“Designer Babies” Upfront magazine article essay

Scientists say that the day when parents can select the traits their child will receive isn’t too far off. Many people are getting excited about the idea that we will be able to design our own babies, while others are questioning how much we should really be tampering with the way humans naturally reproduce. This new concept of selecting our children’s genes is raising a lot of controversy, such as the questions of whether it’s ethical, and whether it’s safe.

           

            Many are questioning whether the idea of designing our own babies is ethical. We would be tampering with natural human reproduction. Many people are wondering whether these “designer babies” would still be considered human, or if they would be considered computer-designed gene combinations. Josephine Johnston, an ethicist at the Hastings Center in Hudson, NY, finds this concept very troubling. “…The changes that play into social advantage, I hope people will pause and reconsider,” she says. “It’s hard to know how you would resist the temptation to do those things, because they are the things that promise to give your child an edge in the competitive world.” Also, the eugenics movement, which began in the late 19^th century, “sought to improve the human race by discouraging the reproduction of those thought to have undesirable traits.” Eugenics was also at the root of the Nazi’s ideas on “racial purity,” which ultimately led to the holocaust. All of these ideas show how controversial the ethical side of this argument is.

            Many people are also questioning whether designing our own babies is safe. There are many complicated aspects to creating babies this way, and they could easily go wrong. Some people are also wondering whether it could create any genetic abnormalities. Jeremy Gruber, the president of the Council for Responsible Genetics, says we need to be very careful about any procedure that changes an embryo’s genes. He’s worried that they could unintentionally cause new genetic abnormalities, or could even accidentally eliminate positive traits. “You are conducting an activity that permanently alters the genome of the individual,” he says. “If you get it wrong, you’re not only getting it wrong for that individual; it becomes inheritable. That’s why it’s so crucial to make sure its safe before it’s allowed to move forward.” Some countries have already passed laws prohibiting scientists from altering the human genome in any way that could be passed down on to descendants. This shows how dangerous designing our own babies could be.

            Some say that there’s good reason to be excited about the scientific advances in genetics: diseases that result from genetic defects may be able to be prevented. Scientists have already found the defective genes that cause many of the genetic disorders, so the “designer baby” idea could replace the defective genes with healthy ones. This could make it a possibility for some horrible diseases to be a thing of the past. But, with all of the potential risks and the ethical controversy, it may not be worth it.

            Designing your own baby may be closer in our futures than we think. As exciting as this may seem, there are multiple downsides. It could cause more genetic abnormalities or eliminate positive traits, and by altering the human genome, the genetic abnormalities would become inheritable. It could also potentially cause another eugenics movement, which could easily lead to a repeat of the holocaust. Although designing your own baby might make it possible for genetic diseases to be a thing of the past, it may not be worth it. 

Who’s to Blame for the Deaths of Romeo and Juliet?

            In “Romeo and Juliet,” by William Shakespeare, Friar Lawrence is to blame for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet. It was his idea for the two of them to fake their deaths so they could run away together, and it was his letter that was supposed to tell Romeo about the plan and Juliet’s “death,” but was never delivered. Therefore, Friar Lawrence is to blame for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet.

            Friar Lawrence came up with the idea for Juliet to fake her death. In Act 4, scene 1, Friar Lawrence says to Juliet, “If… Thou hast the strength of will to slay thyself… take thou this vial… no warmth, no breath shall testify thou livest.” In this scene, Friar Lawrence is telling Juliet of his plan for her to fake her death, have a burial, and then Romeo will be there when she wakes up and they will run away together. This plan is very risky, because if Romeo doesn’t receive the message that Juliet is still alive, the plan could fall apart. Friar Lawrence doesn’t warn Juliet about the risks of this idea, and just assumes that everything will go according to plan. This shows that Friar Lawrence is to blame for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet.

