Reflection of Project 3

Although subtle, there are many differences in one's reflection in a mirror and one's reflection in the water.  The two different venues reveal varying qualities, just as the different projects have shown me different qualities of my identity as a writer.

Schapker, Tim. "Reflection from Cloud Gate"
08/30/2008 via Wikimedia.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

1. My first revision consisted of crediting my three “myths” to specific groups or people.  Throughout the revision process, I continually read it aloud to make sure the flow of the words sounded natural and inviting.  I specifically focused on reworking my tone and answering the question of “so what?”

2. The ideas of my first draft were written to make the audience feel at peace with.  However, my goal for a welcoming tone was not consistent.  In addition, many of my sentences looked good on paper (were grammatically correct) but did not sound natural when spoken out loud.  For example, I began two sentences in a row with “This technology will save children…”  On paper, the repetition seemed to emphasize my point, but in speech the sentences sounded awkward and wordy.

3. My global changes came from my desire to fit my genre and audience better.  The paper needed to sound good on audio and also sound friendly to the audience.

4. These changes allowed me to connect with my audience more effectively.  The audience could see that I was personally invested in getting this information across to them and I cared about their concerns.

5. These changes were made to improve my rhetoric and argumentation.  The more I appealed to my audience, the better I could sway them.

6. I wanted my sentences to have a more dramatic effect.  I went back and made use of repetition and more captivating word choice to ensure that my audience heeded my message.  The last sentence of my paragraph changed from “…prevent humans from improving” to “improve human life for all of us.”  Although the change was minor, the way the revision sounded aloud created a more dramatic effect for the ending, leaving the audience hooked on the ideas presented.

7. The changes made the audience understand that I was on their side and I only wanted what was best for them.  I also exaggerated the “myths” through my word choice which made the audience see how ridiculous they were.

8. I didn’t do many changes to the conventions of the video since my examples gave me a clear idea of what it needed to look like.

9. The process of revision has helped me to see how I can manipulate my audience.  I really enjoyed the last project in which I felt as though I was provided a service to my audience.  In this case, I didn’t realize how much I was manipulating my audience.  I employed strategies that not only made my argument more effective but deliberately played the audience.  Although this was the purpose of the assignment, it made me realize the power I hold as a writer.

Publishing Public Argument

Here is the link to my video that would appear in an article on the Huffington Post.

Probably Okay. "Argument with Myself" 08/19/2011
via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

1. Mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience currently stands on the issue (before reading/watching/hearing your argument) below:
←----------------------X------------------------|-------------------------------------------------->
Strongly disagree                     Totally neutral    Strongly agree

2. Now mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience should be (after they've read/watched/heard your argument) below:
←-----------------------------------------------|----X--------------------------------------------->
Strongly disagree                    Totally neutral    Strongly agree

3. Check one (and only one) of the argument types below for your public argument:
         _______ My public argument establishes an original pro position on an issue of debate.
         _______ My public argument establishes an original con position on an issue of debate.
         _______ My public argument clarifies the causes for a problem that is being debated.
         _______ My public argument proposes a solution for a problem that is being debated.
         _______ My public argument positively evaluate a specific solution or policy under debate (and clearly identifies the idea I'm supporting).
         ___X___ My public argument openly refutes a specific solution or policy under debate (and clearly identifies the idea I'm refuting).

4. Briefly explain how your public argument doesn’t simply restate information from other sources, but provides original context and insight into the situation:

Most of the articles currently online either raise the scary ethical concerns regarding the controversy and create fear in people or they strongly argue the negative impacts of the technology.  My video attempts to debunk the frightening myths and have the audience take a step toward a more neutral/ calm stance.

5. Identify the specific rhetorical appeals you believe you've employed in your public argument below:

Ethical or credibility-establishing appeals
                    _____ Telling personal stories that establish a credible point-of-view
                    _____ Referring to credible sources (established journalism, credentialed experts, etc.)
                    __X___ Employing carefully chosen key words or phrases that demonstrate you are credible (proper terminology, strong but clear vocabulary, etc.)
                    __X___ Adopting a tone that is inviting and trustworthy rather than distancing or alienating
                    __X___ Arranging visual elements properly (not employing watermarked images, cropping images carefully, avoiding sloppy presentation)
                    ___X__ Establishing your own public image in an inviting way (using an appropriate images of yourself, if you appear on camera dressing in a warm or friendly or professional manner, appearing against a background that’s welcoming or credibility-establishing)
                    _____ Sharing any personal expertise you may possess about the subject (your identity as a student in your discipline affords you some authority here)
                    __X___ Openly acknowledging counterarguments and refuting them intelligently
                    __X___ Appealing openly to the values and beliefs shared by the audience (remember that the website/platform/YouTube channel your argument is designed for helps determine the kind of audience who will encounter your piece)
                    _____ Other: 

