Ashley’s Blog

There have been many advances within the realm of genetics over the past decade. These advances will eventually allow one to genetically enhance their own body or be able to treat and/or prevent multiple forms of disease. However as stated in the article, “The Case Against Perfection,” our ways of science are moving faster than our moral understanding. Is it ok to deny our own nature and “fate” and genetically alter our genes, in order to make ourselves “better than the norm?” Scientists are now working on ways in which one can enhance their muscles, memories, and moods. Aside from making you child “the best of the best,” and prevent them from disease, but a parent can also choose a child’s sex.

There are essentially two sides of genetically altering one’s child, this first being for curing a genetic disease. I would not normally agree with altering a persons genes, however if it cures a horrible disease that that particular person has then I believe it is acceptable. However there is a second question that lies within the discussion of curing disease. When in the embryos development do you alter the genes? Does one alter the genes when the embryo is within the germ line, or when the embryo has progressed to contain the somatic cells? There are advantages to both sides. If one decides to alter the embryo at the germ line, this affects every generation from that child down the family line. Where as, if one alters it at the somatic stage, it only alters that embryo, not its unborn children. Personally, if I were to spend the amount of money that genetic alteration costs, I would want my embryo to be altered at the germ line, and to cure all the generations after my child’s.

The second side to genetically altering ones child deals with enhancing a child’s ability to excel at multiple actions. For example, one could enhance their child to excel at sports or academics. Sandel states in his article, “It is commonly said that genetic enhancements undermine our humanity by threatening our capacity to act freely, to succeed by our own efforts, and to consider ourselves responsible-worthy of praise or blame- for the things we do and for the way we are.”  I believe that this quote explains much of the debates about enhancing ones child. For example, I would be more prone to support someone who is a good athlete through hard work and dedication rather than someone who was enhanced before they were born to excel at their sport. Personally I just do not believe that genetic enhancement is not moral, and does not go along with my values. However, everyone is different.

Lastly to touch upon choosing the sex of ones child, I believe that this is somewhat reasonable under the assumption that it is used for family balancing. Microsort and PDG are both ways on which one can choose the sex that baby would be born with. However choosing the sex, does not always mean that they will stay that gender their whole life. I feel like you are choosing a set way for your child and having high hopes, only to be disappointed later in life if your child decides to turn transgender.

            Since our week had been split between two different modules, I would like to touch on both. On Tuesday we wrapped up our discussion on cancer. The first point that I would like to acknowledge is the fact that everyone is affected by cancer, and that cancer does not know differences between man. A good quote I pulled from my own research for my paper in English is written by Michelangelo Delfino and Mary E. Day in their book, Cancer: We Live and Die by Radiation. They state,

            “Cancer is a disease—an abnormal condition that accounts

              for some 13% of all deaths in the world. Second to heart disease

              as a cause of death, cancer is arguably this planet’s most

              frightening killer. No on is spared—cancer threatens every man,

              woman, and child, even the unborn. The disease has no fear and knows

              no global boundaries.” (Delfino 1)

I feel that this quotes wraps up all of Rothmans points in our reading for Tuesday. We are all exposed to things that could cancer, we are all under the same risk. Though we are under the same risk, I feel some of us have different levels of risk. For example, if breast cancer runs in your family, due to genetics you are more prone to developing breast cancer also. Lastly I feel that due to radiation or pollution concentration, those who live in areas with a higher concentration are more at risk than others.

            To also touch on the second module that we started on Thursday, I would like to talk more about out class discussion rather than the reading. We were split into groups and asked questions concerning genetic defaults and abortion based on age, gender, race, etc. The questions were concerning parental screening, for example a amniocentesis, and the decisions that would be made according to the results. Personally, even without different risks of genetic defaults, I would receive the screening. I feel that if something were to be wrong I would want to be prepared to provide the best living environment necessary for that child to grow. If I am doing well financially and I am at a younger age, there is no way that I would go through with an abortion if my child had genetic defects. However I could understand someone wanting an abortion if they were not in the right financial position to provide for their child, or if they were at high risk for their age. In the end, even if I were a high risk pregnancy (women of the age 35 or older), I still do not think that I would go through with an abortion if, for example my child was going to have downs syndrome. I would understand the consequences, having to take care of that child for the rest of my life and there is always that risk of the parents dying before the child. This would put a burden on the rest of the family to have to take care of that child, however I if it were my family they would not consider it a burden. They would love the child just as much as any other child and would not mind taking care of them.

Delfino, Michelangelo, and Mary E. Day. Cancer: We Die and Live by Radiation. 

           
Los Altos: MoBeta Publishing, 2006.

