Women once led shallow lives, doomed to abide by everything their husbands commanded. They were expected to fulfill certain requirements and stick to the straight path of life as a female. This all changed as the play “A Dolls House,” accurately depicted one woman’s fight for liberation. The play begins by introducing a perfect family complete with a mother, father, and two sweet children. At first life seems to sail along flawlessly. After the play progresses, a world of pain, untruthfulness, and neglect emerges. Nora, mother of two children and wife to Torvald, has a secret she can’t let Torvald find out about. Towards the midpoint of the play, Nora finds herself between a rock and a hard place after one of Torvalds past employees’ uses blackmail to manipulate his way into a Job. In the end, Nora comes to the realization her life and marriage have never truly existed; and as a result leaves, in search of identity and liberation. Throughout the play, “A Dolls House” there is three distinct cases in which the need for women’s liberation can be observed. The first has to do with the hardships Nora experiences while trying to save her husband. The second example is seen in the pet names Torvald uses for Nora. The final situation in which the need presents itself can be seen when Torvald tries to control Nora’s behaviors.

In the first few opening lines of the play, Nora learns her husband has become ill. The only treatment available to rid Torvald of his disease was to travel south to a warmer climate. Knowing that Torvald was too tight with money, Nora took it upon herself to raise the funds needed for the trip. The laws at the time didn’t allow women to take out a loan with out a man’s consent. Nora had a hard time understanding the laws and restrictions of the time. Nora’s statements in the World Masterpieces literature book plainly illustrate the confusion. “A wife hasn’t the right to save her husbands life…” (512). Nora made the decision to forge her father’s signature in order to get the money.

Torvald uses pet names with Nora as a way to keep her under his control. During the play he identifies Nora his little lark; which suggests ownership over her. The web page Summary Central Torvald as saying, “My little songbird mustn’t droop her wings. What’s this? Is little squirrel sulking?” (56). I feel the names made Nora feel as though she needs Torvald to guide and care for her. Also, the name calling probably make Torvald feel as though he has a deeper relationship with his wife than he really does. As one article put it, “Ibsen uses Torvald’s famous pet names for Nora-lark, squirrel-to gibe her a “strong ‘animal’ identity” and to underscore her inability to understand the ethical issues faced by human beings” (The Demon in The House 45).

For the duration of the third act, Torvald is trying to control Nora’s actions. Before the big Christmas dance he tells Nora which dress she will wear and what dance she will perform. Throughout the entire play, Nora is being manipulated like a doll, thus the name a dolls house. She is expected to perform for her husband. At this point in the play I feel Nora must be feeling as though she is not truly loved. If Torvald justly loved Nora, he would have given Nora a chance to discuss the party situation.

Throughout the play it was apparent that women had much less power and far fewer rights than men. Nora struggled to gain respect and opposed the idea of fewer rights until the end of the play. The liberation of women was an extremely significant accomplishment. It allowed women equal rights as men. Without it women wouldn’t have the chance to make their own decisions.

The Vedas is the entire body of sacred Hindu writing. It is comprised of four books that outline the beliefs of the ancient Indian civilization, including that of caste. (Chethimattam, 16). The Vedas describes the caste system as a hierarchy of four categories or varnas through the myth of the source of life, the giant Purusha (Rig Veda, 10.90). His head representing the Brahmin [priesthood, highest class], his arms representing the Kshatriya [rulers], his legs representing the Vaishya [workers/farmers] and his feet representing the Sudra [domestic servants, lowest class] (De Bary, 16-17). As indicated by the Vedas, the caste system supports Svadharma – the belief that each person has a unique role to complete in society (Chethimattam, 36). This role is determined by one’s Karma – the accumulated merit and demerit of one’s soul (O’Flaherty). Therefore, due to the Hindu belief of reincarnation, if one accepts his or her role as a Sudra in this life, the individual can be reborn as a Vaishya in the next (O’Flaherty).

Although rarely mentioned in the Vedas, another group of people exist in society; the Untouchables. Untouchables are considered to be sources of dreadful pollution. They are people who have unclean living habits (eating carrion) and/or unclean occupations (pertaining to physical contact with death/human excreta) (Stern, 74). These people live in unspeakable poverty and become subject to constant verbal and physical abuse from their touchable neighbours (Stern, 75). Their women are sexually exploited and their children refused of education (Stern, 75). Untouchability deprives an entire population from education, and in essence, from societal contribution. These people cannot escape their Untouchability and therefore, are doomed to remain static for centuries, as they have. This lack of advancement proves the caste system’s hindrance of the progression of a people. Despite recent legislation outlawing the practice of Untouchability, there are over 120 million Untouchables living in India today – more than 10 percent of the entire Indian population (Stern 74). India has yet to find a way to rid itself from this dreadful practice.

