Final Paper Comparsison

The difference between my third and second paper was several things. First of all, even though they both required research the searching was different. In the 2nd paper there was less of one side or the other and more talking about my own. In the third paper I talked about both sides and made sure to keep the comments professional. I also used only articles for my third paper where as for the second one I used articles that had advertisements and just advertisements. I made sure in the third paper that the people who wrote the article were a reliable source where as the articles just needed to support y position.

Final first paper

Fourth grade is not a big deal to most kids. I was very wrapped up in my own life and couldn’t care less about what we were reading in class. I never thought it would lead me to my favorite book. Although I loved reading, I hated sitting still in a classroom full of sweaty kids for 20 minutes at the end of class just to figure out whether or not the story my teacher was reading was worth my time. I usually got through these moments by tugging on my friend’s hair and pulling it into a braid. Sometimes though, my teacher would pick an amazing chapter book, ones I would never consider reading, and she would work her way through it chapter by chapter. Most of the time, these books were clever life lessons I quickly picked up on and disregarded because who really wants to read books like that. But one day, all of those lessons changed. I found getting read aloud to painful and annoying. I wanted to open a book and finish it in a day, not drag it out over months of reading one chapter a day. The day my teacher pulled out Touching Spirit Bear by Ben Mikaelsen.

            The walls were a buttery yellow, with several paintings on them. Vines and leaves on one wall and students art hung in frames around the room. Book shelves covered the base of the walls, and the windows were always open. Outside there were trees and birds were constantly singing. The desks were in rows of three, with special self-managers located next to the teacher’s desk. Computers were on one side of the room, old and beige with loud keys that stuck when pressed too hard. Cubbies were next to the sink, and to the right there was a Japanese box turtle named Tortel. 30 kids were in the room, and at the front they sat on couches and wooden chairs for storytelling and reading. We played with each other’s hair and tried to stay quiet while the old sassy teacher read Touching Spirit Bear.

            My teacher had silvery grey hair and a pair of unrimmed glasses. She was pleasantly plump and wore loose t-shirts and slacks with black crocs. She had a small tattoo on her ankle as well. My closest friends wore shorts with t-shirts and we all had bangs. Other children wore jeans and a sweatshirt with the schools name on it. Everyone was tired, and barely kept their eyes open as we sat around on the cold floor. We circled her as she started the book, and I found myself falling deeper and deeper in love with it. This book was so different from anything I had ever read. The words flowed off my teacher’s lips like she had memorized them. I was so focused on the book I often found myself pulling too hard on a friend’s hair. We all looked attentively towards the teacher who read to us the book of her choice. When she got excited she would jump while reading or her eyes would expand and I was lost in it all. My friend’s never really understood my connection to the book and why I enjoyed it so much.   

            The book, Touching Spirit Bear by Ben Mikaelsen, focuses on a boy named Cole. Cole is an abused teenage boy, who finds himself in a lot of trouble with the law. With the possibility of being tried as an adult he quickly looks for an alternative choice to become part of the community again. Thinking he doesn’t have another chance at life, his parole officer helps Cole join a group called circle justice. Cole is shortly after asked to spend a year on a remote island in Alaska. Throughout the book I followed Cole in every choice he made, thinking on how people would react if I did the same thing. I told myself this book was it. This was as good as books were ever going to get. I connected with Cole in a much different way than I first expected. This book was shaping me into the person I wanted to become. I spent the next year reading it as much as possible, after getting my own copy for Christmas.

            I wondered for a very long time why I connected to Cole. I had never lived on my own in the woods. I had never tried to fight a bear. I didn’t break laws and beat people up. I was a generally good kid when it came to the law and school. What I realized was I connected to his anger. Cole had never been good enough for anyone. I saw this as an in to his life. I had felt growing up pressure from my own parents and my teachers. I was expected to do well in all aspects of school, because I was good at it. I wasn’t able to release my anger like Cole was. I also found myself connect to his home life. While my parents aren’t physically abusive I find myself in the same frustrating situations Cole is in. This was a lot for fourth grade me to handle, but I understood why this book was important.