This week we spent a lot of time discussing the issues surrounding breast cancer. I would first like to start with a quote from Samantha King’s article, “Pink Ribbons INC.,” as she states the evolution of breast cancer in society. King writes,

“the disease has been reconfigured from a stigmatized disease

and individual tragedy best dealt with privately and in isolation,

to a neglected epidemic worthy of public debate and political organizing,

to an enriching and affirming experience during which women with

breast cancer are rarely ‘patients’ and mostly ‘survivors.’”

This is true stated also in the movie, The Body Beautiful, a women who had breast cancer 20 years ago was said to keep it to herself and immediate family. Then once she had gone through surgery to try and keep it secret by “stuffing” her bra. This is completely wrong and demoralizing to the individual. I would feel like I was not accepted by my friends and family, an alien of sorts. The second topic I would like to touch upon is the gender biased that is associated with breast cancer. When most people think of breast cancer, most think of the pink ribbon, the purple stamps, and women. Breast cancer research and breast cancer in general is widely advertised as just a cancer that women have. However this is untrue, men can get the disease also, it is just a smaller percentage than women get it. I do not think they are trying to have a gender biased towards men, it just happens to be that men do not get it as often. This leads me to my next question on if the gender biased would make people more resistant to buying breast cancer items. Personally, it does not stop me from buying these items. Most of the things that I buy, a portion of the money is sent to breast cancer research. This research benefits both sexes, not just women. And judging by the general consensus of the class it does not seem as it would bother them either. When the males were asked if they would be offended by the gender biased if they had breast cancer, the response was not surprising. Most men would not be offended, the advertising does picture all women, and however it is all going to the same cause and benefiting the men with breast cancer also.

Lastly, is it morally correct for a corporation to use breast cancer research to advertise their products?  King later states in her article, “Breast cancer research and education is a—if not the—favorite charitable cause for corporations seeking to attract female consumers through cause-related marketing campaigns.” At first thought with this question, I had to take a step back and think. I would probably be more prone to buying a product where a portion of the profit will be donated to a good cause. Then from there on I would probably continue to buy items from that company because I would think that they “support a good cause.” However as Tori pointed out in our class discussion I would want to buy products from a company that I donates every year on their own without advertisement. I feel that would be more noble than making a product specifically for “breast cancer research advertisement.” But then again a company has a certain projection that they have to meet. And advertising for something like breast cancer research helps a lot with their view in the publics eye.

There are several questions that I wish to address concerning genetic research. The first of which being if one knew their child was going to be a “genetic weakling” and of defective, would you have an abortion or force that child to be sterile for the betterment of community? To start how do u define someone as being a genetic weakling or defective, what are the superior genes that are the deciding point? I believe that everyone that is born has some positive effect on the world one way or another. Though they might be “defective” or lack in one area, does not mean they cannot excel in others. For example, Einstein was said to be mildly autistic, however look at the advances he made for our scientific community. Also in the beginning the society might have a line drawn to say what defective is, however they will continue to find things wrong, and raise the bar on defects. The way that goes, eventually they would be killing off everyone because no one can be considered perfect. I personally do not agree with this, if I am going to have a child that is autistic, I will accept the challenge, loving them as much as I would a child that did not have autism.

            There is yet a second question that is harder to answer than the one above. If I found out that I am to have a child, and that child has Tay Sachs disease, where they baby dies within a year of birth, would I have an abortion? I have carefully considered both sides of this argument, and have come to the conclusions of its personal choice. One would have to  weight out their options, meaning would you rather carry this child for 9 months only to have it suffer and die a year after birth or would you have an abortion to save yourself from going through losing this child that you have grown close to and developed a close relationship with. Personally I do not like considering the thought of having an abortion myself, I support a woman’s right to choose, however I would never be able to go through with it myself. At least I never thought I would be able to until I ran into this question. I view an abortion as taking an emotional toll on myself and my significant other, and it would completely suck to have one. However I do not think that I would be emotionally stable enough to carry a child for nine months, having the knowledge that I would grow close to them over the next year, and then have them taken from me. So initially it is a personal choice on your morals, values, and personal strength however personally I would not be able to have a child knowing their fate.

There are many different types of people in
America, this includes people who do well is school and those who do not. Should these two groups of people really be separated, and what constitutes as doing well in school? Is there are limit to intellectual potential and should these students be tracked throughout their schooling? Lastly do those students placed on the lower tracks have a disadvantage when applying to colleges.

