In general I stand with the no side, but unlike the author of the no side there should be some

limitations especially when the author says that we should not limit our explorations in
science but this implies that using human experimentation would be acceptable. Before I read
this I was entirely for the no side but the yes side had good points on how the human
experience may be just as important and the advancement of people too quickly could be
very bad if used wrongly.
Yes Side
Summarize the major thesis and discuss. (2 pts)
On the yes yes the major thesis is that all forms of manipulation of the human body to make it
better is wrong. Of course this article also forgets that all forms of medicine manipulate the
human body are basically the same thing.
Briefly state in your own words at least one fact presented. Provide the appropriate
reference - this should be the primary reference of the information, not the reference
page number from your taking sides textbook. (2 pts)
One fact is that pharmaceutical companies want to make more money. (Sandel, M. 2004)
Briefly state in your own words at least one opinion presented. Discuss why you think
it is merely an opinion and NOT a fact or a fallacy. (2 pts)
Genetic manipulation seems somehow worse more intrusive , more sinister than other
ways of enhancing performance and seeking success. This is obviously an opinion because it
says that it seems something or other, which implies an opinion about one thing vs another.
Identify at least one type of fallacy presented. Mention the actual fallacy as well as
the type of fallacy (see provided handout). ( 2 pts)
Red herring fallacy - Even among those who favor abortion rights, few advocate abortion
simply because the parents don't want a girl
This has nothing to do with the argument of genetic manipulation, just sex selection,
which isn't the topic at hand.
Identify in your own words at least one propaganda techniques used. Mention the
actual propaganda statement as well as the type of propaganda technique (see
provided handout). (2 pts
Black and white fallacy. The entire argument is that all genetic manipulation is bad.
No side
This major thesis is that science should always continue to advance all thing as far as
possible. This is saying that we shouldn't limit studies and advancement of science just
because people are scared of moral issues.

Briefly state in your own words at least one fact presented. Provide the appropriate

reference - this should be the primary reference of the information, not the reference
page number from your taking sides textbook. (2 pts)
The abuse of erythropoietin by athletes does not detract from the qualitative improvement in
the lives of patients with end stare renal disease who are treated with this drug. (Schumacher
et al. 2001)
Briefly state in your own words at least one opinion presented. Discuss why you think
it is merely an opinion and NOT a fact or a fallacy. (2 pts)
Most patients are only interested in getting better of improving their health. This is
because this question was not applied to a direct survey that asked if people would
make themselves better through gene therapy or other options.
Identify at least one type of fallacy presented. Mention the actual fallacy as well as
the type of fallacy (see provided handout). ( 2 pts)
Post hoc ergo propeter hoc. Concerning the man who wrote about the fall of the wall
and the notion of the age of prosperity. That was a privileged vantage point that didn't
get to see what other atrocities would occur soon after. Moving on to the surprise of
the author not understanding why doctors would be against genetic manipulation,
The move from bad things happening to why doctors may be against manipulation do
not correlate to the same subject/
Identify in your own words at least one propaganda techniques used. Mention the
actual propaganda statement as well as the type of propaganda technique (see
provided handout). (2 pts)
Black and white fallacy This argument is that all advancement is good and going
against this in anyway is bad. There is always a limit on what we should do at a
specific time until people are less likely to use things in a dangerous manner.
Final stand: (Total = 5 points)
According to you, which of the two sides (yes or no) is more biased (0.5 pts) ? Provide
reasons. (1 pt)
The yes side is more biased because there isn't science that shows how the future will happen
to pan out.
Which of the two sides (yes or no) is more empirical (0.5 pts)? Provide reasons. (1 pt)
The no side has more evidence that comes from genetic therapy's that have helped people to
improve.
Which of the sides do you side with and why - explain with details giving ample
reasoning. Please avoid copy pasting from reflection paragraph. (2 points)
I agree with the no side because the human race needs to do everything they can to improve
their existence improve the lives of everyone.