Eric McNamara BIO 1090 Taking Sides May 2, 2013

Issue 12 - Is Genetic Enhancement an Unacceptable Use of Technology? The Yes argument on this issue was done by Michael J. Sandel, titled The Case Against Perfection. His thesis was how enhancement is more of a moral issue than anything else. The No argument was A Man Is a Man Is a Man, by Howard Trachtman. His main point was that perfection isnt achievable, so enhancement would just be helping us strive for better health. In Sandels article, he frames the question Is the scenario troubling because the unenhanced poor would be denied the benefits of bioengineering, or because the enhanced affluent would somehow be dehumanized? I would consider this a fallacy because he seems clearly biased, showing the poor would get worse and worse off, while the rich would be enhanced so much that they wouldnt be considered human anymore. I didnt notice any specific fallacies in question-framing from Trachtmans article. The few questions he asked seemed to be more philosophical, such as When is failure to concentrate a sign of disease worth of treatment and when does it indicate a lazy student who is not willing to work hard enough in school? This shows that he doesnt care what the cause is, as long as he can help the patient. In regards to hormone treatments for children, Sandel states the fact that by 1996, offlabel use was 40 percent of growth-hormone prescriptions. He also cited the 81 million Americans over fifty who are encountering natural memory loss due to old age. Trachtman states in his article that abuse of erythropoietin by athletes does not detract from improvement of patients with renal disease using antibiotics. The two authors have differing opinions in their articles. Sandel states his opinion of believing more in the thrill of the unknown, rather than being too controlling about every aspect of our lives. He also states that becoming too interested in perfection and enhancement can make us miss or not appreciate human powers and achievements. Trachtman believes instead of creating automatic winners and losers, enhancement is already happening to some effect because were constantly trying to better our lives. When speaking about whether enhancement would be acceptable if its justified versus pride/vanity, he says the distinction is hard to make, and that it shouldnt matter as long as it helps the patient. It could be said that much of Sandels argument could be considered a fallacy. Throughout the article, hes stating how this is mostly a moral issue. While its good to have and live by morals, its hard to make an argument using them because they can differ so much between different people and cultures. I didnt notice many fallacies in Trachtmans article. It seemed well thought out, he used different facts and articles to challenge or support his claims. Trachtmans article seemed to be more supported. All throughout, he was citing different articles to help backup his points, rather than Sandel stating mostly his own opinion.

Sandel seemed to be biased in his article. I got the impression that he had his mind made up and was listing everything wrong about the issue rather than being reasonable and weighing the possibilities. He seems to have strong morals, which is nothing bad, but it almost makes him seem stubborn. I didnt think Trachtman was as biased, he definitely stated his thoughts, but he at least addressed multiple opinions which makes it seem more thought out. Its hard to see who is correct because of the moral nature of these issues, the readers opinion of each might differ depending on their own beliefs. But after analyzing each one, I seem to think Trachtman is more open and reasonable about the issue. Rather than leaning highly on morals and opinion like Sandel, Trachtman seemed to weigh both sides of the issue. He still stated his opinion, but he seemed less close-minded about it, which made me gravitate towards him more.

Issue 3 - Can an Overemphasis on Eating Healthy Become Unhealthy? The Yes argument with this issue was Orthoexia: When Eating Healthy Becomes an Unhealthy Obsession, done by Lindsey Getz. Her main point in the article was showing that people can become so obsessed with the perfect diet, that they can be missing important nutrients. The opposing No argument was done by Chris Woolston, titled Whats Wrong With the American Diet?. His thesis is (). I didnt notice any fallacies caused by question forming in either article. Both articles started with questions: What could be wrong with a desire to eat healthy? and Whats wrong with the typical American diet? But these are only used to provoke thought or grab the readers attention. Getz states the fact that fats are actually healthy for us, especially unsaturated fats, helping protect our heart and lower cholesterol. She also states that although its catching on with dieticians, orthorexia is not officially recognized. Woolston states in his article that 66 percent of all Americans are overweight. He also mentions that the average American only has 3 servings of fruits and vegetables a day, while 42 percent eat less than 2 servings. Getz shows how she believes that dieticians need to teach their clients to not fear certain foods or label them and good or bad. She also believes that parents need to be careful about what their children pick up on regarding diet. Woolston believes that the main issue with the American diet is the amount of calories, rather than fatty foods themselves. He also believes that many dietary issues could be resolved with eating in moderation, rather than just paying attention to the types of food we eat. I believe Getzs article is pretty logical. It avoids using her own opinion, she shares stories from experts, which grants her more credibility. The only issue with her writing compared to Woolstons, is that there arent as many facts listed. Were supposed to trust the words from her quotations, which might not seem as strong as an argument based on facts or studies. I also think Woolston is very reasonable and logical in his writing. Since most of it is based on facts, its hard to argue his points. While both articles had many different quotations and examples from different experts, the information in Woolstons article seemed more relevant. Getzs quotations were more generic or opinion-based, whereas Woolstons included actual facts and statistics.

Both writers didnt seem to be particularly biased. The moved from point to point using their own information or quotations from assorted experts in their fields. They obviously supported their own side, but it more rooted in fact that opinion and bias. I believe Woolston to be more correct with this issue. The information he stated or quoted seemed more specific that what Getz went over. He seems to base everything around actual information rather than stating his opinion, this makes his point more supported and persuasive.