The strict guidelines of the caste system were the foundation of Indian government. For centuries, India was mostly a cluster of independent, self-governed communities (Stein, 155). Each village monitored the following of the caste system by its people. For this reason, “the pace of centralization of India was slow” (Stein, 155). People placed such a great fundamentality on the following of the caste system that they were reluctant to surrender this power to a state head (Stein, 155). In fact, the majority of Indian society was indifferent to politics altogether because only members of the Kshatriya caste were supposed to deal with affairs of state (Lawler, 7). The caste system placed a higher value on priesthood, the Brahmin, than on ruling, the Kshatriya (Lawler, 7). Therefore, it was only natural for its followers to have done the same. Weak government and decentralization were the main reasons why India was under foreign rule – Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Mongol, Afghan and British, etcetera – for the majority of its history (Stein). Often, the new ruling empires would exploit the Indian population. In this state of mistreatment, it is not very likely that Indians made much advancement to their government and society. Ideas of liberalism and social and economic democracy were only introduced to India during the early nineteenth century – and not by Indians themselves, but by the British (Wolpert, 203). The decentralization of Indian society caused by the caste system, clearly changed the path of Indian progression.

For at least 1500 years, India led the world in mathematics and made many valuable contributions to science and medicine (Wolpert, 195). One of the most important Indian contributions to the modern world is the number system we use today that acts as a backbone to computer technology – binary (Wolpert, 194). Nevertheless, despite the fact that India was “ingenious in scientific theory” (Wolpert, 197) it remained in social, political and economic decay (Wolpert, 197). In 1958, Prime Minister Nehru’s government created the “Science Policy Resolution” (Wolpert, 197). This affirmed “an inherent obligation of a great country like India… to participate fully in the march of science” (Wolpert, 197). Evidently, according to Prime Minister Nehru, something was holding India back from partaking in science. The caste system prohibits the sharing of meals and other forms of gatherings between castes (O’Flaherty). With the outlawing of caste practising half a century later, India is now quickly progressing in industrial development (Stern, 207 – 221). This suggests that, perhaps, with the relief of the caste system (at least legal relief), India can now begin to function as a progressive country.

The caste system was, and arguably continues to be, one of most powerful religious systems in existence. Due to its religious promotion by the Vedas, the following of caste was mandated for years. Very few would dare to defy this ancient Indian dogma. In fact, India remained a Hindu state for centuries until the medieval era, when it could no longer resist the influence of its Islamic neighbours (Stein, 147). However, despite renouncing the Hindu religion, many of the people who converted to Islam during this time continued to practice caste and Untouchability (Stein, 147). Over the centuries, thousands of jatis or subcastes were added to the system (Lawler, 14). Nevertheless, these changes and additions were unable to modify the very core of Indian ideology, which remained static for almost 2000 years (Wolpert, 25). Considerable changes have been made only during the past century and a half, and it is arguable that these changes came about solely due to Western influence (Wolpert, 25). In fact, despite new legislation prohibiting caste segregation and discrimination against Untouchables, people in India continue to practice caste today (Stein, 401). The strong hold the caste system had on Indian society in the past, and continues to have in the present, demonstrates the unfathomable power of this very old religious system.

Through the discoveries of ancient Indian scientists, mathematicians and philosophers, it is evident that India had the potential to skyrocket into a successful and progressive society. However, history tells us that despite its intelligence, India was a country of political weakness, poor economy and social suffering (Wolpert, 197). This leads one to question the reason that inhibited such a promising country from prospering. The answer lies within the rigid caste system of the Vedas. It encouraged the practice of Untouchability, slowed down the centralization of Indian government, and interfered with the application of science. However, above all, the greatest problem with the caste system is that it hindered and continues to hinder individual prospect. Without instilling power to the individual, societal progression as a whole is unattainable. Motivation and means of sharing information is key in the development of a society. This is clear with democratic civilizations such as ancient Greece and the majority of present day countries. Individuals have the opportunity to rise from rags to riches, and perhaps it is this opportunity that makes all the difference. Had Indian culture not embraced the caste system as it had, India could have been an extremely powerful and advanced society today. The total abolishment of the caste system is highly unlikely to occur, for caste is as much part Indian as the American flag is American. However, it is realistic to hope that India will rise from its third-world country status to an advanced global power. Such a result can only occur if caste segregation reduces and the term ‘Untouchability’ finally loses its societal context.