Emotional appeals
                    _____ Telling personal stories that create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate
                    __X___ Telling emotionally compelling narratives drawn from history and/or the current culture
                    __X___ Employing the repetition of key words or phrases that create an appropriate emotional impact
                    __X___ Employing an appropriate level of formality for the subject matter (through appearance, formatting, style of language, etc.)
                    _____ Appropriate use of humor for subject matter, platform/website, audience
                    _____ Use of “shocking” statistics in order to underline a specific point
                    _____ Use of imagery to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate
                    __X___ Employing an attractive color palette that sets an appropriate emotional tone (no clashing or ‘ugly’ colors, no overuse of too many variant colors, etc.)
                    _____ Use of music to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate
                    _____ Use of sound effects to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate
                    __X__ Employing an engaging and appropriate tone of voice for the debate
                    _____ Other: 

Logical or rational appeals
                    _____ Using historical records from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns
                    _____ Using statistics from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns
                    _____ Using interviews from stakeholders that help affirm your stance or position
                    _____ Using expert opinions that help affirm your stance or position
                    __X___ Effective organization of elements, images, text, etc.
                    __X___ Clear transitions between different sections of the argument (by using title cards, interstitial music, voiceover, etc.)
                    __X___ Crafted sequencing of images/text/content in order to make linear arguments
                    _____ Intentional emphasis on specific images/text/content in order to strengthen argument
                    _____ Careful design of size/color relationships between objects to effectively direct the viewer’s attention/gaze (for visual arguments)
                    _____ Other: 

6. Below, provide us with working hyperlinks to THREE good examples of the genre you've chosen to write in. These examples can come from Blog Post 11.3 or they can be new examples. But they should all come from the same specific website/platform and should demonstrate the conventions for your piece:

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3 

Note: The example videos are embedded in the articles.

Reflection on Project 3 Draft

With the due date for Project 3 right around the bend, it was important to receive some feedback as well as provide others with some peer review.  For this project, I critiqued Olivia Wann’s project and Hunter McAdams’ project.

Baum, Stephan.  "Symbol of Review" 04/16/2005
via Wikimedia. Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Lia Ossanna, Joy Kosik, and Gabee Mazza reviewed my short film script.  The feedback was all very helpful.  I knew my argument was lacking, but Lia was able to point me to specific things in my argument and suggest certain improvements.  It was comforting knowing the specific steps I need to take.  I was first somewhat confused by the range of scores I got, but the comments showed that there wasn’t really any discrepancy.  Gabee gave me very high scores because the aspects I succeeded in were the ones that were most important to her, while Joy gave me lower scores because the things I lack were what she valued more in a convincing argument.

My argumentation needs the most work.  I have many missed opportunities for emotional appeals that would strengthen my logical approach.  I make factual points, but fail to carry them through with the “why” behind the claim.  I plan on revising some of my argument but really focusing on how to make my points fuller. 

I am feeling really confident about the future of my paper.  I had a lot of positive feedback that encouraged me that I was headed in the right direction both from my peers and my professor.  In addition, I got some helpful critiques that have given me specific areas to target and improve over this week.  It’s exciting to know that I’ve got a good start, but it’s also exciting to see that I know I can make my argument stronger.

Draft of Public Argument

Here is my public argument.

This is the script to my short video that I will be making.  It addressed towards couples and young parents, but I am not sure how to address them directly.  Also, I am not sure what I should conclude with since I am not really calling my audience to action.

Vic. "Couple Yelling" 5/23/2009 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

Considering Visual Elements

A picture could be worth a thousand words if it was used correctly.  Thus, I need to make sure that all my visual elements are cohesive and effective.

Is the feeling or tone that the image invokes appropriate to the visual-rhetorical tone of my argument?

Woodpuncher. "Video" 2014 via Pixabay.
Public Domain License.

The images that I use to portray human genetic modification could easily have a strong emotional impact, especially one that puts human genetic modification in a bad light.  I am trying to show that the technology is in responsible hands and not something to fear.  The images will need to be comforting but not cheesy.

