D#9, HW#4, Toulmin - Modified

Mike Whipple

Adams

ENG 102

1 November 2007

Project’s Claim: Cloning in the aspect of using human embryos should be banned.

Reason #1: Cloning will ruin tradition human life.

• Warrant/Principle: Current method of cloning removes life and is unethical.
• Backing: In order to perform both therapeutic and destructive cloning one must start with an embryo from female and extracting stem cells, in turn killing the embryo.
• Evidence #1: “However it is not ethical to sacrifice one human life for the real or potential benefit of others” (2)
• Warrant/Principle: Human life is valuable
• Backing: It is against law throughout the world to kill, murder, another human without significant cause.
• Backing: Natural human instinct to save another humans life when in danger.
• Evidence #2: Women, needed to produce eggs for stem cell extraction, would be demoralized and exploited for cloning purposes that are not guaranteed results (2).
• Warrant/Principle: With success rates at un-motivating lows of 1-2%, women would be in high demand to harvest eggs (6 56). This would create a market strictly to harvest eggs from participants (2).
• Objection: Many argue that donating is worth it to help produce preserve life through therapeutic cloning.
• Rebuttal: Harvesting requires controlled procedures that invade the donor’s life and can cause donors to develop infertility complications (2).
• Warrant/Principle: “In addition, the National Academies recommended that ‘Human reproductive cloning should not now be practiced. It is dangerous and likely to fail’” (14 16).

Reason #2: The global scientific community needs limits set in order to prevent massive public outcry of morals.

• Warrant/Principle: Rules are needed in order to draw the line between ethics and experimentation of human embryos.
• Objection: Rules will limit the potential discovery of other aspects in the field of genetics that maybe ethical and beneficial.
• Rebuttal: If a moratorium, halt of activity to determine all aspects, is imposed, in a few years information on the safety and success rate of human cloning will be significantly greater. Thus, giving the scientific and medical board more time understood and examine legislature, which due to possible new methods could be amended.
• Evidence #1: Reproductive nuclear transplantation is largely unsuccessful
• Warrant/Principle: Data on the reproductive cloning of animals through the use of nuclear transplantation technology demonstrate that only a small percentage of attempts are successful (3 93).
• Evidence #2: Quick impulsive decisions could have grave hidden consequences.
• Warrant/Principle: In 2007 the U.S. House of Representatives turned down a cloning bill, H.R. 2560 (13).
• Backing: The bill was “…carefully constructed to encourage the creation of any number of cloned human embryos” (13). In addition, the created embryos would be grown for a number of days “…so that in order, they can be killed…to harvest their stem cells or used in other research that will kill them a practice opposed by about 75% of the public” (13).

Reason #3: Biotechnology corporations could gain control many aspects of life.

• Warrant/Principle: With stem cells and embryo processing already claimed in patents, human life would be reduced to a product (4).
• Backing: Imagine walking by the puppy store in the mall, seeing kids adoring over baby puppies. Then, in the next window down seeing cloned human babies in viewing units dressed to sell.
• Evidence #1: “…Already life science companies have leaped…by patenting both human embryos and stem cells” (5).
• Warrant/Principle: Patent is used to create an advantage. Especially regarding the retail market.
• Objection: Companies are needed in order to cover cost of developing technology.
• Rebuttal: In similar fashion, companies would strive to produce the more genetically perfect human (5). It can be conceived that no company would create a “bad” faulty clone. It would defeat the purpose of taking control and playing “God” through selective breeding.
• Evidence #2: Possibility and potential to create programmed individuals for specialized task.
• Warrant/Principle: Government or powerful companies could create mass army of soldiers or groups designed to wreck havoc such as protest or riot (4 127).
• Backing: Through mass programmed or specially raised and trained human clones on could create genocide and finish off races considered to be of lesser quality.