Opposing this position, Devine supports the view that it is not right to kill the unborn human life since its value as a person overrides the value of the women’s freedom. In short what Devine says is that we are all members of a human species, including infants because in time infants will come to love, talk and think just as we do. Therefore, since infants and others are protected against homicide, based on the two previous facts, the same must also “be true of fetuses, embryos, and zygotes” (Devine, 239). What he means is that because babies turn into people (members of the human species) and the law protects them from homicide, so too should fetuses because they turn into babies. Devine also rejects the ‘moderate feminist position’ which he says claims for the woman to have an unlimited right to abort. He does so for three reasons: 1. he recalls evidence that women have requested abortions because the child was not the sex they wanted, 2. he says that in places where tolerance of abortion prevails the birth rate is lower than the abortion rate in some cases, and 3. he says:

There is a connection between the concept of a right and the maxim that no one shall be judge in his own cause.

Meaning, a woman should not have the right to choose whether to abort when it is her own situation because she is less likely to be a ‘rational being’ and prejudice may come into play in the context of sex, etc.

Warren does not deny the fact that a fetus is a human being and she does not deny the potential of a fetus to love and think – she says though that this potential does not give the fetus enough right to deny the woman her ‘moral and constitutional rights’ (rights to protection, happiness, freedom, etc.), however. Rather she contends that a fetus is not a ‘person’ and therefore it is permissible to kill the fetus. She disallows the ‘person’ status because she says a fetus “cannot be considered a member of a moral community” (Warren, 250). In order to be a member of this ‘moral community’, Warren states you must demonstrate (at least) some of the following: consciousness and feeling of pain, the ability to reason in somewhat of a complex way, participation in self-motivated activities, the “capacity to communicate”(Warren, 255) in many different ways, and the understanding of self-concepts/self-awareness. She goes on to point out it is not that the fetus has no value at all. In the case of a woman who is a member of this ‘moral community’ and has ‘person’ status and a fetus, that does not have ‘person’ status, the value of the woman and her choice overrides the value of the fetus – in all cases. Warren also states that abortion is not a ‘morally serious’ but justified act (one like killing someone in self-defense), instead is a “morally neutral act, like cutting one’s hair” (Warren, 253).

Warren’s position does leave some holes. On her assertion that abortion is merely the same as cutting your hair, Devine would accuse this stance of ‘crudity’ and even I can admit that a fetus holds more value than one’s hair. More importantly, though is the fact that according to the initial stance presented here of Warren, one could be led to believe that the permissibility of infanticide was also O.K. based upon the reasoning used for abortion. If you recall, in order to be a ‘person’ and thus, a member of our ‘moral community’ you must have at least attributes (1) and (2) of the traits listed earlier (if you satisfy none of the (1)-(5) you definitely would not qualify), Warren says. So it would appear to be also justifiable to kill a newborn infant as they too could not adequately justify what is required to be a member of our ‘moral community’ and have a ‘personhood’. Warren responds with two reasons why this is not true. First, it would not be right because in our country there will always be people who would like to have a baby and cannot on their own for whatever reasons. Second, even if there was no one to take the newborn right at that moment we value infants in a way that we would rather chip in to support an orphanage than see the baby destroyed.

Now, the next opposition in this circle of debate will be that this ruling out of infanticide also makes abortion wrong because there are people willing to take that fetus once it is born and if not there are people who value them enough to support their preservation. Again, I agree with Warren’s defense that different from infanticide, in the case of an unborn fetus, keeping the fetus against the wishes of the woman “violates her rights to freedom, happiness, and self-determination” (Warren, 260). In addition, it is only logical to see that the rights of the pregnant woman should take precedence over those of the person who wants the fetus protected. Warren makes a good point here when she says this situation is similar to a situation where an animal attacks a person, their rights to protect themselves and harm the animal take precedence over the rights of those who want the animal preserved. This right holds true until the baby is born, at which point the infant’s preservation would no longer violate the mother in any way – she can no longer decide whether to preserve or destroy the baby now. The same holds true for end-of-life situations, in which someone might be severely ill, in a coma, or some other parallel situation – this is not the same as abortion.

Then there is the case in which the woman is not responsible for a pregnancy, like in cases of rape. This is a unique circumstance, indeed, but I present it because I think it provides a situation in which almost everyone would sway on the side of Pro-Choice. In most (I’m not saying all) cases of this I do not see how a rational being could justify telling a woman she has to keep a baby she received as a result of being raped – so we will leave it at that.

The debate can go back and forth forever, but I think essentially each person has his or her own moral beliefs and values. They justify the position they take based on those beliefs and on the thoughts of thinkers who share views along the same lines. If you could not tell, I am Pro-Choice and I was before I ever really sat down and thought about what or why I was. Looking at someone like Warren, I find myself saying, “Yeah I believe that same thing” or “yeah I incorporate that same moral”. To the contrary, I read someone like Devine and I can see where he is coming from and the point he is making, but for reasons I do not know I just do not agree with the views he is backing. Therefore, it is natural for me to be bias on the side of Warren, but I think it is easy to see above what Warren is saying and how it discounts Devine’s arguments while answering its opposition’s questions. Proving to be true, my original statement: that the unborn is a human life which the killing of is permissible since it is not a person and so its value does not override the value of the woman’s freedom.