            This book has helped me understand not to judge people and to show compassion toward others that we may not know. In some ways the book has helped me relate to others who have read it, and even others who have not. We can compare books and share our feelings on why the book impacted us. This particular book was important at the time because it showed how kids affect other people lives at any age. It also showed us family values and why it is important not to let your own family change your values. I am my own person and the book showed my younger self that I could be whoever I chose to be and change no matter how old I was. My life would not be the same without this book. It is possible I never would have learned to accept myself as I am and change my attitude towards my life. I needed to see that every day is precious and we must live life as well as we can even with challenges. Understanding how to be compassionate has helped me in many ways. When my friends talk to me about a certain situation in their life I can help them figure out a helpful solution. I learned what it meant to be willing to do anything to help someone and this book even helped me decide what I wanted to do when I grew up, which was becoming a teacher. 

           

I realize now that this book was my first real outlet for my life. I tried to busy myself with books for years after this. Even now reading this book brings back memories of finding my true self. I remember the feeling I got from this book and how comfortable with myself I became. I remember finding myself living a happier life after reading this book. I was connecting to people better. I found a way to see positives in my life. This book is something I turn to for comfort. It might not be the most thrilling experience, and getting a book read aloud to you is excruciatingly painful but it definitely helped me grow. 

Article Comparisons

In Sprigs essay, she wrote about how smaller farms are better for society. In our group we have many essays and they were very different from Sprigs. Even though the topics were different, all of the authors used valid arguments to defend their position. In Sprigs essay she uses pathos by bringing back memories from her childhood. She brings her own experiences to the table to connect with others. In an essay we have about terrorism, the author used pathos by using the recent attack on Paris, France as an example. She wrote about how the even was horrific and that the killings was supposed to be taken seriously, as terrorism is as well. A different essay we have on abortion, used pathos by asking questions about being against letting embryos live. In all of the essays, an explicit position was used. Sprigs was on how smaller local farms are better than larger monoculture farms. The essay on terrorism was about how serious the word terrorism is, and how the media throws it around too loosely. The abortion essay was about being pro-choice. All of the essays used a response to what others said, and included ethos in those responses. These topics all have a good reason on why it matters. They make it clear that the issue effects many people not just a small portion of society. They all appeal to readers values by connecting to the readers through personal experience, how people feel on the topic in daily life, and how large parts of society is effected by the topic. The essays were all important because they connected to the readers, made their topic important, and used an authoritative tone to convince the readers to agree with them.

Final Draft

Sarah Page

November 1^st, 2015

Designer Babies

            What would you do if you had the opportunity to change the genetic code of your child in the womb so they came out exactly how you wanted?  You could have blue eyes, brown hair, and amazing intelligence. You would have yourself the perfect child, or a designer baby. Designer babies are children who has a changed genetic makeup, so that a specific gene is present or to avoid a defect that is passed down through the family. Some doubt that designer babies are a good thing for our society, but being able to change the genetic makeup of a child can help it and help advance our sciences. These children will soon be available to many, and what scientists can do for a family is amazing. Designer babies are a good thing for our society.