** Numbers following sources represent sources and pages, to aid in citing rough/final draft of paper.

D#9, HW#3, WP#2 Reflection

In order to start on my Wp#2, i had to first collect all my bibliography's from previous blog post. After that step i composed all my sources into noodle tools and downloaded a completed annotated bibliography. Next, i pasted into word and then restated my research question basically for my introduction and for conclusion restated my intro and source information and what i believed my sources would allow me to perform. I am proud being i was able to get it in on time (second one now). Only downside is that other than Justin no one peer edited my paper, but all should be okay hopefully. I really tried to improve on my annotation as this is the first time i have been required to use annotations. In previous projects i would enter stuff that only i would remember and be able to make sense out of. I believe that with a strong source information leaning more against my position that it will create a challenge.

D#9, HW#2, WP#2 Final

published to turnitin.com
--------------------------

Whipple 1

Mike Whipple

Adams

ENG102 7891

25 October 2007

Annotated Bibliography - Final Draft

I am researching the field of human cloning in order to answer the question of, “Should cloning research in relations to humans be allowed to continue without restrictions, even though the safety and normal humane practices could be compromised?” (Whipple). Human cloning is a controversial topic due to mainly the fact of exploring the unknown effect and morals. While in the pro form, cloning could save lives, yet others could feel it causes death to embryos, potential life forms. This leads me to conduct a balanced research, to be able to accurately and openly present my position of regulating cloning, to the audience of my work.

Annas, George J. American Bioethics : Crossing Human Rights and Health Law Boundaries. Oxford University, 2004. Ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 26 Sept. 2007 .

This source is helpful to add on the information side of the aspect of ethics and morals, such as whether destructive cloning that could be viewed as murdering or withholding a life from an individual human. In addition, it contains also human rights content which goes into the aspect of using human waste products such as stem research to aid in understanding of genes in order to help cloning research. Also, it includes the health law angle of the controversy which will help support information for my main audience.

Best, Megan. "Human Cloning Is Unethical." Opposing Viewpoints: Genetic Engineering. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Comm. Coll. 20 Sep. 2007 .
In this resource it is presented against allowing any type of cloning from destructive to therapeutic purposes. It also contains a list of four reasons for cloning to be unethical. In brief order they are: not ethical to destroy potential life for aid to those already alive, creation of embryo for destruction is opposed, exploitation of woman, leads to reproductive cloning. This source will help me choose my topics for discussion for each paragraph of my refutes.

Committee on Science. Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning. National Academies, 2002. Ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007 .

In this source I was able to find a chapters on should and how banning cloning would be carried out. Also, the source documents what current legislature actions have taken place and are currently in action. Most interesting is it contains a list of twelve findings on why cloning should be banned. This once again could be used to pick broad areas of topic for a paragraph to center upon.

Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. Ed. Michael C Brannigan. Seven Bridges, 2001. Ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 26 Sept. 2007 .

This resource could become a central backup of all technical aspects of cloning because it dives straight into my research question on the ethics and issues created by the research along the lines of human cloning. It contains information on both sides, such as the benefits and downfalls. This source is useful because it backups information that has been previously stated in other sources giving a different wording for a point or quote that in other words is the same point.

Gerdes, Louise I, Ed. “Human Cloning Will Harm Society.” Opposing Viewpoints: Genetic Engineering 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007 .

This source claims that cloning will produce a controlled world ran by corporations that control reproduction and traits of any human. Also, included in source is documentation of the patent on cloning. Furthermore, the source claims it is owed to humans to naturally reproduce and have offspring. This source goes into the more naturalistic view of humans and steers away from biological alterations. Definitely this source is opposed to open cloning.

Human Dignity and Human Cloning. Ed. Silja Voneky. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004. ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007 .

This source contains multiple aspects and different religious beliefs and culturing. This demonstrates the religious viewpoint which could pertain to the audience selected for human cloning. Near the end of the book there are a few chapters that cover the legal in U.S. and internationally. This source is typically not useful as viewpoints centered around religious beliefs are often overlooked by the scientific community as i believe, but it will add another source to pull positions and quotes.

