because it is unfair. More
than likely, genetic enhancement of any form would cost a significant amount of money.
Therefore, only those who are wealthy would be able to pay for such a luxury. Maxwell J.
Mehlman and Jeffery R. Botkin, in Access to the Genome: The Challenge of Equality, agree with
this idea as stating that genetic enhancement “would be available only to a narrow, wealthy
segment of society” (98). Lower-class citizens could only afford genetic enhancement if they
received financial assistance from the government. However, the government is not likely to
fund genetic enhancement for lower-class citizens in the near future. Audrey R. Chapman and
Mark S. Frankel support Mehlman and Botkin in their book Designing Our Descendants: The
Promises and Perils of Genetic Modifications, as they state, “members of minorities are less
likely to receive organ transplants, bypass surgery, the best diagnostic tests and treatments for
cancer, and the most sophisticated treatment for a range of diseases” (137). This means that if
lower-class citizens are receiving minimum health care treatments now, then there is no way they
will be able to afford to design their babies. Since lower-class citizens will be unable to produce
designer babies, legalizing genetic enhancement would create an even bigger divergence
between the upper and lower classes. Mehlman and Botkin expound on this idea, stating that
“providing access to genetic technologies according to current coverage policies would create a
widening gulf between the genetically privileged and the genetic underclass” (99). The gulf that
Mehlman and Botkin refer to might even be widened by other aspects of this problem. Because
people in society tend to marry other people in their class, it is highly unlikely that a designer
baby would produce genetically inferior offspring. Mehlman and Botkin’s ideas support this
speculation. They posit, “There would be little opportunity for the average person to ascend the
genetic ladder” (Botkin and Mehlman). Those who are designer babies would most likely date
someone who is genetically superior. In other words, the genetic line of the designer babies
would continue to improve from generation to generation. Hence, the upper-class would become
more beautiful and intelligent and the lower-class would have little hope of ascending to their
level. Therefore, because not all people would be able to afford to create designer babies,
genetic enhancement and designer babies should not be legal to anyone, regardless of how
wealthy they may be.
Another contributing reason why designer babies should not be legal is because of ethical
issues. With the ability to design babies, people are more likely to be picky when they have an
average baby and, therefore, may choose to abort babies more often. Francis S. Collins expands
on this idea in his book Playing God?, as he states, “Genetic discrimination will be closely
followed by numerous other problems such as selective abortion—that is, as prenatal testing
expands we can forecast wholesale aborting of fetuses because they do not meet genetic
standards” (123). Similar prenatal testing is already allowed today. Medical experts are able to
calculate the chances of the baby being born mentally retarded or with a serious defect. With
this information, the parents are then able to choose if they want to abort their fetus. Colins
believes this is playing God. One may find that manipulating ones genes to create superior
beings is going too far. Because many people believe in God, designer babies may cause more
chaos and dissention in our society due to the fact that people have strong feeling against it.
Hence designer babies may cause more bad than good and will no longer be God’s creation, but
a scientist’s creation. Creating a baby should not seem like going to the mall and picking out
something cute. There is nothing wrong with the natural way that we produce babies today.
Sure curing disease would be nice, but choosing our own lips and ears for example is not
necessary or natural. Glenn McGee in his article, The Perfect Baby: A Pragmatic Approach to
Genetics, reinforces this idea quoting, unnamed scholars who say they “fear that in addition to
losing the vital uncertainty of natural reproduction, genetic interventions will take from us the
sanctified status of being God-created” (45). It is easy to see why many may view creating
designer babies as unethical and like we are playing God. Although increasing intelligence may
be desirable, we should leave our lives in God’s hands and create lives naturally, as in the past.
A final reason why designer babies should not be legalized is because of safety issues. In
our society, no one is perfect, and no matter how many times we may test a product, there is
always the chance of something going wrong. Francis Fukuyama supports this point in his
article, “In Defense of Nature, Human and Non-Human.” He describes the consequences of
altering natural processes, stating, “We will be constantly tempted to think that we understand
this casualty better than we really do, and will face even nastier surprises than we did when we
tried to conquer the non-human natural environment” (669). Even though many people may be
willing to take this risk, due to their own desires, it is unfair to the unborn child who may end up
with features that they were not meant to have and that neither of their parents have. Because we
have never modified our genes before, we should not start now. We do not know the
consequences of manipulating genes and do not know if the genes will create an appropriate
combination of attributes. We could create a disaster that we did not intend. Fukuyama expands
on his idea by giving an example of a case where “a human child whose parents, seeking to give
her greater intelligence, will saddle her with a great propensity for cancer, or prolonged debility
in old age, or some other completely unexpected side effect that may emerge only after the
experimenters have passed from the scene” (669). Obviously, creating designer babies has its
risks. One enhanced feature, which could be beneficial to a human in early life, could lead to
disaster later in the aging process. Chapman and Frankel agree with Fukuyama in their book,
saying that upcoming technology dealing with genetic enhancement and medicine “is inherently
and inevitably fraught with error” (229). Perhaps if experts advise us and explain that
developing designer babies may be dangerous and we may end up with even bigger errors than
we started with; we should heed their ideas. Therefore, because of the unknown risks, designer
babies should not be legalized.