            First off, designer babies can keep children from having birth defects. Sometimes illness is passed down through genes, and being able to save a child from the pain of having a birth defect can be very important later in life. Living with asthma from birth I can personally say that my life could be a lot easier without it.  People can agree that if this was a simple and easy procedure anyone would do it. Parents now are already trying to help their children in the womb by taking vitamins and only eating certain foods. Doctors even suggest pregnant women take certain vitamins and avoid certain foods. In an article by Paul Walman, an author and writer for The American Prospect, he stated, "What if a hundred years from now the technology had become safe, cheap, and easy, so a pregnant woman could pop a pill that costs a dollar and would boost her baby's IQ by 20 points—would you think it was wrong then? Keep in mind that parents already do a million things intended to help their developing children become healthier and smarter, some of which begin before the baby leaves the womb”(Walman, Paul). This makes sense because if anyone could help their child be smarter or more athletic they would. In every family they try to pass down certain things like a love for sports or an interest in reading. Everyone wants what is best for their child. When a child was born with an illness, parents tend to do everything they can to treat it after birth. If it is possible to treat the same illness before the child is born, why would anyone let their child suffer? Children deserve the best life they can have, and as a parent it would seem selfish to have that opportunity and not do what is better for the child. Another opportunity is for parents who already have one sick child, and can alter their second child to help the first born. It is possible to have a healthier child that can provide blood or healthy bone marrow to help their sibling. These second children would have a close bond to their older sibling, helping the family just by living.

As it stands, many people are against designer babies. A first misconception is that it is thought that this new technology is only for the rich. It can be very expensive and the unreasonable cost cannot be afforded by many. In everyday life it seems the rich have more opportunities than others. Even now the rich can afford to pay for a better nose, or a better body. Now they can pay for a better baby. Why would society support even more separation between the rich and poor? Another downfall would seem to be the child feeling left out of the choice to have the procedure done. Children might feel that they were only born to help the other child not because their parents wanted another baby. It is possible as well that if the parents can choose the sex of the baby it will become an issue, because our society already discriminative towards sex (Ghoose, Tia). It could change the relationship between child and parent in another way. If the parent expects a certain trait in the child, and they do not excel in that area the parents could become disappointed with their offspring. This would leave the child feeling unwanted in the family, and that could cause problems as an adult as well.

Even if there is some potential harm, the procedure is only going to benefit society. As the process goes on, these new designer babies will become available to everyone. To address the cost, even if it is a little expensive at first, as other technology has gone to show, the availability changes over time. In modern day practically everyone has a cell phone, or other technology like a fridge. Things like cups and bowls were once new technology as well. These things were harder to have when they first came around. Only the “rich” could afford them at first but now, everyone has an opportunity to have them. If society did not have an issue with these technologies coming into homes this way then it should not be against the designer babies. As previously mentioned the rich can already alter their bodies, and what society does not realize is, “Right now we manage to distinguish between necessary medical procedures, which insurance will pay for, and elective ones, which are apportioned on the basis of wealth. Which means that rich people can have more symmetrical noses and perkier breasts and creepily unlined faces than ordinary people do, and that doesn't bother us enough to outlaw plastic surgery. You could envision a time when anyone can get their eggs adapted to remove a slate of harmful conditions and diseases, but only the rich can get the platinum service, which will also give your child shiny, manageable hair”(Walman, Paul). Next, the choice to have a child is up to the parents, and someone who wants another child would not bring a child into the world for only use to help their first child. Even if a baby is planned, it is because they want to care and love for another child while it can help their sibling as well. In our society, parents already try to have more kids whether or not their first born was sick. The fact is, an opportunity is presented if the parents decide to bring another life into the world to have that child help their sibling. If the child does feel abandoned then the parents can make an effort to change how they feel, providing them with love and care. Lastly, some scientists do not let parents change the sex of the child, only alter if they have a defect or not (Ghoose, Tia). This would keep them from being discriminative towards one sex or another. Keeping certain things in check like what sex is chosen can be very helpful in the process of helping the child.

I firmly believe this procedure is a good idea for our society to have. The technology is going to advance whether or not society likes it. In an interview with NPR.org Mark Sauer, a member of a scientist team working at Columbia University, comments on the effort the scientists are putting in to help mothers deliver healthy children. He is only trying to help women cure diseases in their children and help them to have happy successful childhoods. He makes it clear that the procedure replaces the mitochondria with a healthy new one. Between 1 in 2,000 and 1 in 4,000 babies born each year with syndromes are caused by a weak mitochondria.  The syndromes can range from simple illness to life threatening. Sometimes there is no treatment, and the child dies early in life (Steien, Rob).