Jacobs, Margaret A. "Few Legal Barriers Prevent Human Cloning." Contemporary Issues Companion: Cloning. Ed. Lisa Yount. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Comm. Coll. 20 Sep. 2007 .
This article was written after the publication of the sheep being cloned in Scotland. It refers to President Bush's decision and position on trying to ban cloning yet nothing has been passed through the legislature. At end of paper there is a paragraph that states a patent was available at the time of publication for anyone wanting to coin in on the monopoly for the next 20 years.

Lackey, Hilliard (2001, August 22). The Naked Truth: Cloning may be answer to survival of white race. Mississippi Link,p. 10. September 20, 2007, from EthnicNewsWatch (ENW ) database. (Document ID: 625310091). < url="http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did="625310091&sid="1&Fmt="3&clientId="3314&RQT="309&VName="PQD">.
This article talks about a poll given by CNN that showed the public opinion of that sample outreach in that approximately three-fourths were against human cloning. It also states factual evidence that there are races of humans that are not reproducing at a positive rate and leading to decline in that race on the world. This source helps me produce my argument through giving a sample of the public opinion which is generally broad. Most likely i will not use this source.

Musser, Susan, and David Haugen. Technology and Society. Opposing viewpoints series Unnumbered. Detroit: Greenhaven/Thomson Gale, 2007.

This book contains chapters dedicated to the pros and cons of therapeutic cloning and the arguments to support both sides. In addition it talks about the enhancing of our children through genetics. This book adds a new element compared to other resources as it contains a viewpoint of using cloning to perfect the human race. This will most likely be used to add a neutral argument.

Pence, Gregory E. "Common Beliefs About Human Cloning Are Myths." Contemporary Issues Companion: Cloning. Ed. Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Comm. Coll. 20 Sep. 2007 .
This source is a great quick info and run down about cloning. It debunks common myths that often are believed to be true or stereotype. This would go great in introductions of develop paragraphs or the main paper introduction. Being almost like a source only of quick and dirty data that is often very useful if needing a tiny bit of extra information for my introduction paragraph of my writing project.

In all, I already have been able to just by summing up sources noticing a change in my position, which at first was in support of all cloning. This realization clearly demonstrates the absolute must of keeping an open mind when researching in order to present the strongest argument to the selected audience and the author. While some perspectives of both sides seem almost repeated I believe that in my selection of sources I will have significant amount needed to complete my work in sufficient fullness.

D#9, HW#1, Reading Reflection

In a section of chapter seven, it discusses the process it took for scientists to prove or disprove the case about the Ivory billed woodpecker. It went extinct, yet some sixty years after the bird went extinct, there was a spotting in Arkansas. The ornithologists had to make their factual argument to the naturalists and the extremely skeptical scientists. Chapter eight it stresses that it is important to share the first draft with someone to insure that others views are taken into consideration. I believe this step is one of the most helpful to myself. Fallacies, I have covered in multiple other college and high school classes. In eleven, they advise if a personal experience of yours backs up your original claim, there is no harm in using it. The thesis statement is the general topic or point you are trying to make. Therefore it is very important to develop it and then back it up with strong examples. Gonna stress over that outline.

D#8, HW#6, Deadline Reflection

Well this week was fairly easy. Being as for some reason i am able to remember MLA formatting and have taken a liking to the details and specifications while some want to kill the founders of any type of formatting. I have a feeling it could be related to my like towards math and science fields such as physics.



da post'in's fo' da wek :

Kathy D#8, HW#4
Alex D#8, HW#3
Camille D#8, HW#2
Jeff D#8, HW#4

D#8, HW#5 Grammer Assignment

For this week i was caught in my WP#2 forgetting about abbreviations in my citations. I was able to surf around on the OWL website and was able to get this link and add it to my Del Icio Us account (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/12/) that contains info on abbreviating in papers and in the bibliography. This leaded me to search and remove all the press and publication included as they are unnecessary filler words according to the website