Some may think that using human genetic enhancement and producing designer babies,
will eventually limit diseases that are passed on from person to person through generation after
generation. Parents, therefore, would worry less about passing a hereditary disease to their kids.
Stock explains that “to do what is best for our children is a very human response” (674).
Especially in today’s fast-paced society, it is important for people to learn at an early age how to
succeed. Parents only want to give their children the best opportunities they can, which may
include altering their genes. Many people in society really want to have children, but are anxious
and feel guilty about their chances of passing a hereditary disease down to their children. Many
parents feel that the risk of producing a designer baby for the purpose of stopping a hereditary
illness that has been passed on for generations is certainly worth it. Therefore, designer babies
would certainly be acceptable to most people if they were created for the sole purpose of
preventing hereditary illnesses.
However, even if diseases passed on from generation to generation could be limited, it
would be extremely difficult for us to draw the line between preventing a disease and enhancing.
Ramez Naam emphasizes this idea in the book More Than Human, as he points out that
“scientists cannot draw a clear line between healing and enhancing, for they’re integrally related”
(5). Without a clear line between the two, healing could link to enhancement, and while trying to
prevent Alzheimer’s, we will find a way to make people more intelligent. Naam expands on this
idea as he states, “Promising research on curing Alzheimer’s disease, on reducing the incidence
of heart disease and cancer, on restoring sight to the blind and motion to the paralyzed is the very
same research that could lead to keeping us young, improving our memories, wiring our minds
together, or enhancing ourselves without also halting research focused on healing the sick” (5).
The nature of human beings today has become more and more competitive; we must compete for
education, jobs, and even mates, so we attempt to improve ourselves in any way we can. Thus, it
is only natural for us to want to cure diseases and be nearly perfect in all aspects. Most people,
at some point in their lives wish that they looked differently or did not have a serious illness
haunting them throughout their entire life. No one is saying that getting surgery done, such as
those done on the show Extreme Makeover, is always a good thing, but such surgery is certainly
better than altering our genes and changing our heredity forever. Therefore, because we may
never be able to decipher the difference between healing and enhancing, it may not be wise to
begin trying to prevent diseases in humans that are passed on from generation to generation.
Designer babies may be very appealing to many people in society, but hopefully their
creation will never be legalized. If the creation of designer babies were legalized society would
have to confront the following issues: widening inequality between the classes, the ethics of
genetic enhancement and abortion (of imperfect fetuses), and the possible health risks that could
result from manipulating a child’s genes. If we could choose our child’s eye color and
intelligence level, it would seem as if we were shopping for a child. Not only does this seem
ethically wrong, but it also seems unnatural. Chapman and Frankel bring up a very interesting
point. They state that attempting “to control the genetic inheritance of our offspring will
undermine the value of the meaning of the parent-child relationship” (12). How true this
statement is. It is not fair to a child to choose something such as their hair and eye color when
we do not even know if the child would want that. If people are allowed to produce designer
babies, just imagine the arguments that would result. I can already envision a child coming
home and yelling at her parents, asking them why they chose her nose and why they could not
have picked the cool nose that all the other parents chose for their children. Perhaps this
illustrates why the argument that designing babies would be unnatural is the most compelling of
all. If we are able to design our own babies and enhance features that they would not naturally
obtain from the genes we pass onto them, they may not even seem to be our own children, but
our products.
Works Cited
Botkin, Jeffery R. and Maxwell J. Mehlman. Access to the Genome: The Challence of
Equality. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1998.
Chapman, Audrey R. and Mark S. Frankel. Designing Our Descendants: The Promises and
Perils of Genetic Modifications. Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 2003.
Collins, Francis S. Playing God?: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom. New York:
Routledge, 2003.
Fukuyama, Francis. In Defense of Nature, Human and Non-Human. World Watch Magazine
(2002). Rpt. in Aims of Argument. 5th ed. Eds. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E.
Channell. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2006: 672-677.
McGee, Glenn. The Perfect Baby: A Pragmatic Approach to Genetics. Maryland: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 1997.
Naam, Ramez. More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhacnement.
New York: New York, 2005.
“Staff Background Paper: Human Genetic Enhancement.” The President’s Council on Bioethics.
Washington D.C: 13 Dec. 2002. 16 March 2006 <http://bioethics.gov/background/
humangenetic.html>.
Stock, Gregory. “Choosing Our Genes.” The Futurist (2002). Rpt. in Aims of Argument.
5th ed. Eds. Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. Boston: McGraw
Hill, 2006: 672-677.