            Ever since I was a kindergartener I have been seen as having intellectual potential, meaning that in my latter years in school I would do well. I was then set on a path of academic success where all the right opportunities were given to me in order to succeed in college. What about those kids who were not seen as having the same intellectual potential as I was, what happened to them? In my high school students were separated into several different categories according to this potential. You had your remedial classes, vocational classes, college prep classes, regular classes, honors classes, then lastly ending in AP classes. This list starts with what was considered the lowest category of classes, then increases from there. I do not agree with this form of structure that is shown through most public schooling. This form of tracking does not give others the same opportunities that I did on the higher track.

            Also how does one measure these students intelligence, through a standardized test that only shows their academic ability? Going back to my high school that is in a small, conservative town, if your child’s potential was not up for the college prep level or higher, the students parents were advised by a guidance counselor to be placed in a vocational school. There are several different reasons that make this a controversial issue. First and foremost it seems the counselors are putting a cap on the students potential saying they will never be able to do anything better than using their hands. Secondly this form of advisement makes it seem that vocational school is a bad thing to be in, when some of the most successful people have been enrolled in a vocational school.

            Lastly those that have been tracked to being the brightest of a group of kids have more of an academic advantage for the future than those who were placed on the lower track. I believe this is extremely unfair! For example, as I said before I had been put on the higher track, where as my cousin Thomas was not. During his sophomore year of high school, Thomas’ parents were called and advised that he go to vocational school for half a day his junior and senior year of high school. Thomas was put in the Automobile Correction class and hated it. He was doing horrible in his classes at the vocational school, but doing well in his college prep classes at our high school. However nothing was said or done to take him out of his vocational school. Thus his grades were suffering and he felt that college was not the future to him due to the bad grades he was receiving in his vocational class. He then enrolled in the Marines because he felt that he could make a stronger difference through serving his country and had no aspiration of going to college because he thought he could not do it. However he is happy with his decision and now has the ambition of some day going to college. 

Sexual orientation, along with race, is a subject that is hard to discuss without stepping on multiple peoples toes. Heterosexuality is the social norm in today’s society, but as our country continues to say that they accept people for who they are. Then how come when someone says they are homosexual they get discriminated more so than someone of a different race. I, of all people, have experience with sexual orientation discrimination. As I have mentioned before in my previous blogs, I come from a very conservative and republican based town. They believe in tradition and following what is “normal” in society. When someone dares to be different, the whole town will know about it by the end of the week. It’s the down fall of living in a small town such as mine. You can tell someone a secret one week, and a few days later the whole high school knows what you did. So when someone decides to go against the social norm, for example, as being homosexual or bisexual, the people in my town look down upon it. I should know… My senior year in high school I came out to my friends as being bisexual. By the end of the week I was having my property defaced such as my locker. When I would walk down the halls people would yell obscene words or phrases to me. Eventually a few weeks later things calmed down and I was old news within the high school, people still knew, it just was not a “current issue.”

            My high school however has changed a lot since I have graduated, this year a group of students started a Gay Straight Alliance. And it continues to grow each day, I only hope that the members do not get half the discrimination that I did. I still have not come out to my parents or family yet, and I do not plan to any time soon. My mother and step father have already spoke to me about their “ideals and morals” when my best friend came out to her family. Possibly one day, when they are not paying my college tuition I will tell them who I really am.

            What was the point of me elaborating on and on about the narrow mindedness of my small town. My point is this, conservatives, republicans, liberals, and democrats are all proud of out country’s history. Yes, we did have some rough times through the Civil Rights Movement, but that struggle has somewhat been overcome. This civil rights movement was part of out history, and the
US started to accept people of different races. If we can accept people of different races, who look different and have different backgrounds, why can’t we accept people of different sexual orientation who might also look different and have a different background?

            Throughout history, the government has struggled with the argument of affirmative action and race. What do we base the regulations of affirmative action on? Do we base it on race, class, or need? Who are we to decide who should receive help over another person? It has to be done unfortunately and not everyone can be helped, however what do people base their decisions on? This is a difficult question that is touched in the article, “How Jews Became White,” by Karen Sacks.

            While the US was in World War II the economy was not the best, however afterwards the
US “emerged with the strongest economy in the world” (Sacks 123). In order to reward those male, Euro- origin veterans that served under the
United States the government the GI Bill of Rights. This act was known as “the most massive affirmative action program in
U.S. history” (Sacks 123) and strived to proved the veterans with a way of living that mirrored the economy. Not only did the government provide the veterans with financial aid through the transition from serving to working, but they also sent many of the younger vets to college to get an education. This action helped to raise the middle class population that had college degrees. Before college was for wealthy white families, the GI Bill opened college to the middle class and/or lower.  

