Made to Order Babies in Near Future

By Dale Wilsey
article found here
-----------------------------------------------

Scientists are coming closer and closer to allowing Hitler's perfect race to be possible. Advances in our understanding of the human genome have skyrocketed. How far away are we from being able to pick and choose what our children look like and what ailments they may have?

Modern science is discovering things today which were merely science fiction before. Advances in our knowledge of the human genome have catapulted us into a new age of genetic science. Having the ability to cure a child of any disease that it may have in the future, before it is even born, is not just an idea anymore, it is becoming a reality.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a process in which embryos are genetically tested before being implanted into the womb of a mother. PGD can be used in a few ways and has already offered couples the ability to choose the sex of their child. PGD is also used to test embryos for genetic disorders, giving parents the option of rejecting or accepting the particular embryo based on the outcome of the tests.

Some fear what the future of PGD can bring, however. Talk of "designer" babies has shadowed PGD with negative backlash disregarding possible positive effects it may have on the future. If embryos can be tested for genetic disorders and gender, how far away are we from choosing the color of our children's eyes or hair? Will we one day be able to determine if our child will be the next great Olympic gold medalist or Nobel Prize winner?

Some people fear that PGD will lead to rich people choosing to customize their children as easily as they customize their Mercedes Benz. According to an article from the Agence France Presse in May 2006, the ability to choose the sex of your child costs around $19,000 dollars. Imagine being able to check boxes next to certain options you would want in your child: would you like the sports package or the PhD package?

Some people I questioned agreed that this is a step in the wrong direction. "It's not natural and it's dangerous. Once humans start playing God like that, you have all the ingredients for Nazi Germany," said Dan Brockway, a senior Electronic Media major. "There will be laws governing it. The government regulates everything. They'll probably find a way to tax it, too." MaryKate Ott, a sophomore Professional Writing major said, "I don't think that it's right to design a child."

Others aren't so worried. "I don't find anything wrong with it and it's not shocking to me…something like this was definitely bound to happen. Personally, I don't think I would pick all the characteristics of my kid. It's exciting not knowing exactly what your kid will look like," said Daria Pennington, an Undeclared freshman.

Although it is only a matter of time before things like this are possible, I do not think we will ever see it take off as some people are predicting in the manner of fully customizable offspring. There may be some out there that would love to drop thousands or more on trying to create the "perfect" child, but there are more who would find the act deplorable and just plain wrong. The government, I hope, would almost certainly ban any type of gene alteration, which would not benefit the individual medically as well.

There are positive sides to all of this, though. Through this technology, we may someday live in a world devoid of heart disease, cancer and many other types of illnesses, which have a tendency to run in families. Autism and diabetes may oneday be a thing of the past.

"Personally, I'd be happy with whatever physical features my child obtained from myself and my husband. Why take away the element of surprise?" said Nicole Ciesla, a senior English / Literature major.

As these technologies advance further and further, I believe that this will remain the opinion. The creation of a child between couples is one of nature's most amazing feats, and to put it on the same level as buying a new car would simply be out of the question. Designer babies can be left for Paris Hilton. I believe the rest of us would like to keep ours homemade.


Dale Wilsey is a Senior
English/Professional Writing major

Saw III: One blade that is duller than Playskool Scissors

By Dale Wilsey Jr.
------

Saw III, the third installment in the trilogy, fails to deliver anything close to interesting let alone justifying throwing $8.50 down on the price of admission. This series should have given up after the first installment, which was not nearly as bad as the second two, but wasn't anything spectacular either.

While the premise of the first film was interesting, the acting failed to deliver on any level. The same can be said about Saw III as well. For the most part, the characters are forgettable and able to be dismissed when they are killed off. No connection is made through any of the characters including the main roles. The poor acting and delivery of the lines, coupled with the fact that I didn't really care who died, made for a great comedic atmosphere -- I laughed at points where I wasn't sitting in disgust and boredom.

Looking for a movie that will make you jump or disturb you? Don't look here. Saw III, like the others, relies on shock value and sudden scares to disturb or frighten the audience. The only problem being that none of the film is really shocking to any true fan of the horror genre and as for people saying this is the goriest film they've ever seen, I say look harder (Cannibal Holocaust is a gore-hound's wet dream and puts Saw III to shame).

A friend of mine sitting next to me jumped at one point during the experience, but that was before the movie began when the theater decided to instantly turn the volume on full blast. She laughed with me through the movie.

Like surprise endings and twists? Again, look elsewhere. The "twist" in the end could be seen a mile away. It wasn't even a decent twist. The death of Jigsaw was very anticlimactic as well. When you see someone pick up a circular saw in a horror film you expect more from him then a slit throat especially in a film which is looking to shock and disturb you.

Just be glad you don't have to watch the movie...

Although Jigsaw's death wasn't all that wonderful, I was relieved by the fact I wouldn't have to hear him say, "I want to play a game" one more time. It gets a tad annoying after three movies.

As for the way the film was shot, if they wanted to induce headaches then they were spot on. Low light scenes jumping to highly contrasted scenes as well as very quickly cut flashback scenes made for a wonderful time on the eyes in a dark theater. Thanks for the headache, Saw III.

Unfortunately, the makers of the movie left the ending open for a possibility of another Saw movie, which, judging by the box office earnings in the first few days after release, will more than likely happen.

Whatever you do, do not believe the hype surrounding this movie, especially if you're a fan of horror. The saw trilogy is one of the most overrated series in horror and suspense and exists solely to rob millions out of moviegoers who don't know any better every Halloween.

A better idea, stay home during the Halloween season and watch some of the classics on television or go out and rent a few Romero films.

Go see The Prestige instead.

*Rating: 2/5



*rating moves from lowest to highest. 1 being a level of horribleness never to be surpassed and 5 being a level of amazingness that completely kicks ass.