The most feared and heatedly debated issue on human genetic manipulation is that technology associated with it will be strongly abused, causing discrimination based on the quality of your genes. Scientists around the world predict that even if the technique of manipulating genes could be perfected, it will still be too pricey for the common people. As a result, only rich clients can benefit from the technology.
“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that provide advantages, while others, less well off, are forced to depend on chance alone”
(Silver, 2002) a molecular biologist from Princeton University, quoted in (Hayes, 2002).
As a result, gene theft will occur. Genewatch UK, a group established to monitor the advance in genetic manipulation, reported that people’s genetic information may be used without their information, or even worse, genetic materials could end up stolen and sold on the black market. In the end, your position in society will be based mainly on your genes. People from the genetic underclass or ‘Naturals’, will be excluded from jobs and insurance policies whereas the upperclass, or ‘Genrich’, will be favored (Silver, 2002) After all, wouldn’t you hire someone that has been genetically modified to work for your company?

Furthermore, governments fear that terrorists and rogue scientists will misuse information regarding genetic manipulation of human beings (Eipstein, 2002). By enhancing soldiers’ strength , endurance, stamina and intelligence, a new breed or ‘super soldiers’ will emerge. What will happen if these soldiers were controlled by power-hungry governments? Even more disturbing, what will happen if rogue scientists, using information on the human genome, succeeds in creating a new line of deadly viruses and biological weapons? Terrorists will be interested in these viruses, using them to intimidate the world. Exploitation of both super soldiers and deadly viruses could lead to suspicions and accusations among countries, and possibly even World War III.

Not only that, genetic manipulation is also strongly against human ethics and moral teachings. Wheeler (2002), a teacher at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, says there is a moral problem when it comes to the application of genetic manipulation on human beings. Wheeler also posed speculative questions such as “ Who gets it?”, “Who decides?” and “What conditions do they apply?”. Are we not undermining God’s order when we tailor-make our own children? Plus, the experimentation on germ line gene therapy involves the creation and destruction of thousands of human embryos. Many religious groups around the world strongly condemn this act. After all, are we not committing murder, a sin, when we destroy the embryos? Who has the power and right to say which embryo should live, and which are supposed to die? By continuing our progress on genetic manipulation, we are blatantly going against our own religious beliefs because we are no longer preserving the sanctity of human life.

In addition to that, genetic manipulation of human embryos can lead to an imbalance in the male to female ratio. Normally, there is a 50 percent chance of conceiving either a boy or a girl, that is, the chances of getting either gender are equal. However, through genetic manipulation, parents can change the sex chromosomes in their unborn children, thereby changing their children’s sex. Genetic selection of the unborn is already beginning to lead to the imbalance of the male:female ratio in certain parts of India and China. This phenomenon may not seem that significant at first, but in the long run, it can prove to be disastrous. What will happen if one gender slowly dwindles in number while the other steadily increases? The only probable answer is the shortage of couples and ultimately, the extinction of the human species as we know it.

Besides, with our current technological background and scientific knowledge, genetic manipulation is simply too risky and dangerous to be merited a chance. Experiments done on laboratory animals have produced animals with major birth defects, gross physical distortions and fatal abnormalities. The same thing could happen to humans if the current inheritable genetic modification (IGM) technology is applied (Friedmann, 2002) quoted by (Recer, 2002). Do you really want a child with a misshapen head, severely low intelligence quotient and enough strength to last until his teenage years? Genewatch UK also reported that without any proper safeguards, major scientific mistakes would arise. Flaws in the product of human genetic manipulation cannot be fixed like a machine, and can even be passed on to future generations. There will even be cases where disabled children proceed to sue their parents for engineering their genes, causing them to lead an abnormal life.

Sadly, even with all the proven dangers of genetic manipulation in humans, there are still people who stubbornly believe that its numerous benefits far outweigh the dangers. What benefits? Supporters of genetic manipulation claim that it can overcome fertility problems faced by older women. This is done by transferring cell nuclei from the eggs of older to younger women. The resulting child will of course be the older woman’s biological child. However, because the child is conceived by the younger woman, the baby will also inherit his/her mitochondria, an organelle, from her (King, 2002) . This situation poses a very ethical question. Which woman is the child’s real mother? Who has the right to raise him/her? Having two mothers, the child will suffer from a psychological conflict. This may also result in claims and lawsuits from the second mother. Besides, is it not much less of a hassle and cheaper to just adopt a child. After all, the degree of parenthood is judged by the bond of love between the mother and child, not by whether the child is conceived by her or not.