D#8, HW#4, Analyze Jon Pareles's Essay

The author of the essay is Jon Pareles. The purpose of the essay is to put his opinion of Coldplay in written form to be shared and recorded. The essay's context was fairly recent being publication was June 5th, 2005, week before release of "X&Y" was out. The author's topic was his opinion of the band. Audience for the author is a broad range centering on anyone that listens to music of similar genre and Coldplay fans. The standard argument claim can be identified as Coldplay is recording to a imaginary set of rules presidented by previous bands through the years to increase sales and fans. This he supports through how careful the band records and reworks tracks to having to delay the release of "X&Y" by 4 months to tweak the songs. Also playing a large roll is the authors picking on the lead singers voice and claimed poor lyric choice. Stating obvious cliches and one liners. The author does engage in the usage of logos in the essay through using of statistics, factual data. It more or less was against his opinion on the essay as trying to turn people away from the band yet the statistics suggest that he just might be an oddball. One objection that the author addresses is the he believes the lead singer has no ability to control his voice, but on page 282, third paragraph down he states "Coldplay is admired by everyone--everyone except me. It's not for lack of skill " (Everythings an Argument 282). He he contradicts himself. Overall, the author seems to just be someone with to much time, that while his essay writing skills are evidently good, it is hard to shoot down a band effectively without sounding like a prick and stuck up.

D#8, HW#3, Peer Review Reflection

I have peer reviewed following classmates WP#2:
1 Paulette Estrada Wp#2 Draft
2 Justin Winter Wp#2 Draft

I learned from reading and replying to my classmates' drafts that i definitely need to fill out my annotations on my sources considerably. Also i was able to notice the difference of using a generator for citations and trying to look it all up and create your own. In todays school scene you need to get stuff done at greater rates and incorporate new technology. Justin happened to also peer review my draft. He highlighted and brought out some errors and i noticed but totally forgot about when i wrote the first draft which helped with my citations. He also pointed out my need to fluff stuff out even though most things were covered.

D#8, HW#2, Peer Review WP#2 x2

I have peer reviewed following classmates WP#2:
1 Paulette Estrada Wp#2 Draft
2 Justin Winter Wp#2 Draft

D#8, HW#1, Reading Reflection

From this weeks online reading i mainly picked up that thesis is the main topic of reading and that in order to have a non-debatable, strong, thesis you need to narrow and strongly state your opinion. Also, link #2 from the top was broken. I did notice that the last link was a repeat to review what types of sources to include and if a source is credible origin. In the book, i would have to say that on page 111 in chapter 5, that is a dang strong emotional argument that really gets its point across. I did learn that the method that i seem to model sometimes is called the Toulmin model in Chapter 6, which arguments start with claims that will later be proved or disproved. Chapter 8 was about arguments of definition which i have written before.

D#7, HW#5, Deadline Reflection

This week i have been able to collect all needed and required sources in order to turn in draft WP#2. It was interesting to notice how other peoples opinion or side of an controversy have changed. Glad to have a simpler deadline this week as the weekend finally approaches. I made one mistake cause i was not thinking, i forgot to add my three sources from this deadline to my draft WP#2, but i will either just add them now or when the final is due. Also i before final WP#2, i need to include more content for the annotations, not a strong point.


Post:
Stephann D#7, HW#2
Justin D#7, HW#4
Jared D#7, HW#2
Kathy D#7, HW#2

D#7, HW#4, Submitting to Turnitin.com

I have submitted WP#2 to turnitin.com

EDIT:
I did this before class blog was updated to finals only to turnitin.com

D#7, HW#3, Draft WP#2

Shared with everyone :)

D#7, HW#2, Annotated Bibliography x3

D#7, HW#1, Reading Reflection

Well i went ahead and sent my email for teacher conference according to the class blog, that in person/chat was optional. Which for me made things a hole lot easier due to trying to find time to squeeze everything together. An as for the two chapters in "Everything's an Argument" covered types/methods of what an argument position is based upon. In previous English classes i have been introduced to Pathos and Ethos, but as most knowledge it was forgotten so a refresher is always welcome. Chapter two, Pathos, talks about things that affect everyone in day to day life. With ads engulfing the average human in everyone method know to man and even some subliminal that we don't even notice we are being predicted. This week i hope goes smoothly, but if it's like anything this year i will just have to push through til next semester. Which signup is coming soon :)

D#6,HW#8, Deadline Reflection

Well wave byebye to WP#1, first glance...looked menacing...glance back...piece of cake

I absolutely agree that no paper from any grade school student up to expert English professor should go un-peer edited. Being one of the best ways for someone, such as me, to have mistakes that i would glaze over, being highlighted and getting a chance to notice habits and attempt to break them.



