Designer Babies

Summary
Designer babies is a term used to describe the process of using a procedure called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to allow parents to select their babies traits , or 'design' them. This article from the Wall Street Journal explains the process, and states that PGD has been used for many years to avoid life-threatening diseases in children. It goes on to describe the many uses and improvements of PGD, and it's relation to the creation of designer babies. The article explains that PGD is done by taking a three-day old embryo consisting of six-cells, and taking it to the lab to test for any genetic diseases. If the process of PGD still doesn't seem too futuristic, the concept of designer babies should.

This image from The Wall Street Journal article shows how the process of trait selection works

Social and Ethical Issues
In the past, people couldn't even figure out the gender of their babies, now they can choose the gender they want their babies to be. This is probably why the concept of designer babies is so controversial. Some people are very used to natural  selection because it has been around since the dawn of time and find it to be immoral, while others find it interesting and would like to try it out. It's a scary concept to digest, it probably scares everyone, even the people that try it out or perform the procedure, but it is the way that people react to their fear that creates conflict. Whether they decide to venture into the light, or stay in the dark about it, it will always be a possibility. Personal values aren't the only things that might affect a persons decision to use the process; religion could also play a huge role. Some people might decide that it goes against God's natural process, while other might see it as a way to improve man-kind.

Even with all this controversy around it, there is still no guarantee that the process will work 100% of the time. Scientists can do whatever they want with the genes, but the embryo still has a long way to develop, and there's no telling of what might happen during a process that was supposed to be natural in the first place. This process might even be able to create defects that wouldn't have been there before if that baby had grown naturally.

It is also dangerous that humans now have access to gene selection because it creates discrimination, and prevents diversity in the world. Also, the intentions of these doctors that are for trait selection may be good, but that doesn't mean that everybody's intentions are good.

Ultimately it is up to the parent to decide on whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice-versa, the fact is that  trait selection is a very powerful concept, and should be used with caution if used at all.

Credibility and Bias
I think that this article comes from a very credible source. It comes from The Wall Street Journal website; The Wall Street Journal has been running since 1889 and mainly publishes material about business and economics. The article is written by Gautam Naik, who was written several other articles for The Wall Street Journal on scientific topics.
Despite it's credibility, I do think that this article shows a little bit of bias. The writers words seem to be neutral, and only state the facts, however the quotes he uses are all against the use of PGD for trait selection. The writer tells of Doctor's who are for trait selection, but does not quote them.

Source: NAIK, G. (2009, February 12). A Baby, Please. Blond, Freckles -- Hold the Colic.The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 9, 2013, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234397716

Comments

I just want to say that I really enjoyed this unit (even though I finished it late. Nyehehejeje). I liked how I didn't have to be serious and formal all the time, because it's a blog!!! I can type however I want (at least that's what I think it is...............................). Anyway, it was a real stress reliever from the other units because I was allowed to just type what I thought, and be me. I didn't have to be serious Abbird, I could just be regular silly Abbird teheh.

Ok Mrs. P*w*ll, if you're reading this I feel sorry for you. Joke, hi :D here are my comments on other peoples blags:

• blibbering-humdingers
• snivellus-greasy
• gabriellecommtech
• izzaapizzaa
• meowcreaturecats
• cornslug

#6 Web 2.0 and YOU!

Technology is growing up so quickly :') ... or should I say down? Computers used to be like this

And now they're like this

It's like the curious case of Benjamin Button. Computers, are like Brad Pitt. How poetic.

Over the years people have managed to create all new languages and codes because of computers, and over time people have also managed to rid themselves of good grammar, and vowels. With all the emerging technology, people are getting lazier, and lazier. It's no surprise that they start making shortcuts for words like 'lol' 'brb' or 'g2g.'  If these abbreviations didn't exist, would you actually truthfully find yourself texting '"Laugh out loud no way!!" probably not right? LOL. People are even forgetting to add vowel to some of their texts, "k, txt u l8r" they're replacing words with single letters, replacing letters with numbers?!?!?! WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END?!?! When will people learn the appropriate times for "your" and "you're?!"