            Friar Lawrence sent a message to be delivered to Romeo that would let him know about Juliet faking her death so they could run away together. In Act 5, scene 2, Friar Lawrence tells Friar John, "The letter was not nice but full of charge, of dear import, and the neglecting it may do much danger." In this scene, Friar Lawrence is asking Friar John to deliver the message to Romeo. This plan is also risky, because the message is extremely important and there could be a miscommunication, or the letter could be misplaced, or any other number of possibilities could go wrong. Friar Lawrence clearly didn’t think everything through, and didn’t realize how much could go wrong when delivering the message. Also, he trusted someone else who had no part in the conflict with a life or death situation. He should have delivered the letter himself, or he should have told Romeo in person. This probably would have led to less confusion, and Romeo and Juliet might have survived. This shows that Friar Lawrence is to blame for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet.

            Some people might argue that it was Romeo and Juliet’s fault for wanting to run away in the first place, but Friar Lawrence could have given them a safer way to run away together, or he could have paid closer attention and made sure the message was delivered to Romeo so he would know that Juliet wasn’t actually dead and he would know of their plan to elope.

            Although there were many variables as to why Romeo and Juliet died, Friar Lawrence played a key role in both of their deaths. If Friar Lawrence hadn’t come up with the idea for Juliet to fake her death, or if he had made sure the message was delivered to Romeo, they might have survived. In the play “Romeo and Juliet,” by William Shakespeare, these reasons and more show that the deaths of Romeo and Juliet can be blamed on Friar Lawrence. 

In the article,"Should a Hated Word Be Banned?" from Upfront magazine, the author discusses the two contradicting sides of the argument: should the word "Nazi" be banned?

Some lawmakers in Israel believe that the word "Nazi" should be banned. They have given a preliminary approval to a bill that would make it against the law to call someone a Nazi or any other word/ slur associated with the Holocaust, or to use Holocaust- related symbols in a noneducational way. Offenders could be fined as much as $29,000 and up to 6 months in jail. At least 6 European nations have already prohibited the use of Nazi symbols and flags, and even more nations consider it a crime to deny that the Holocaust ever happened. But, none of the other countries are banning the use of the word "Nazi."

Critics say that the law is going against freedom of speech, and many Americans are saying it goes against the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of expression, even if the views are extremely offensive to most people. Israel doesn't have a law protecting freedom of speech, but its Supreme Court aggressively protects it. While Israel is a Jewish state, its also a democratic state, which means free speech and minority views must be protected. By banning certain words, the Israelis would be going against their own views.

I think its awful that the term "Nazi," is used as an insult, but banning the word won't make it any less awful. People should have enough common sense to not use the term "Nazi" lightly, but passing a bill against ever using the word will probably not do any good for anyone. If the term "Nazi" is banned, it will be going against Israel's idea of democracy, and will be violating the protection of freedom of speech.

Sonnet: "I Hate Winter"

It’s snowing now for the thirtieth day

I’m walking to school, slipping on the ice

The cool, white snow has turned to dark and gray

I’m tripping on garbage, this isn’t nice

I’m getting sick of peppermint Starbucks

I’m wearing three pairs of socks and sweaters

Oh God, I hate this, winter really sucks

By now we should be done with this weather

Beaches and the sand, and water so blue

Nothing could be better than the summer

When the sun is hot and the sky is new

But I’m in New York; it’s such a bummer

I’m tired of always being so cold

It’s early March, and this is getting old

Martín Espada’s poems “Revolutionary Spanish Lesson,” “The New Bathroom Policy at English High School,” and “Two Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 1877” show racism, disrespect, and social injustice.

            In the poem “Revolutionary Spanish Lesson,” the speaker states, “Whenever my name/ is mispronounced…” and then goes on to describe how angry he feels and all of the horrible things he wants to do when people mispronounce his name. The speaker feels disrespected when his name isn’t pronounced correctly, because he feels that the people who are mispronouncing his name just aren’t taking the time to learn about or understand his culture. This shows social injustice and disrespect because the people who are mispronouncing his name believe that they don’t need to show the speaker any respect, and aren’t giving any time to learn about his culture.