Besides that, supporters also believe genetic manipulation can be applied to eliminate genetic diseases. This is not entirely true. Genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia are caused by ‘bad’ recessive genes. These diseases will only emerge if two copies of the recessive genes are present, that is, if the recessive genes are paired in the cell. People having only one of the genes in their cells will not be in danger of suffering the disease, but instead become carriers. Therefore, removing the lone copy of the gene from anyone’s body will merely give him or her psychological relief. (King, 2002) Even if the procedure was to be carried out to protect the carrier’s future generations, it cannot guarantee a one hundred percent elimination of the recessive genes. This is because removing ALL of the disease-causing genes from the person’s body is almost impossible. Besides, other safer methods for preventing inherited diseases already exist, there is no need for genetic manipulation. Prenatal and preimplantation genetic testing of human embryos allow the avoidance of such diseases. Should the embryo suffer from such a disease, it can be aborted. Parents can also choose not to have children, or adopt them or to use donor eggs and sperm.

Just like in inherited diseases, humans also cannot gain immunity from sicknesses through genetic manipulation. For one reason, certain viruses and bacteria such as the one causing the common cold constantly evolve, emerging as a new foreign strain each time it attacks our body. That is why we humans suffer from the flu thousands of times in our life, but only once from chicken pox. On the contrary, genetic manipulation of human beings can cause an effect opposite of what was intended. By genetically changing our genes, we are unconsciously reducing the diversity of the human species, because everyone will be pretty much the same. Just as in the case of genetically modified plants, everyone with the same genetic makeup will almost certainly die should a new strain of disease emerge that attacks that particular makeup.

In another aspect, certain people strongly believe that genetic manipulation can help ‘fix’ our weaknesses and flaws by creating a new race of humans with increased intelligence, everlasting stamina, immense strength and so on. Such a miracle being accomplished is possible but only to a short extent. Genetic makeup is only a small factor that determines a person’s traits and characteristics. Other and more important factors such as a person’s upbringing, nutrition, surroundings and educational background must also be considered. Would a child grow up strong and healthy if he is always starving? How smart can someone be if he never attended school before? Also, there are no casual connections between genes and behavior. Instead, behavior is predetermined by the networking of hundreds of genes. We cannot simply change a person’s IQ by substituting a couple of his genes. Moreover, any small mistakes incorporated during genetic manipulation may result in the child actually being less capable than the average human.

It is now evidently clear that genetic manipulation in humans is not as beneficial as it is supposed to be. In fact, its complexity coupled with our limited understanding of its mechanics makes it too dangerous to be tempted. This author is not saying that it is entirely a child’s fantasy. It is just that there is still much we cannot comprehend about the diversity of the human species. Perhaps, in the distant future, when we have advanced scientifically and have firmly grasped the subject, then, and only then, should we begin our first few attempts. After all, it is best to leave what we do not fully understand, alone.

One of the best and widely known examples of Sumerian art is the alabaster vase found at Uruk, known as the Warka Vase. It is ornamented with reliefs in several registers, which are typically Sumerian in their clearness and exactness. The reliefs can be read from bottom to top or top to bottom without affecting their significance. (Parrot 87) It was found in the Inanna temple complex, and it shows a religious festival in the goddess’s honor. It is divided into three registers and the lowest one shows sheep and rams above barley and flax, and a wavy line representing water. These are used because they are the staple commodities of their economy. The use of a ground line is new in the vase, but animals being in strict profile are consistent with the time. (Kleiner 21) A long procession of offering-bearers, naked men carrying baskets of fruit and vegetables, and vases, are approaching the entrance of a temple. (Parrot 87) The presents that they carry are a votive offering for Inanna. The men do not overlap, and are in composite view. (Kleiner 21) The upper register is a female figure with a tall horned headdress; this could be Inanna herself, or her priestess. The food offerings have been put into the shrine of Inanna.

One of the men leads the way with a dignitary behind him. He is presumed to be the king of the city or the high priest. He has a long-tasseled belt that is held up like a train by an attendant, and he is greeted at the temple entrance by a woman that could be the goddess herself, or the High Priestess. (Parrot 87) The hierarchy of scale proves the man’s greater importance, because he is taller than the others. (Kleiner 21) The Warka Vase is the oldest ritual vase in carved stone discovered in ancient Sumer and can be dated to around 3000 B.C., and stands at about four feet tall. (Sumerian 2) It shows the atmosphere of the age, and gets an idea of the way man entered the presence of his gods. (Parrot 88)