These different forms of technology are changing, and changing fast. As they change, people change; we start using these different forms of technology to do multiple things. For example, we used to use house phones to talk, type writers to make documents, nintendo 64s to play games, and tv's to watch shows, now we can talk, text, type, play games, and watch shows on the same devices that play and store our music!! Web 2.0 is trying to get us to realize that this new technology is a more convenient way to communicate with friends, family, and others.

#5 A Look at Music Videos

Payphone - Maroon 5

When I first watched this video I cried, because I didn't think that it was possible for someone to look so good in a suit and tank top (is there a different word for mens tank tops?). I felt so bad when Adam had to leave that girl that looked like Taylor Swift (I'm just gonna call her Taylor Swift) behind like that. He grabbed the gun from that guys belt, dodged bullets from all the other bad guys plus the cops, and escaped the bank, just to save her. Then he stole a car (Wiz Khalifa's) so that they could escape together, but instead got into a high speed car chase, cornered by the cops (and I'm gonna say SWAT was there too because there was a helicopter), blew up one of the cop cars, escaped again, drove to someplace underneath a bridge, met up with Wiz Khalifa [who is apparently homeless (with a really nice car)?], blew up Wiz Khalifa's car, and dialed a payphone to call Taylor Swift after he left her squatting behind a car...shoeless, just to get no answer. How tragic D: That's okay though, more Adam for me :D nyehehe.

I think that the use of guns in the video represent oppression. And when Adam told Taylor Swift to take off her shoes, it represented how those shoes oppressed her feet (what were they? like three feet high?). When I listened to the song before the video came out, I thought the song was about a girl he left back home when he became famous. I never pictured that it would be about a man who became a fugitive to save a girl's life, when he could've just saved the girl, surrendered when they got out, explained the real story to the cops, and lived happily ever after. I guess it was all the action movies that were coming out that influenced the way this video turned out. Or maybe, Maroon 5 was just sick of cheesy music videos for love songs. Can we even call them Maroon 5? How about Adam Levine and 4 ugly guys nyhehe just kidding. Don't tell them I said that. Please.

But in all seriousness, I gotta say that even though the story line was bad (?) the song was good, and Adam Levine was goooOOoooOOooooOOOOd.

#4 Beauty - Is it Really in the Eye of the Beholder?

This topic is brought up a lot in assignments at school. I don't know whether teachers actually want to see how we react to the media, or if they just ran out of topics. LOL just kidding. But seriously, I get it, the media is a big influence on us, we have to make sure that we know it's not real, and that "people as well as situations are altered to look like they're flawless and desirable to the mind."  I think people are portrayed this way because nobody wants to look at someone who looks like this:

It's just not appealing. I mean, I can stare at this picture for a few minutes, but eventually I'll throw up. I think that everyone is shallow, and that everyone judges each other, It's just that some people don't like to admit it. I'm shallow too, there's not much point in hiding it. A lot of people say, "It's what's on the inside that counts." and "Don't judge a book by it's cover." But who are we kidding? When you're looking at a bookshelf, what book do you think is more 'eye popping?' 

This one?

Or these ones?

Probably the colourful ones right? But that still doesn't guarantee that you'll want to take it off the shelf and read it... Bottom line: it catches your attention, just like a commercial with a really pretty girl or celebrity would catch your attention. Well, if you think about it, a really ugly person would catch your attention too, but a pretty person would be more appealing.

I get why people would choose more "attractive" people to be in ads and stuff, but sometimes they tend to obsess about how perfect these people have to look, and go over the top with photoshop. Sometimes I look at a magazine and I ask myself if it's even possible to look that good, or if the model actually looks like that in person. All these pictures do is remind me that the people in them aren't real, and that I don't have to look like that if I don't want to. But those thoughts aren't the same with everyone. For some people, these pictures can have no effect, but for others they might have a negative effect and make them think that they aren't good enough because they don't look like that. I guess that's why people tell us "Don't judge a book by it's cover." and "It's on the inside that matters." because it consoles the people who feel bad about how they look.  Maybe if photo editors would lay off the photoshop a little bit, then people wouldn't feel that bad.