The society also benefits from this because it can cause a smarter generation. Not only is the following generations healthy as well, but they can come up with new technology. Another point to make is that no matter how much someone alters their child, the child is its own person. Someone can give a child a great skill level in athletics, great genes to make them beautiful or an amazing IQ, and that child would still choose to make their own decisions. They could become a baseball player or an accountant, but that is up to the child. The free will is not taken away just because the parents changed the genetic makeup. In the article, “Children to Order: The Ethics of Designer Babies”, the author Tia Ghose writes about the new technology behind designer babies, and believes, “When bringing a new child into the world, society has an obligation to determine whether the technologies used to do so actually benefit or harm the infant.” On the Live Science webpage that features her article, Ghose writes “Creating designer babies who are free from diseases and super athletic or smart may finally be around the corner.” The procedure brings about the opportunity to have a smarter generation and a healthier one from birth. Parents will finally be able to look forward to a society where their child does not have to go through the same illness as their family. That is all anyone can hope for, a healthy happy child brought into the world. The only different is now our scientists can help make that happen.

Citations

Walman, Paul. “In Praise of Designer Babies”. The American Prospect Magazine Prospect Publications n.d. Web. 10  Oct. 2013.

Steien, Rob. “Proposed Treatment to Fix Genetic Diseases Raises Ethical Issues” Heath News from NPR. NPR Publications n.d. Web. 9 Oct. 2013.

Ghose, Tia. “Children to Order: The Ethics of Designer Babies”. Live Science. Live Science Publications n.d. Web. 13  Mar. 2014. 

Extra Paper analyzed

Clifford Nordstom

He gives background information by writing about the different responses to video games and how they have been debated. He takes a position by stating how he thinks they are a good way to educate students. He understands this topic by showing facts and analyzing video games. He cites many places like Niels Clark, an author, researches on the subject, mental health experts, and neurosciences.He uses quotes and findings from these people as evidence. He uses specific examples on how they change the brain. He concludes the paper by stating how he thinks they can become educational.

1. His claim is that video games can be educational.
a. The main point is that not all games are bad and they can help in education.
b. The thesis is stated at the end of the first paragraph clearly.
2. He uses quotes and facts as support.
a. He claims that games can teach you things about your environment, learning games can benefit cognitive learning, making kids better workers and problem solvers, and they can help you adapt to needs,
b. He uses facts from sciences and people who study the subject and were personally effected.
c. The reasons are plausible because he has the supports for them.,
3. a. He mentions counter arguments about violent games.
b. He responds to them respectfully and even agrees that if used too much they can cause damage.
c. He is respectful.
d. His arguments are qualified because he uses specific facts.
4. He uses books, researchers, and quotes from scientists.
a. He uses a lot of quotes and facts.
b. They are credible because they are mostly scientific but the book could be bias because it was the authors experience.
c. He did not attach a citations page so I do not know the dates.
5. a. The writer assumes we know a little on the subject but does show us why the games are good or bad.
b. He uses us a lot but not you or we.
c. I think that if I knew more about video games we would have similar views on them.

Analyzing an Argument in class lab

Annotation:

Sarah Hamal

Sarah's essay starts with background information on what a sport is defined as. She takes a position on this topic by stating how she thinks that pageants are distorting young girls to think that beauty is what matters most. She shows understanding of this topic by stating reasons why it does this, and then touching base on counter arguments. She sites many places for evidence like an article by Lucia Grosaru and news websites like the Newsweek. She uses specific examples like how controlling mothers change the girls and the real cost of forcing your daughter into pageants. She concludes her paper by stating her position on the subject of pageants.

Analyzing her Argument: 

1. a. Pageants can be more harmful than helpful to young girls.

b. The thesis is stated clearly in the first few sentences of the first paragraph. 

2. a. Her reasoning is that controlling mothers are the ones who enjoy the pageants not the kids, the tradition of doing pageants in the family can be harmful, and that even if the girls enjoy it is it a good thing to let a little girl enjoy fake teeth and overly edited pictures.

b. She uses quotes from news articles and online magazines to support her claims.

c. The reasons are plausible because many quotes come from people like psychologists who work with these kids. 

