Designer Babies Moral Personal Essay William Goldberg 813

William Goldberg 813 Moral Personal Essay

Designer Babies 

        The article "Designer Babies" written by Patricia Smith for Upfront, discusses the idea of parents being able to select the traits that their children will have in the upcoming future. This is alarming for some because they believe that it is wrong to personally select what your child will be like, while others think that this is amazing since it is possible to create the world's first perfect human. Scientists are looking forward to using this ability to alter DNA in order to create a baby without any health issues, while others look forward to using this in order to get specific traits out of their offspring. This has now turned into a battle of ethics, whether or not humans are allowed to tamper with nature to such an extent. I believe humans should not be allowed to interfere with the genetics of our own children due to my morals.
        One of the reasons why I don't agree with creating "designer babies" is that I believe humans should not tamper with their environment and with genetics to such an extent. This would be changing the DNA of a human being and changing what they would be. You are removing all of the chance of reproduction and making it so that humans determine who they are instead of nature. By doing this I believe you are making humans and nature two separate things, humans would be playing God and determining what generations of humans to come will look like, act like, and be good at.
        I also disagree with the idea of "designer babies" because I believe you are removing the uniqueness of the human race by creating them. There is no doubt in my mind that most parents would pick very similar traits: high intelligence, athleticism, musical ability, etc. This would remove the ability of humans to have different strengths and weaknesses and be unique when compared to each other. By doing this you are making humans a lot less diverse and making everyone similar.
        Others believe that by doing this you can create humans with no health problems whatsoever and help the human race as a whole, you don't have to alter any other traits. However, people without a doubt are going to find their way around this and still create "super babies". And either way, you are still changing the DNA of the child in order to create a human with less flaws, so even though you are doing it to a lesser extent, it still goes against my morals.
        In conclusion, I believe that it should not be allowed for a human being to change another human being's traits to any degree because of multiple reasons, but overall because it goes against my morals. Individuals would never know the feeling of being special or different. From that point onwards, we would never be able to consider ourselves a part of nature again.

Romeo and Juliet Essay William Goldberg 813

William Goldberg 813

                     Romeo and Juliet Essay: Who's to Blame for the Deaths of Romeo and Juliet?

        In the play Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, two teenage lovers from rival families desperately try to find a way to be together despite the horrid conflict that has been going on for a while now between their families. However, their attempts are thwarted and both end up meeting untimely demises. At the end of the play one question remains, who's to blame for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet? I believe that in the end, it was fate that caused these lovers' deaths.
        One reason why it was fate that caused their deaths, is that from the beginning fate is shown connecting these two people. This is shown when in Act 1 Scene 2 Romeo decides to go to Capulet's party because he notices that Rosaline (a crush of his) will be there. In the end though, he ends up having his first meeting with Juliet and completely forgets about Rosaline. Fate is also shown in the beginning by having these two lovers who will give anything to be with one another be born under different families who hate each other to no extent. This shows fate playing a major role in their deaths before the play even started.
        Another reason why fate was the cause of their deaths is because in the middle of the play and later on it is shown how a number of things happen that were out of their control. This is shown when Friar Laurence's plan fails to get to Romeo because of the plague spreading around making it so that Friar John wasn't allowed to give him the letter. Fate is also shown yet again when Romeo arrives to the tomb before Juliet has awoken, if she had been awake by the time he had arrived there would not have been any trouble. Because of these things, fate is shown as a major player in the deaths of Romeo and Juliet in the middle and near the end of the play.
        Others might argue that it was another person's fault such as Capulet, Montague, or even the lovers themselves because of all of their mindless decisions as well as their ability to be quite stubborn. However, examples of fate are shown much more throughout the story as well as decisions made from other characters not mattering as much. Therefore, fate is what caused the death of Romeo and Juliet.
        In conclusion, I believe that after all is done, it was fate that these two lovers were meant to die. After all, in the prologue it is mentioned that their love is "...death-mark'd love..." meaning that they never truly had any control of their situation in the first place, it was always up to fate.