A fragmentary white marble female head is another achievement of Sumerian art. It is thought to be the head of the goddess Inanna. (Kleiner 20) Inanna descended from the heavens into the hell region of her sister, the Queen of Death, and she sent her messenger with instructions to rescue her if she should not return. The seven Judges hung her naked on a stake. (Sumerian 3) The piece is a face with a flat back, and it was found in the sacred precinct of the goddess. It was completely fashioned by hand, and the stone had to be imported, which explains why the sculpture is only the head, because it would be too expensive for the complete body. (Kleiner 20) The face has drilled holes for attachment to a head and body that is probably made of wood. The bright color of the eyes, eyebrows, and hair, overshadow the soft modeling of the cheeks and mouth. The indention at the top held a wig, which was thought to be made of gold leaf. (Kleiner 20) Originally, the eyes and eyebrows were filled with lapis lazuli and shell, the original appearance was much more vibrant and ornate than the white fragment that stands today. (Parrot 86)

Another Sumerian votive statuette is the figure of Urnanshe. His intense eyes were inlaid with shell and lapis lazuli. Urnanshe has a bare chest, and has a fleece skirt on, with his arms that are now broken, in front of him in prayer. He sits with his feet crossed on a cushion, and has long hair down to his waist, which suggests that he is a eunuch. (Kleiner 22) The reason he is in a skirt is that he was a singer and dancer at the Mari court. (Parrot 126) He was the official singer at the Mari court, and his statuette shows that he stands ready to serve the goddess and his ruler. (Kleiner 22)

The ziggurat’s of the Sumerians were one of the most striking and extraordinary architectural achievements. (Infoplease 2) A good example of one of the temples is the five-thousand-year-old White Temple at Uruk, home of hero and king Gilgamesh. It is made of mud bricks, and it is called the White Temple for its large whitewashed inner shrine. (Parrot 68) The temple stands on top of a high stepped platform forty feet above ground level in the center of the city. A stairway leads to the top, and does not end in front of any of the doorways. This requires it to use a “bent-axis” approach for the angular changes in direction. The corners of the temple are oriented to the points of the compass. The building was probably dedicated to Anu, the sky god. It was not made for large groups of worshipers, but for priests and leaders of the community. There are several chambers to the temple, but the cella was set aside for divinity and had a stepped altar within. (Kleiner 19) The temple was created because men wished to build a ladder between earth and heaven, to facilitate the descent of their gods. Offerings were provided to the god and after this service to their overlord, the god would come down from the heavens to the residence prepared for him in the town below. (Parrot 68)

The cities known as Sumer came under control of Sargon of Akkad, and introduced a new form of royal power based on loyalty to a kind than to the city-state. (Kleiner 26) The Akkad dynasty soon put an end to city-states around 2370 B.C., and also extended its rule over into western Iran. (Porada 40) The destruction of the great city or Ur in Mesopotamia by the Elamites left an impression on the Sumerian people, and two lamentations on clay tablets show the memory of this event. On is the lament over the destruction of Ur, and the other is the lament over the fate of Ibbisin, the last kind of Ur, who was led away into captivity. Parts of the lament of Ibbisin translate to “…hostile Su people and Elamites will attain the inhabitants [of Ur], the king [of Sumer] will have to leave the palace, Ibbisin will have [to go] to the country of Elam, [go] from the Sabu mountain, the “breast” of the mountain range, to the end of Anshan; like a bird which left its abode, like a stranger [he will not return] to his city”. (Porada 45) Soon the end of the Sumerian city-states would occur, and lead on to the Akkadian, Neo-Sumerian, and Babylonian arts.

The world’s most powerful teacher has been sitting in most homes across United States for nearly sixty-five years, the television can be found in 96% of the homes. Children are mesmerized by this big glowing box that sits in each room of the house and the action that takes place within it. It is definitely a major source of violent behavior and vigorous aggression that is brought out in some children from watching the television. Television violence can have a long-lasting affect on children.

It can’t be ignored, viewing shows on television that contain violence can affect children, they imitate what they have see. If a child sees an actor or actress getting punched and not reacting to it, the child will believe that violence does not hurt. Television teaches children that using violence to get what they want is normal and expected in today’ society.

In one hour of prime time television alone, the average person will see five to six violent acts, and children will view twenty to twenty-five acts of violence on Saturday morning cartoons. It’s no wonder children will act out the violence they see on television and think that it is perfectly okay to do. Television violence is becoming a bigger issue then it use to be, because there is less and less monitoring of what children watch. The success of the entertainment industry thrives on the violence on television and there is a quite controversy whether or not it has an effect on children.

The truth about television violence and how it affects children has been shown, studies have been carried out and all the results point to one conclusion: Television violence causes children to act violent and can have life-long lasting effects on them. Some people are trying to fight the problem, others are ignoring it and hoping it will go away, still others don’t even seem to care.

Television has more influence on children then their parents do. In today’s society, programs such Music Television (MYV) have replaced quality time, like sitting and talking with parents, spending time that shapes a child’s ideals. In the past, this role was dominated by family unity, the church and family outings, now in more families both mother and father work and have less time to spend with their children.

