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.