If the image is a graph or a chart, does it clearly support a major point of my argument, or is it superfluous?

I want to use graphics and visual representations of the research data so that people can feel like they have a grasp on the knowledge and not feel threatened by the overwhelming science behind it all.  To accomplish this, I will need to provide only the important information and nothing to will be too complicated to understand.  This will only hinder my point.

If the text is multimodal, is the image anchored or placed within the verbal text effectively?  Is the verbal text in close proximity to the image that illustrates it?

For my video, I will need to decide where I can place the image in relation to the audio.  If I place the image after what I make the point, the listener will be prepared for what they are about to see.  If I show the image while I am talking, the viewer will be better able to follow along.  Sometimes, watch the narrator speak can be a lot more effective than just listening to audio, so I will need a good balance of me and images.

If you are writing a multimodal argument, do the visual images help you move from point to point in the argument clearly?

I may want to consider some graphics that organize the video into my different points.  This might include text on the video that highlights my “topic sentence” or numbers my points.  Both of these would indicate to the reader that I was transitioning to the next point and would help me stay structured instead of rambling.

Do the different visual and textual elements come together persuasively as a whole, or are there elements that seem disconnected or out of place?

I hope to use images sparingly, so that when they are used, they are payed attention to.  The images are meant to enhance the audio, not distract from it.

Is the visual-rhetorical tone of your project consistent?

Human genetic modification is a serious topic, but I want my argument to come across as comfortable and conversational.  My images need to reflect this.  Some images, such as the graphs, will be professional and serious, while other pictures may lighten the mood.  However, they will need to be cohesive.

Project 3 Outline

As I begin to draft out my argument, I am considering how to best construct my argument on the Human Genetic Modification so that my listeners heed my message.  I have two options.  One: spend some time building an effective argument with clear supporting arguments and counter claims.  Two: take on the thinking of George Bernard Shaw who said, "The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time."

David Eccles. "DNA-SNP" 12/18/14 via Wikimedia.
GNU Free Documentation License.

I.                    Introduction

a.       Situation/ Kairos

                                                               i.      Explain the recent research that has led to the controversy

                                                             ii.      Highlight what people have been saying in the news

                                                            iii.      Touch on the concerns from both scientists and the general public

b.      Main Point

                                                               i.      The claims against the technology are false/ exaggerated

II.                  Body

a.       Major Supporting Arguments

                                                               i.      The test results from the research show that the technology is far from being useable

                                                             ii.      Designer babies are quite a stretch

                                                            iii.      Utopian approach: Eliminating diseases will improve human condition

                                                           iv.      Curing diseases before they even happen

                                                             v.      You can’t stop to progress of science and technology

b.      Major Criticisms

                                                               i.      Killing human embryos

                                                             ii.      Changes in the DNA may put negative effects on generations to come

                                                            iii.      “Playing God”

                                                           iv.      There are no laws to dictate where this technology progresses

c.       Rebuttals

                                                               i.      Many of my supporting arguments answers some of the criticisms

                                                             ii.      My main focus will need to be successfully placing the criticisms and arguments so that the audience sees the flaws in the supposed cons of the technology

                                                            iii.      May need to point to specific instances in the past of technology not ruining humanity

d.      Topic Sentences

                                                               i.      Genetic Modification is just like vaccination except that people fear what’s new

                                                             ii.      Genes control diseases, not IQ

                                                            iii.      Scientists agree the technology is far from being ready to use

e.      Evidence

                                                               i.      “According to the studies of scientists, genetic engineering can increase the life span between one-hundred to one-hundred fifty years.”

                                                             ii.      “This results to better and Highly-Graded products that can help humans fight their illnesses and diseases.”

                                                            iii.      “As per the disease, it may always be the result of bad genes inherited from parents.”

f.        Coggle

III.                Conclusion

a.       Future of the Debate

                                                               i.      Comforting the audience of how they can deal with the progress of this technology

                                                             ii.      Letting them know what to expect

                                                            iii.      Showing them how they can keep up with the new events


Reflection:

I read Carrie Belle's outline since she is doing the same controversy as me.  Her organization is
different from mine since she will have questions to cue each point.  This just shows how much more
I will have to pay attention to organization since I don't have these questions.  I also read Mathias'
outline which was very different from mine.  His organization consists of individual slides on a
PowerPoint.  My video is one long shot.  However, I could use this idea of breaking it up into
sections to make sure I am not rambling.