            I believe that it is unfair to base affirmative action strictly on race. Although whites have been receiving assistance since the government was first created, that should not stop the government for assisting other whites who need the help, or vice versa. The GI Bill had good intensions in trying to help out the war veterans; however it discriminated against any person of color. It was only open to white veterans, and mostly from the Euro- origin. Many people today are still benefiting from the GI Bill, and taking full advantage of a free college education.

            To touch back on the original question of race versus class, I believe that class and financial need should have been considered for the GI Bill. What’s done is done, however we now know to learn from our mistakes. We should not assign help to a family or person that is fairly well off when we have much poverty in the world.

Lastly the article talked about how when people first started to immigrate to
North America, we were all a “different race.” There were Germans, Irish, Swedes, English, ETC. They were not all considered white at the time, and they all had one nationality that they claimed to be associated with. However as the
United States developed nationalities started to mix and people started to refer to themselves as half Irish and half German ( as an example). Nationalities started to become more subtle, and people started to refer to themselves as Americans and disregard their heritage.  This, for example, is how the “Jews became White.”

As a small child I grew up learning racial etiquette through my schooling and peers. Some came from my parents, however my parents have some racial tendencies. One day I came home from school and mindlessly mentioned to my mother that I had an African American boyfriend. Immediately I realized my “mistake” as she jumped on my explaining the “biological reasons” that I should not engage myself in an interracial relationship. She told me that when “interracial relationships” decide to have children there are precautionary actions that need to be taken. She continued with how much discrimination that the child would receive because it was biracial.  And being as she is a registered nurse, I just assumed she knew what she was talking about.

My mother is an example of a person who tries to justify their racism with science. As Barbara Rothman stated in her book, The Book of Life, “Part of the extraordinary power of racism, as with all ideologies, is its ability to incorporate any variety of facts and make them fit the belief.” (pg 57).  Personally this makes me really mad, to justify not liking a person because they look different from yourself. Not to get extreme valley girl on you, but so NOT COOL! Even though I grew up in a southern family, that has some narrow minded view on people of different races, I do not consider myself a racist person, I have friends that are of a different race, and I do not think lesser of them.

Lastly I believe that these people who justify themselves will continue to do so. When someone tries to point them out, and tell them they are in the wrong, they just bring up more facts. And since they are “scientific facts” they cannot be argued. Personally I think the nation as a whole should try and move away from testing difference in race. When you separate people is studies because of race, it makes people feel offended.

In the Declaration of Independence it was stated, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Within this sentence there is a phrase that to this day has yet to be portrayed within American society. The truth is people may be created equal but they may not be considered as equals. In a society that is predominately white, whites seem to receive more and better advantages than people who are considered to be minorities. These advantages that whites receive are due to something called white privilege.

According to Robert Jensen who wrote the article, “White Privilege Shapes the
U.S.,” “…the ultimate white privilege: [is the] privilege to acknowledge you have unearned privilege but ignore what it means. (pg 79 Privilege: A Reader)”  Jensen makes a point through this statement, some whites realize that they have advantages over other races, however they choose ignore it due to the fact we are said to be in an equal society. However, most whites think they receive their advantages through building themselves up through hard work. They do not realize the benefits their relatives have received and had passed them down through the generations. The fact that these advantages still exist in the twenty first century proves that there is still forms racism alive today.

When writing on such an emotional and political issue, I believe that one should recognize both sides of the issue. In American society when we hear the word racism, we mostly hear of whites discriminating minorities. Also, its not minorities that have the privileges, its strictly whites. However, I beg to differ. There is such a thing known as minority privileges. For example, the government has placed multiple racial status quos that corporations and universities, and other miscellaneous public places must meet in order to stay in business. This allows for minorities to get somewhat of an advantage over a white person. Not only is it shown through job opportunities and university acceptances, but also in financial aid recipients.   

I spent the majority of my senior year of high school applying for as many scholarships that I could find. However the amount of scholarships that are open to minorities only seem to outnumber the amount open to anyone. The reasoning for this however is understandable, minority wealth and finances seem to be substantially smaller than those of whites. As stated in the article, “Overview: The Roots of the Racial Wealth Divide,” written by Lui, “The racial wealth gap has continued to grow. From 1995 to 2001, according to the Federal Bank Reserve, the average family of color saw their net worth fall 7 percent, to $17,000 in just six years, while an average white family’s net worth grew 37 percent, to $120,900, in the same period. (pg 2)”

Lastly, I would like to point out I am on neither side of the argument, I just thought it would be thoughtful to show that there is such a thing as minority privilege, thought it’s not as prominent.