3. a. She addresses the counter arguments in her 3rd paragraph and deals with them by proving them wrong with facts. 

b. She refutes them and responds to them reasonably. 

c. She respects the argument but makes sure to prove that they are wrong. 

d. Her arguments are qualified because of the facts she uses. 

4. The author uses news articles and quotes from a psychologist. 

a. She uses quotes from them to prove her statement is true.

b. They are credible because they are people who have experienced the emotional damage that comes out of the pageants. 

c. A lot of the sources are from 2009, which is pretty decent and current. 

5. The writer addresses us as a reader by starting with a common question about sports. 

a. She assumes that people know what a sport is and is not but still writes her own definition. 

b. She does not include you and we. 

c. I think we share the belief that little girls should not be forced to do something they don't enjoy no matter how the mothers feel about it. 

 Micah Nelson:                                                                                                            

Micah has back ground information in the first paragraph by defining the dilemmas humans face and how they could be helped. He takes a position by stating what he will be writing on in this paper. He shows his understanding of the subject by stated what the earth is impacted by in the next paragraph. He cites the U.S Energy Information Administration website to make a point about how much energy is really used. He uses reasoning from another author as evidence as well. He uses many specifics throughout the paper like his thoughts on how electricity is effected by climate change.  At the end of his paper he states his position clearly in the first sentence and throughout the conclusion.

1. The claim is that people should cut back on energy.

a. He wants to make the point that we can improve lives with less energy use. 

b. His thesis is clearly stated at the end of the first paragraph. 

2. He uses quotes to support his claims. 

a. He states that cutting back on energy means that it can help climate change, make a healthier environment, and reduce bills.

b. He uses facts from national websites and the news.

c. They are plausible because he has the facts to support his claims. 

3. a. There were no counter arguments in his paper. 

b. N/A

c. N/A

d. His own arguments are qualified because he sticks to facts and not generalizations. 

4. He uses quotes and facts.

a. He uses them by integrating quotes. 

b. They are all credible because they are national data websites and news articles that use correct information. 

c. His sources range from 2000 to 2015

5. His addresses the readers by using we and talking about the earth. 

a. He assumes we all live on earth and know that there are problems with our planet. 

b. He includes the use of we and you. 

c. I think we share beliefs because I know that using less electricity will save money and that our planet is important to both of us.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                             