Analyzing My Genre

You know those videos shared on Facebook that are titled “Are you killing your children?” and the post is captioned with “MUST READ!” and you find out the video is about how new studies suggest eating Fruit Loops could increase your chances of having cancer?  This is basically my genre, with maybe a little less hysteria.

Appelo, Jurgen. "YouTube icon" 08/2012
via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic.

Here are some examples:

·         Example 1

·         Example 2

·         Example 3

·         Example 4

·         Example 5

Social Context

The short videos that are shared on Facebook can come from a wide range of websites.  YouTube is popular, but often these videos are shared from news sites and Facebook groups.  My platform will be the Huffington Post.  The subject can have a wide range of content and subject, but most focus on explaining current events or new studies.

News casters and news companies use these videos often to explain a situation or report on the new studies and opinions that affect people’s daily lives.  The videos on the Huffington Post are found within or at the end of an article.  It serves to further the information presented in the article and provide visuals.  It may also provide information on a slightly different idea that is related to the topic of the article.

Rhetorical Patterns of the Genre

The information is not meant to repeat what has just been said, but give a further extension of the information.  It includes both facts and opinions, but excludes strong biases.  The videos sometimes include experts or simply new casters reporting the ideas and research of others. 

Since the videos are found on the tech page of the Huffington Post, many of them rely heavily on logos and the presentation of facts.  However, many of the videos are added to articles to bring the news to a personal level or apply it to everyday life.  This often leads to a use of pathos.  Through bringing on experts to talk, they are also sometimes using ethos.

The videos often open with an introduction that puts the video on a personal level.  They quickly describe the current situation and then go into explaining the opinions or applications of the facts.  The speakers are clear and concise.  They use short to medium sentences to keep the knowledge easy to comprehend since the listener cannot go back and “reread” a sentence.  The speakers might also start and/or end with a question.

The videos are meant to reach a large group of people so they do not use specific jargon or slang.  The tone is always friendly and inviting.  When the audience can see the speaker, the speaker cannot usually get away with be harsh or aggressive as they can in writing.  The word choice is simple but specific, as they have only so much time to state their idea.

Analysis

The genre tries to include the general public but does not reach out to experts, scientists, etc.  The genre encourages writers to take on the “friendly neighbor with good advice” role.  This encourages the audience not to feel inferior but intrigued. 

When speakers use videos and social media, the audience can connect better.  A speaker that publishes in a scientific journal may seem very distant compared to a speaker that posts to Facebook.  These videos value visual aids and clips of daily life.  They value ideas that get to point quickly and are simple enough for the general public to understand.


Reflection:

Austin's post discussed his genre of an opinionated news article.  It was extremely different from my genre as it is very structured in the visual look of it.  It showed me that I really need to take advantage of the visual appeal of my video.  Stef's genre is very similar to mine.  After reading her post, I realized some of the traps I could fall into in my own genre.  I will have to be careful not to just list off a bunch of facts and opinions,  I need to be building an argument and supporting reasons and rhetoric.  Although this is basic, it will be easy to end up with no real argument.

Genre Examples for 11/5

IKEA Christmas Commercial

10 Things I Wish I Knew Before having a Baby

Parental Guidance: Three, Smart Simple Tips for a Fun Day at the Beach

Britain: Keep the Lights On

Considering Types

Amy. "Box of Doughnuts" 02/27/2011 via
Wikimedia. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

Considering types of arguments is like considering types of doughnuts; just with less sprinkles and not as much deliciousness.

A positional argument would fit my argument well.  By focusing on what the pros are of genetic modification, it will balance out the negative aspects that are heavily reported as well as the fear that this topic is raising.  By taking a Utopian approach to this topic, I can present a side that seems to get overlooked because of fear.

A causal argument would do little for this topic.  Nobody would deny why people are afraid of this technology and nobody would not see how this technology could be beneficial.  The cause of the debate is if the pros outweigh the cons.  An evaluative argument would also be ineffective as little to no solutions to the debate have been proposed.

A proposal could be helpful.  I would have to decide on an exact idea that would further the progress of the debate.  Although beneficial, it would be difficult to form an argument that would get people on board.  A refutation argument would not be possible as there are no proposals to refute.