The information can’t be ignored; viewing violence on television does have an effect on children. The effects have been seen in a number of cases. In New York, a 16-year-old boy broke into a cellar, when police caught him and asked him why he was wearing gloves; he replied that he learned it from the television. In Alabama, a nine-year-old boy received a bad report card from his teacher and wanted to send her poisoned candy as revenge because he seen it on television. In California, a seven-year-old boy sprinkled ground-up glass into the lamb stew the family was eat for dinner, when asked why he did it, he replied he wanted to see if the results were the same in real life as on television. These are certainly startling examples of how television can effect the child, in the above situations all of them were caused by watching television.
Not only does watching television violence effect a child’s youth, but it can also affect his or her adulthood. Some psychologists and psychiatrists feel that continued exposure to such violence might unnaturally speed up the impact of the adult world on the child. This forces the child into a kind of premature maturity and can cause bewilderment and distrust towards others, a superficial approach to adult problems and even an unwillingness to become an adult.

The violence on television can destroy a young child’s mind; the effect can be long lasting and sometimes never ending. For some, television at its worst is an assault on a child’s mind, and insidious influence that upsets moral balance and makes a child prone to thoughts of bad behavior. Others see television as an unhealthy intrusion into a child’s learning process, substituting easy pictures for the discipline of reading and concentrating and transforming the young viewer into a hypnotized non-thinker. As you can see, television violence can disrupt a child’s learning and thinking ability, which will cause life long problems. If a child cannot do well in school, his or her whole future is at stake.

What happens when children view violence on television? In real life they see a police officer giving a speeding ticket to motorists and it’s done. On television, however, a police officer can beat the offender bloody, and children don’t realize that this is not the way things are handled in real life. They come to expect violence and when it doesn’t happen in real life they go out and create the violence that their mind craves.
The violence on television can actually cause violence in a number of ways, as I explained above, after viewing violence on television the world seems bland in comparison. The child needs to create violence to keep himself satisfied; they also find the violent characters on television fun to imitate. The characters on television become role models for the children and they act out in real life what they see happening on television. This has been seen widely with the advent of the Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers, young children relate to the fictional characters and will often portray them good or bad.

Another reason why television causes violence behavior in children is apparent in large cities, the aggressive behavior is more prevalent and acceptable in large cities, where a child’s popularity rating with peers is not hampered by his aggressive behavior. In the larger cities, crime and violence is inevitable, there is more opportunities for children to act out violent crimes.

There has been a lot of research on the topic of children and violence on television and the results seem to point in the same direction. There are undeniable correlations between violent television and aggression. Surveys of London children, Tel Aviv children, and children from farmlands in Israel show that the city children watch more television than their farmland counterparts, which accounts for the more aggressive behavior of city children. The city children have a greater tendency to view television programs as accurate reflections on the real life than the farm children.

In research it was discovered that aggression, academic problems, unpopularity with peers and violence feed off each other. This promotes violent behavior in the children. The child watches violence on television, which causes the aggression. The combination of aggression and continued television viewing has lead to poor academic standings as well as unpopularity, these in turn cause more aggression and a vicious cycle begins to spin.

The most important aspect of violence in television is preventing it. There are many ways in which it can be prevented, but not often are many carried out. These solutions are easy to implement, but are often overlooked because of commercial purposes.

One solution is to create conflict without killing. Michael Landon, directed Little House on the Prairie, and managed to do so in his programs. His goal was to put moral lessons in his show in an attempt to teach while entertaining. In Hill Street Blues, the conflicts are usually more personal and political among the characters, although some violence does occur; the overall theme is not action, but rather its consequences.

Maybe the most important way to prevent children from watching television violence is to stop it where it starts. The parent should monitor what their children watch more closely; if a show is too violent it should be turned off. As parents, we are children’s role models, and education should start at home. If they can learn at an early age that violence on television is bad, then they can turn the set off for themselves when they are older.

Fixing the problems of children and television violence isn’t easy, there are many factors to be considered and people to convince. The problem will, no doubt, never go away and will continue to get worse as the years go by. We need to take measures to prevent children being exposed to such violence on television.

There are several reasons for pro-choice. One according to WCLA, is that “ we support reproductive freedom” which means that an individual woman should be able to make her own choice whether or not she is going to give birth to the child. Also, laws have never stopped abortion. When illegal abortion was the leading killer of woman in the United States, there was no right to life choice. Most people in the United States believe that abortion may be the morally right choice under certain circumstances. Some of those circumstances are for example when a woman is rapped. If a woman gets rapped, I believe that is she is pregnant by the man, that she does have a right whether or not to birth the child because of the circumstances. According to WLCA, “ Many people who are personally opposed to abortion for religious or moral reasons also believe that it’s wrong to impulse their values by civil law on everyone. You don’t have to like abortion to respect the right of choice. Another argument that congress has had to face is whether the baby is considered a alive, or is not. According to WLCA, “The fetus is totally dependent on the body of the woman for it’s life support. The health of the fetus is directly related to the health of the pregnant woman.