Draft for 3rd Paper

Designer Babies
What would you do if you had the opportunity to change the genetic code of your child in the womb so they came out exactly how you wanted?  You could have blue eyes, brown hair, and amazing intelligence. You would have yourself the perfect child, or a designer baby. Designer babies are children who has a changed genetic makeup, so that a specific gene is present or to avoid a defect that is passed down through the family. Some doubt that designer babies are a good thing for our society, but being able to change the genetic makeup of a child can help it and help advance our sciences. Designer babies are a good thing for our society.
First off, designer babies can keep children from having birth defects. Sometimes illness is passed down through genes, and being able to save a child from the pain of having a birth defect can be very important later in life. People can agree that if this was a simple and easy procedure anyone would do it. Parents now are already trying to help their children in the womb by taking vitamins and only eating certain foods. In an article by Paul Walman he stated, "What if a hundred years from now the technology had become safe, cheap, and easy, so a pregnant woman could pop a pill that costs a dollar and would boost her baby's IQ by 20 points—would you think it was wrong then? Keep in mind that parents already do a million things intended to help their developing children become healthier and smarter, some of which begin before the baby leaves the womb”(Walman, Paul). This makes sense because if anyone could help their child be smarter or more athletic they would. Everyone wants what is best for the child. If a child was born with an illness, parents would do everything they could to treat it after birth. If it is possible to treat the same illness before, why would anyone let their child suffer? Children deserve the best life they can have, and as a parent it would seem selfish to have that opportunity and not do what is better for the child. Another opportunity is for parents who already have one sick child, and can alter their second child to help the first born. It is possible to have a healthier child that can provide blood or healthy bone marrow to help their sibling.
Even so, many people are against designer babies. It is thought that this technology is only for the rich. It is very expensive and the unreasonable cost cannot be afforded by many. Even now the rich can afford to pay for a better nose, or a better body. Why would society support even more separation between the rich and poor? Another downfall would seem to be the child feeling left out of the choice to have the procedure done. Children might feel that they were only born to help the other child not because their parents wanted another baby. It is possible as well that if the parents can choose the sex of the baby it will become an issue, because our society already discriminative towards sex (Ghoose, Tia). It could change the relationship between child and parent in another way. If the parent expects a certain trait in the child, and they do not excel in that area the parents could become disappointed with their offspring.
Even if there is some potential harm, the procedure is only going to benefit society. As the process goes on, the designer babies will become available to everyone. To address the cost, if it is a little expensive at first, as other technology has gone to show, the availability changes over time. In modern day practically everyone has a cell phone, or other technology like a fridge. These things were harder to have when they first came out. Only the rich could afford them but now, everyone has an opportunity to have them. If society did not have an issue with these technologies coming into homes like this then if should not be against the designer babies. As previously mentioned the rich can already alter their bodies, what society does not realize is, “Right now we manage to distinguish between necessary medical procedures, which insurance will pay for, and elective ones, which are apportioned on the basis of wealth. Which means that rich people can have more symmetrical noses and perkier breasts and creepily unlined faces than ordinary people do, and that doesn't bother us enough to outlaw plastic surgery. You could envision a time when anyone can get their eggs adapted to remove a slate of harmful conditions and diseases, but only the rich can get the platinum service, which will also give your child shiny, manageable hair”(Walman, Paul). Next, the choice to have a child is up to the parents, and someone who wants another child would not bring a child into the world for only use to help their first child. Even if a baby is planned, it is because they want to care and love for another child while it can help their sibling as well. In our society, parents already try to have more kids whether or not their first born was sick. The fact is, an opportunity is presented if the parents decide to bring another life into the world to have that child help their sibling. Lastly, some scientists do not let parents change the sex of the child, only alter if they have a defect or not (Ghoose, Tia). This would keep them from being discriminative towards one sex or another.
This procedure is a good idea for our society to have. The technology is going to advance whether or not society likes it. In an interview with NPR.org Mark Sauer, a member of a scientist team working at Columbia University, comments on the effort the scientists are putting in to help mothers deliver healthy children. He is only trying to help women cure diseases in their children and help them to have happy successful childhoods. He makes it clear that the procedure replaces the mitochondria with a healthy new one. Between 1 in 2,000 and 1 in 4,000 babies born each year with syndromes are caused by a weak mitochondria.  The syndromes can range from simple illness to life threatening. Sometimes there is no treatment, and the child dies early in life (Steien, Rob).
The society also benefits from this because it can cause a smarter generation. Not only is the following generations healthy as well, but they can come up with new technology. Another point to make is that no matter how much someone alters their child, the child is its own person. Someone can give a child a great skill level in athletics, great genes to make them beautiful or an amazing IQ, and that child would still choose to make their own decisions. They could become a baseball player or an accountant, but that is up to the child. The free will is not taken away just because the parents changed the genetic makeup. In the article, “Children to Order: The Ethics of Designer Babies”, the author Tia Ghose writes about the new technology behind designer babies, and believes, “When bringing a new child into the world, society has an obligation to determine whether the technologies used to do so actually benefit or harm the infant.” On the Live Science webpage that features her article, Ghose writes “Creating designer babies who are free from diseases and super athletic or smart may finally be around the corner.” The procedure brings about the opportunity to have a smarter generation and a healthier one from birth. Parents will finally be able to look forward to a society where their child does not have to go through the same illness as their family.