Reflection:

Allison Perger and Jovanka Potkonjak both seem to have a very good idea of what they want to say and what they want their audience to take away.  From this, they are able to pinpoint an effective argument type.  I feel that I am lacking in knowing what exactly I want to accomplish with my article.  I will need to spend some more time considering what reactions I want to cause before I can nail down my type of argument.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

The Curious Gnome. "George
Armstrong Custard" 02/22/2011 via
Wikimedia. Public Domain License.

"We're Americans.  We don't plan, we do!"  --Colonel Custard (Night at the Museum 2)

Unfortunately, my teacher does not let me live by this motto...

Audience

My argument will be addressed to parents and young couples.  This audience may know the basics of the controversy such as the event that sparked the talk and the ethical questions that people are raising.  They may have already started raising their own ethical concerns and may already have a fear of the technology.  Others may not have heard of the debate yet.  Those who have probably have seen articles shared on Facebook or seen news updates on TV. 

This group is going to have a strong concern toward this topic.  Through the very nature that most are not scientists but parents, they will probably be on the side that fears the future of the technology and wants the research to end.  Some probably already value some sort of “sacredness” to child conception, bearing, and birth.  Others may have had to use “unnatural” ways of conception and understand the necessity of science in child birth.  

I will definitely need to do the scientific research behind the controversy to fully understand the implications and consequences.  However, my audience will need to understand these consequences without hearing all the “science talk.”  I will also need to analyze the thoughts and opinions of the scientists involved in the controversy and present how these opinions pertain to them and the general public at large.

My audience will respond well to videos and articles with controversial pictures.  These people are going to want quick information and do not want to be overwhelmed by a lot of text.  These people most likely will not be already invested in the argument and aren’t going to want to spend a lot of time on the argument if it does not grab their attention quickly. 

The purpose of my argument will be to raise awareness and to settle fears or concerns.  I hope that by having awareness, they will be able to construct informed opinions and arguments.  I hope that they will take action in joining the debate themselves, because the scientists who seem to hold all the power will only be influenced if the general public starts voicing their opinions.  In addition, these opinions cannot be reactionary opinions, but well informed arguments.

Genre

I could make a short Facebook video that can be shared quickly.  This genre is designed to provide quick information that requires little effort from the reader.  It is also something that this audience will encounter on a daily basis.  The video could really be on any social media site.  This gives it the possibility of going viral.

The ethos will come from the professionality and quality of the video.  It does not have to look like an expert made it, but it needs to look like one spent a lot of time on it.  The pathos will come from the music of the video and the inflection and tone of the narrator.  The logos will come from the facts being presented will helpful visuals.  If the video enhances understanding, the logos will come through.

I will use many graphics and pictures that help explain the science behind the controversy and how the future consequences will proceed.  This may involve maps or word bubbles chains.  I will use a friendly approach to establish a connection with my reader, but my tone will also be professional as I want to sound informed.

A social media video may look like this or this.

I could also use an article published on an online forum.  These articles can be easily accessed by smartphones and are often shared on news apps.  These articles are meant to give quick information and not be cluttered with lots of facts and figures. 

The ethos will come with effective presentation and grammatical structures.  If the paper looks like it was designed with the audience in mind, they will be more inclined to read it and believe it.  The pathos will come from the use of personal stories that are shared.  These stories will make the article sound more like a conversational piece than an essay.  The logos will come through the cohesiveness of the article and the organization of the points presented.

This article will begin with a large picture that has a strong emotional appeal.  It will also be interspersed with pictures and helpful visuals that break up the reading.  This article will use a formal tone that establishes authority on the topic.  It will also be conversational so that the audience knows that they need to start forming their own opinion.

It might look like this or this.

Positive Reactions

I hope people would take the information and understand the impact it has on their own lives.  I hope that they then use this understanding to join the argument.  Nothing is going to change if the public is not getting their voice out there.  I also hope people are angered by either what I say or the controversy that is going on.  This may spark them to do their own further research.  Another outcome would be that people actually start looking to change laws by starting petitions.

Negative Rebuttals

People may think that they have no voice.  They may be angered by the proposal to speak out and say that scientists hold all the power.  Others may say that you cannot stop the flow of progress.  Another rebut may be that the technology has no application to them as America has already been banned from the research.  I will need to show the direct correlations that the controversy is having on America and how the public’s lack of action is making the controversy worse.


