My stance on genetic enhancement has been strongly in favor for it.

I believe
that the potential good that can be found in mastering this technology will
outweigh the moral consequences we may come across in the long run. By
striving to control or eliminate the random elements that can potentially hinder
human growth, such as diet and disease, we can hopefully improve mankind on
global scale, eventually to a point in time where the playing field will be even
for most, if not all, people. The problem with this is the same with all idealistic
problems, the human element. However, I strongly believe that growth will
eventually lead us to a point in which we can even subdue the negative issues
to the human element, and that begins with pushing humanity forward as a
whole. After reading writings from both sides of the issue, I find that my
opinion has changed very little and has only served to further solidify my
stance.
Michael J. Sandel argues in his thesis that genetic enhancement will only lead
us to a path in which we forget what it means to be a natural human. Sandel
highlights the potential that can be found in its use as well as the moral
consequences that may result from it based on human nature, such as a
genetic arms race. By pursuing genetic enhancement, Sandel believes that
humans will change into something not human in that we forget our natural
roots and appreciation for the like.
One fact that Sandel presents is that scientists have tested muscle enhancing
synthetic genes on mice with successful results (Sandel, 2004. The Case
Against Perfection. The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 293, no. 3).
One opinion that Sandel presents is that the best way for mankind to
appreciate children is to simply accept their conditions as they come and that
genetic tinkering should not play any part in altering their gifts. I do believe
this is an opinion as there are no facts to back this statement, and there is no
right or wrong answer to this statement.
Sandel tends to play up the fact that genetic enhancements will cause arms
races for certain qualities due to the fear that everyone will want a certain
quality. However, I believe that to be a fallacy in that correlation does not
equal causation. Sandel does not point out that preference plays a large role in
the qualities people seek. Not everyone will want to partake in height
enhancing procedures as Sandel believes.
Sandels arguments tend to stem from his personal opinion in how humans
should view themselves, often using feeling and emotion to back up his
statements. One example of this is seen when Sandel states, That we care
deeply about our children and yet cannot choose the kind we want teaches
parents to be open to the unbidden. Such openness is a disposition worth
affirming, not only with families but in the wider world as well. This statement

asserts that his argument holds validity, but using emotion and not fact to back
it up.
Howard Trachtman argues that genetic enhancement should be viewed the
same as other advances in the medical field in that we as humans must realize
that genetic enhancement does not create perfection, but works to improve
ones health. From a professional point of view, genetic enhancement should
be seen as a tool to improve people and that the human element is not
something for them to judge.
Trachtman states in his essay that erythropoietin is a drug that can be abused
by athletes is also the same drug used to treat patients with end stage renal
disease with a reference to back it (Schumacher et al. 2001).
One opinion Trachtman states is that he would avoid categorizing a patients
health issues between something morally acceptable to treat or not.
Trachtman states himself that this is his opinion by using the pronoun I in what
he would choose to do, therefore, it is not a fact nor a fallacy.
Trachtman states that no enhancement or treatment has ever turned out all
that was cracked up to be, which comes off as a fallacy because Trachtman
presents this idea as a fact without any validity to back it up.
Trachtmans argument, however, is a pseudo solution as Trachtman only states
that the medical community should embrace this idea. He states, I would
encourage the medical community to embrace enhancement as a never ending
quest for health that will make us healthier but never perfect. While this
sounds like a swell solution, it does not completely answer the question at
hand. Trachtman does not address whether or not society as a whole should
accept this idea, leaving us with a half answered question.
I personally feel that the yes side is more biased as the argument tends to
stem more so from personal opinion rather than fact. The argument from the
no side states that strictly from a medical perspective, genetic enhancement
would be an ideal solution for many health issues and that the most
professional way to judge it is to do so as a tool and not a way of life.
I believe that the no side appeared more empirical as it provided more
information sources to back up its claims. While the yes side also used
references, very little of its references were used to support its main ideas and
instead opted more for opinion based statements.
As one who believes that empirical argumentation is the most effective
method, I would have to side with Trachtmans essay as they provided more
validity to their statements by using facts. Personally, I also believe that things
should be analyzed as they are mechanically without influence from human

factors and emotion. Trachtmans essay heavily argues for this fact and I
believe that is the fairest method to judge anything new.