            In the poem “The New Bathroom Policy at English High School,” the author writes, “…So he decides/ to ban Spanish/ in the bathrooms/ now he can relax.” “He” is the principal, and he is banning Spanish because it makes him uncomfortable. This shows social injustice and disrespect because the principal is banning something just because he doesn’t understand it, which makes him uncomfortable, and he doesn’t want to learn about it, so he decides to ban it. The principal has the power to change things he doesn’t like, which is unfair to the students in the poem.

            In the poem “Two Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 1877,” the author writes, “when forty gringo vigilantes/ cheered the rope/ that snapped the two Mexicanos/ into the grimacing sleep of broken necks.” The reader can infer that the forty “gringos” were lynching the two Mexicans, and that it was most likely an act of racism. This shows social injustice and racism, because the crowd is presumably hanging the people for their race. They also feel proud about it, and later on in the poem they treat the corpses like trophies.

            The poems “Revolutionary Spanish Lesson,” “The New Bathroom Policy at English High School,” and “Two Mexicanos Lynched in Santa Cruz, California, May 3, 1877” by Martín Espada all have general themes of racism, disrespect, and social injustice. They all show minorities being discriminated against and disrespected, and they all show racism. When looking at the world around us, we can see that racism, disrespect, and social injustice occur almost regularly. Minorities are discriminated against and persecuted, just because they are a certain race. This occurs in many of Martín Espada's poems. 

In the book "Change of Heart," by Jodi Picoult, June can't admit to herself that her daughter, Claire, needs a heart donor no matter who it is. June is left to decide if she should grant her family's killer's dying wish, if it means saving her daughter's life.

When Shay Bourne murdered both June's husband and her daughter, Elizabeth, and then went to jail and received the death sentence, June obviously hated him more than she had ever hated anyone. But, when June's daughter, Claire needs a heart donor and Shay wants to donate his heart to her, June is strongly against it. She doesn't want the heart of her husband and daughter's killer inside her other daughter. But, there are no other possible donors for Claire. This leaves June to have to choose between  possibly saving her daughters life, but only at the cost of granting her enemies dying wish. I think June is being extremely selfish. She has the opportunity to save her only surviving daughter, and she might throw away that chance just so Shay doesn't get his dying wish. Even if it makes Shay happy to donate his heart, and June doesn't want him to ever be happy, it should be more important to June to save her daughter's life.

In the book "Change of Heart," by Jodi Picoult, June is very selfish. She doesn't want to grant Shay his dying wish, even though it means letting her daughter die.

In the book "Vanishing Acts," by Jodi Picoult, there are a lot of things that are unfair. Andrew is unfair to Delia and her mom, Delia is unfair to Fitz and Eric, and Delia's mom is unfair to Delia and Andrew.

Andrew was unfair to his daughter Delia and to her mother. By taking Delia with him and basically kidnapping her for 28 years without telling anyone, he was only thinking about himself. He wasn't realizing how this would affect Delia or her mother, or that there would be consequences. This was very unfair to both Delia and her mother.

Delia was unfair to her best friend, Fitz, and her fiancé, Eric. Growing up, she never realized that Fitz liked her, and she only really paid attention to Eric. This was unfair to Fitz. Now she is engaged to Eric, but then she cheated on Eric with Fitz, and Eric found out. This was unfair to Eric, because they were already engaged, and she cheated on him with his best friend. Delia was very unfair to both Fitz and Eric.

Delia's mother was unfair to Delia and Andrew. She knew that she had never been a good mother to Delia, and that Andrew would have always been a better parent, and even that Andrew was right to take Delia, but she still testifies against him in court. This almost causes Andrew to go to jail for even longer, which would have been awful for both Andrew and Delia. Delia's mother was very unfair to both Delia and Andrew.

In the book "Vanishing Acts," by Jodi Picoult, the main characters are all very unfair to each other.