Reflection:

The one part of my plan that is lacking is the reactions that I think will come from my argument.  After reading Jovanka's blog and Allison's blog, I realized that I more than just considering what possible reactions there might be, I need to consider what reactions I WANT to see.  From here, I can then manipulate my audience into feeling these things.  This has shifted my purpose a little in which I want to take a stronger approach.  More than just trying to comfort my audience, I want to show them that the future of this technology is not as bleak as people are making it out to be.

Analyzing Purpose

The purpose of my paper: world peace!  Plausible?  Not really...  Try again.  The goal of my article: end world hunger.  Feasible?  Nope...  Try again.

Godserv. "Got Purpose?" 04/13/2010 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

Step 1- Free Write:.

I want my readers to feel a sense of control after they read/ hear my argument.  Often times, when debates regard scientists, many feel that the situation is out of their control.  They feel that technology is so sophisticated and that scientists have such authority that whatever happens is up to the experts.  This causes a lot of fear in people.  I want my readers to feel like, even if they don’t take direct action, they have a voice and decisions to make in the future of genetic modification.

Step 2- Consider:

Plausible Reactions => There may be possible shock if this controversy is new to them.  They may be angered by my content for the genetic modification and want to unload facts about the evils of it.  People may take the information and use it appease their worries as they now feel more informed.  Others many want to take action and speak out for changes in the law.

Not Plausible Reactions => No one is going to go over to China and start protests at the university.  No one is going to be able to change a law by themselves or single handedly stop all genetic testings.

Step 3- Build

If people take the information to be more informed and feel more in control, this will stop public panics.  This will help stop people from spreading misinformed ideas and lashing out quickly against situations they do not understand.  If people understand the subject more, society can move past a state of panic and begin to start discussing the practical implications of the controversy.   When this happens, reaching compromises becomes possible.  In addition, the people who have the power to change laws can get a better understanding of the public’s opinions and concerns when they are creating informed arguments instead of argument that are fueled by rage or fear.

Step 4- Draw Conclusions:

The most likely group I’m going to reach is the general public.  Considering those that would be most fearful would be those closest the topic, the parents.  These are the people that are most likely to react and fight out against the topic as soon as they hear the smallest thing of how it may affect their baby.  Parents will share the information they get with other parents as they are concerned for all the children.  I feel that reaching out to new parents may start a wave of understanding.  They are also the ones that are mostly likely to take action if they feel they can make a difference.

Analyzing Context

Making a public argument is all about considering the reactions your audience is going to have to the work.  By analyzing how others are currently calling people to action will help me decide the purpose of my own argument.

Chiltepinster. "Mockingbird Juveniles" 06/26/2011
via Wikimedia. Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported.

The ethical implications of genetically modifying human embryos divides many scientists as well as the general public.  One side believes that the technology is so far from being useable that there is no harm in continuing to research the idea.  They also think that the benefits of eliminating diseases in a child before they are even born outweighs any sort of ethical dilemma.  The other side believes that genetically modifying human embryos is too close to playing God.  Others in the same group are afraid of the consequences of having “designer babies.”

Both sides agree that the research is far from being ready to use.  Also, many, if not all, scientists agree that there should some guidelines on what the future of the research looks like.  Obviously, how constricting these rules are will be a major point of disagreement.

The groups are divided by the role they think science should play in the creation of life.  Whether the concern stems from a religious belief or not, many believe the child birth is a natural process that should not be interfered with by science.  Others believe that the purpose of science is to expand the capabilities of humans, even if it means starting before the human is born.

Those against genetically modifying human embryos are concerned that the current laws hold no power of controlling this research.  They believe there are gaps in the laws that do not protect human embryos against scientific research.  They are raising awareness and calling for people to push for legal changes.  Much of the scientists that are for the modification are not having to call for action since there are no restrictions on their research yet.  When more scientists want to participate in this research, they may have to start fighting for rights.

The perspectives that take strong sides for or against the argument will be most helpful in my argument.  While many sources seem to only want to raise ethical questions, I need sources that take opinions and share.  However, sources that say the issue is not critical or that the decision does not need to be made right now will hurt my argument.


Reflection:

After taking the time to read my peers' (Mathias Oh's and Joy Kosik's) analysis of their contexts, I saw how important ideological differences can be to an argument.  When writing a public argument, it will be essential to address those ideologies since that is what the root of all controversies are.  In regards to genetic modification, many people will not be persuaded by the facts and figures of what the science can do.  Such, simply raising ethical questions will not do much in this controversy.