The future of engineered genetic children

The human being The key premise is genetic engineering, but from a rhetorical standpoint, the speaker expresses the suffering that the human race endures due to differences in ability, illness, dominance, and inferiority, both of which are dependent on genetic relations. And, although he may not advise readers which side to choose, he does have a lot of examples. For example, he discussed Huntington disease, which causes brain dysfunction and can involve anyone with a genetic history of it, as he imaginably said, “say you are the tens of thousands of Huntington disease, a terrible neurodegenerative disorder caused by a mutation in HTT gene” which according to science he says could be eliminated by preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).
This essay is from a concerned point of view where the writer feels people are in suffering, but most of them don’t know that a solution to this can be reached found, however genetic the problem may be, because normally things concerned with genetic relation seem to be incurable, for example, he mentioned out diseases like sickle-cell anemia, ataxia, may-Sachs, albinism, muscular dystrophy, hemophilia, that organically arose as random mutations in the distant past and have been stalking families ever since from generation to generation. He stated the possible solution to the seemingly mystical problem when he mentioned out Genetic Editing a process that promises the ability to fix ones germline and stops their tragic legacy.
He takes pleasure of the great science that has come to solve the mysticism through genetic editing where some genes are eliminated or removed before they are joined with other to form an embryo which would help reduce the chances of spreading the disease. On a good not with this kind of method even same-sex marriages can have children for its cells and genes that are at play here, however, opposed the idea may be, it is good news to those who carry value to it.
With pity for those who may fall short of the limitation who may be the unlucky few that they have two copies of the bad HTT, in which case all embryos guarantee to inherit one or could be uncomfortable with the idea of producing and discarding multiple embryos they have an option which is the invention of CRISPR a tool that allows scientists to program a protein to change specific sequences of DNA within a cell provides the ability to edit human genome. He stated, “We could change the wrong code in HTT gen of an embryo back to the standard version, and they fix the chord in one’s sperm or embryo before conception.” This sounds so promising and news to those who didn’t think a solution would be offered.
There so much naturalism in the essay for researchers was recognized and quoted which shows that the information in here is first hand, scientifically proven and researched. This gives the reader a belief to trust what they are consuming in with no doubt which is actually the deeper sauce of a readers happiness, for example, Marcy Darnovsky, the executive director of Centre for Genetics and society was quoted saying “Sometimes I feel like were are not on a slippery slope, we are flying off a cliff” opposing the use of germline modification because it alters what naturally is known by people fearing humanity may get compromised with wanting to have superior children alone.
Unnaturalism is seen in this essay when a number of examples were given to base on a particular point which brings out the factual bit of whatever the writer was talking about, this helps bring relevance to the reader of how relatable his ideas are for references are given which gives credibility to the information and ensures formality and originality for example BRCA 1 gene mutation by Angelina Jolie, APOE4 gene, GJB2 mutation, LPHN3 gene variant and the KLB gene, ANGPTL3
Though he didn’t tell the reader to choose he left him with logical reason, that what was once insolvable is now solvable with a few limitations but it works well , which is so important not to force one into something but help them know the problem, identify its cause, explain it and then find the solution, all of them laid down on the table to either lure the reader or discourage them for instance he talked about the genetic diseases like sickle-cell anemia, and told them about genetic editing, provided the necessary limitations it has, this is seen when Darnosky is quoted “Do not expect the powers that to be to stop our slide down this slope. No one minds the store on this stuff,…”, here he was trying to still talk about genetic editing.
There is the real intention in writing, first of all, he makes aware that genetic diseases are curable and also speculates out the possible good things that may come. As a result, he stated that even same-sex marriages would be able to have children, fertility clinics will be on the rise, and at affordable prices because of the completion, there will be a chance to dictate what quality of child one may prefer to have, from an inferior one to a superior one. For example, in future, one could imagine prospective parents sitting down with a fertility consultant and decide which gene to change. This will bring out the feeling “You get what you want even on human beings.”
The writer is mindful of the different sectors of the society that may disagree. He talked about what nature says on humanity, what culture may have to say or even religion. He put them into consideration because the most people their decision is based on what they attach importance to, what brings out the reality to them, which creates a sense of belonging. This is seen when he talked about having more manufacture beings which he called an invasive species, ones that don’t have a lineage of belonging. Naturally, this is almost everyone’s pride to have a sense of home to whatever they do or whoever they are.
There is an element of empathy in writing; the writer tries to understand those people that society considers as disabled, or misfortunate. He attempts to come to terms with their differences and grief, he doesn’t leave it there, he explains why they are the way they are, he backs his arguments with scientific, background, reasons and provides scientific rhetorics then he also gives scientific solutions. With this, he offers options to the readers, for example, he cited the invention of CRISPR which enables scientists to program a protein to change the sequences of the DNA within a cell that gives the ability to edit the human genome.
The essay has a credible element in it, the writer bases the arguments on time and period and relates the ideas to already recognized institutions of the subject, which shows that the information is from a researcher point of view, proved and is evident. This demonstrates the seriousness of the matter and one of public interest, which is information the reader will need to know other than what they wanted to know. For instance, in 2017 the National academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine issued a controversial report that paved the way for clinical trials on human germ line editing. These recommended that problematic genes should only be converted to versions prevalent to in the population and are associated with widespread health.
The writer indirectly talked of resolutions something next to human cloning where people are generated from cell combination. This, to those who are in support of it, may prevent the number of complications in the children one decides to have since they get to have a say on what specifics their child may be, though it may have one shortfall, nature may be lost in the desire for customizing a human being.
However deadly this genetic diseases may be in altering the human nature in terms of which genes do we want in this, naturally it is not right, we may have deemed humanity to experiments which degrade our kind, it actually may cause more divisions in society and rejection, besides they may always have a few complications here and there, and they may never be anything close to humanity, for example, the famous series Orphan Black had an element of genetic modulation and manipulation in what they termed as Neolution science.
The speaker is personal, he speaks to a single person, he talks about human genetic modification as a way of eliminating the mystical genetic complications. He explains the concept so well to the audience/reader by deciding to sympathize with the reader, imagining they may be in relation to the topic of discussion, for example, he forces the reader to imagine certain scenarios when he uses phrases such as “Say you are one of the tens of thousands of people with Huntington’s disease, a terrible, hereditary neurodegenerative disorder…” he takes out the assumption that many people are reading this, he assumes he is talking one person at a time. This is very effective because the reader quickly relates to the matter subconsciously thinking they are only talking to them, this mode seeks more attention from the audience.
The writer is liberal, he presents the problem, gives a number of empirical solutions but he doesn’t enslave the audience to that alone, neither does he force them to stick to it, he cautions them, gives them room to think about what he tells them, for example, he states “While CRISPR is powerful, it’s not perfect. The technology can go awry—by, say, making mutations in other genes. And there are moral issues.” Yes, he agrees CRISPR is ok, but he tells the audience to think about when he tells them it's not perfect. This gives the reader room to think out there options, whether to adapt to it or not.