If these pictures in the media weren't so 'glammed up', people would feel less pressured, and probably live happier lives. Maybe if I saw more realistic looking people on a magazine cover, I would feel like it was a real life situation, and buy the magazine. But society's too caught up in earning money, and looking like celebrities to do that. so I don't think that's gonna happen.

#3: Sharing is Caring

I don't get what's wrong with file sharing. When I was younger I would watch this show called The Care Bears, it's basically about these bears that teach kids how to care, and one of them (Share Bear) would always say, "Sharing is caring." So when people share these files on the internet, they're just caring. I think that file sharing is only a problem when people are making profit off of other people's work. Like those pirated videos at Pacific Mall... you know what I'm talking about. If it's for yourself then why would it matter? Who is it really hurting. Kids die in Africa whether I buy a song off iTunes or not. Buying movies, or songs, or other forms of artwork doesn't save a life, it just makes rich people richer. Except for those songs that donate their profits to charity, those are pretty fun to buy, like you feel like you made some kind of difference in the world. But other than that, I think it's insane that people have to pay $0.99 to listen to a song that makes them happy.

As long as there's people that actually buy these files in stores, like movies and stuff, then it's okay to share them online. The movie  and music industry's making enough money as it is anyway, Justin Bieber doesn't need my dollar, plenty of 8 year old girls are supplying him with enough dollars to last 2 lifetimes. If I produced my own piece of art/song/movie, I wouldn't have made it for the money, I would've made it because I enjoyed it. I guess that sounds cheesy but even if i really needed the money, I wouldn't want to earn it doing something that i hate.

#1: Texting in Social Situations

Response to: mwardcommunications - Texting in Social Situations

If texting involves one person communicating with another, doesn't that make texting it's own social situation? Maybe the real question is: is it rude to talk to somebody in person while you're texting?

Just kidding.

Yeah, I actually find it rude to text while somebody's talking to you, but it really depends on the situation. Like if  I was at some kind of party, and nobody was talking to me, I would start texting my friends, but if I was having an actual face-to-face conversation with a person, I would prefer that neither of us be texting. Texting while having an actual conversation is like saying that a cellphone is more valuable than a person. And even if you do think that texting is more important than the person you're talking to, it's rude to show it.

Yes texting's very convenient, but it's not as fun as actually talking, because you can't hear the persons tone of voice. Technology has been developed to make communication more convenient , but it has also been making older forms of communication obsolete. People used to be able to communicate without cellphones and now they're basic necessities in everyday life.

Like I said before, if you're talking to somebody and texting at the same time, you're basically saying that texting is more important than the person you're talking to. Unless the person you're texting is more important than the person you're talking to; like the prime minister. Or if it's some kind of emergency text like if your friend texts you and says, "Angelica's water just broke and she needs new pants." OR if the person texting you is important and has an emergency like, "Abby, this is the prime minister. A building is on fire and we need your super human ability to put it out. Oh yeah, and this lady's water just broke, she needs new pants." Even if that does happen to be the situation, you should tell the person that you're talking to that there's an emergency and you need to concentrate on texting. Which leads me to...

Five Etiquette Texting Rules:

1. Don't text while having a face-to-face conversation. Even if you think texting is more important than the person you're talking to. Unless you don't care if people think you have no manners...
2. If you're texting an important person, or a person with an emergency, or an important person with an emergency, make sure the person you're talking to is aware of that. That way you can leave immediately, and the person won't take it the wrong way.
3. Don't text more people than you can handle. It just creates more problems for you and the quality of your texts decreases
4. If you  wake up and find that you have a text that was sent to you hours before you woke up, respond anyways. It's better to let the person know that you were sleeping instead of just letting them think that you're ignoring them.
5. Don't send spam. That's just annoying.