Postings:
Justin D#6, HW#8
Pestrada D#6, HW#8
SemperBusy D#6, HW#8
Coralee D#6, HW#3
Camille D#5, HW#5

D#6, HW#7, Grammer Assignment

I review my mistakes on WP#1, i saw some errors in using the correct tense also i missed a few commas, although i revised the sentence to flow better without commas. In due, i went back to Purdue Owl online site and reviewed the advanced depth tabs i did not notice on last grammer deadline that contained much more information and examples. Then in turn with everyone else i summited my paper to turnitin.com following the syllabus.

D#6,HW#5, Evidence Needed

Due to my time restraints and high profile for target interviewees my primary source of information will be second hand. I have grown accustomed of using the MCC research resources informational page containing links to all the source. This in turn has allowed me to collect data from multiple sources and databases to base my research paper upon. Also i prefer not having to deal with library fines and the awkward silence, instead i do my best writing at home in my "zone" of my room.

D#6,HW#4, Annotated Bibliographies x3

Committee on Science. Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning. National Academies, 2002. Ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007 . In this source i was able to find a chapters on should and how banning cloning would be carried out. Also, the source documents what current legislature actions have taken place and are currently in action. Most interesting is it list 12 findings on why cloning should be banned.

Gerdes, Louise I, Ed. “Human Cloning Will Harm Society.” Opposing Viewpoints: Genetic Engineering 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007 . This source claims that cloning will produce a controlled world ran by corporations that control reproduction and traits of any human. Also, included in source is documentation of the patent on cloning. Furthermore, the source claims it is owed to humans to naturally reproduce and have offspring.

Human Dignity and Human Cloning. Ed. Silja Voneky. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004. ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007 . This source contains multiple aspects and different religious beliefs and culturing. This demonstrates the religious viewpoint which could pertain to the audience selected for human cloning. Near the end of the book there are a few chapters that cover the legal in U.S. and internationally.

D#6,HW#3, Writing Project Reflection

In completing my WP#1 rough draft, i reviewed all my peer editing that was completed last week and strengthened areas of my paper that were pointed out to be weak or needing rewording.For my next project, i believe i will use the same ideas such as going back and looking at the work a period of time after writing my paper in a single sitting. I was most proud of peoples comments on the topic choice and presentation of information. I was most concerned that i would have missed a section of the guidelines or be completely wrong. In this project i was able to successfully improve i believe in my understanding of the structure and importance of a research proposal.In WP#2, i believe i will be able to complete with ease due to the single solution likeness to mathematical functions.

D#6, HW#2, Final WP#1

Published to Turnitin.com

Thank you all for the good feedback on my paper.

D#6, HW#1, Reading Reflection

Well start of another week with even less homework time cause of extended work hours. First off, i found the reading such as on chapter 16, p 488, to be interesting to me as my first off position on my research topic has gone from extreme one sided to now a mixed variety depending on area of topic. Throughout my education up to this point i have experienced multiple papers that going in i had a strong opinion but after getting sources completed and reading material, i often have to rethink my position.
In Chapter 19, which goes on to talk about sources, is almost something that should have belonged in a "How to for Dummies..." book. It hopefully is common sense to not included information from celebrity bashing news publications or from some guy that lives in remote Canada that hosted his own site on information about aliens abducting him. Just my two cents.
This week i hope to put to use the helpful spotting of last weeks peer reviews and collect reliable sources to add to my collection.