Only at birth are they separated.” A woman named Margaret Sanger said, “ No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body.” Almost all legislatures who oppose abortion rights also support the death penalty. One might ask if they think that people who are convicted of murder are no longer human. According to the WLCA, The Constitution protects various rights that are not specifically mentioned. The constitutional right of privacy has been interpreted repeatedly to include matters of marriage, sex, and family, specifically “the right to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear a child or beget a child.” The agreement among the people of the United States has grown in support. In 1982, an NBC poll showed that 77% agreed to abortion should be between the woman and the doctor only. Another poll showed that 5.4% of rape victims become pregnant. This poll proved that people are becoming more sympathetic towards women who are being rapped and getting pregnant. Also, most medications are not completely 100% effective for getting pregnant. Because of this, abortion should not be a problem because all medications are not 100% effective.

Also, some people cannot afford to pay for medications. Therefore, abortion would be necessary. According to WLCA, “The increase in teen sex has complex society causes, including sexually orientated such as TV, movies, and ads. Birth control and abortion don’t cause sex.” The Supreme Court, in 1976, reaffirmed that the privacy allows woman to be free of governmental interference in decisions about childbearing. The court struck down the law that the father of the child does not have a say so in the decision of his unborn child. The court came to the conclusion that the person who is physically bearing the child is more affected by the pregnancy. Another reason for abortion is that most unwanted babies are usually battered or even killed by the immature parents are not ready to raise a child. The parents may not want the baby, so there fore they do not show or give the baby the love that he or she needs. Most abortions are done for health reason.

When is a woman is with child, there are several cases in which the mother could in fact become in danger is the mother does decide to bear the child. In some cases, the babies that are being aborted are unhealthy babies. The parents can try again for a healthy baby. Also if we have abortion clinics, there will be a less percent of “abortion mills”. These are places in which woman have high risks of being hurt by the people actually doing the procedure. One last reason according to WLCA, why abortions should be accepted in the United States is that when a child is in the wound, the brain and sensory waves do not develop until the 30th week. Most abortions do not accrue usually after the 24th week.

There are several reasons as to why people do not accept abortion in the Untied States. People believe that human life begins when there is conception of a child. Therefore, it would be calling abortion murder. According to WLCA, “abortion is morally wrong.” They believe that if you think abortion is morally wrong, you are obligated to work to make abortion illegal. People also believe that it is a sense of “decay” towards Americans. People believe that the fetus is not just part of the mother, but actually another separate human being. The argument that argues a woman’s rights to her own body are argued with the statement, “The right of the unborn to live supersedes any right of a woman to control her own body” (WLCA, 1 ). Abortion could also be wrong because it is described as taking a human life. Also, if abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, then why is it considered a constitutional right? People in the United States declare that we add an amendment that describes it as the human life amendment. This would consist of declaring a fetus a full person. Also, abortion should not be legal because of a rape situation. They believe this because the percent of woman who get pregnant after being rapped are very low. The question will always remain “If you are having sex, you should be able to pay for consequences.” Most Americans feel that if a woman is old enough to have sex, then she is able to take care of a child if she is aware of the idea of getting pregnant. According to DEBATE, “Teenagers are being les and less capable of saying no. Having the option of abortion increases the sexual experiences of teenagers.” People think that the teenager who is considering having an abortion, to consult their parents first. They believe that the parent will be able to help guide the teenager’s decision to a more moral outcome. Another argument is that most parents, who do not want the child at the time, want the child later on in life. There are several other negative effects of abortion such as woman who have died from legal abortion verses those who have died from illegal abortions. Study shows that if a woman has an abortion, then it could possibly affect her pregnancy later on in life. Adoption affects are also a strong case in congress with the subject of abortion. They want people to know that they could give birth to the child, and then give it up for adoption. There has also been a shortage is adoptive children because of the high numbers of abortion each year.

One case that was presented to Congress about abortion was argued on April 28, 1994 and decided June 30, 1994. In this case, there was a difficulty with people outside of abortion clinics. Abortion clinics felt that people did not have the right to do so outside their clinics. AS the case went on, the argument with Madsen V. Women’s Health Clinic was found not guilty. The court ruled that, “ they were able to have the right to do so. This is because they did not violate the law of 1. Physically abusing anyone coming in or out of the clinic. 2. They were not trespassing on private property. And 3. That they were in no way a distraction to the public such as blocking pathways or streets” (priest for life, 1).

In conclusion, there are several opinions on whether a woman has the right to carry her pregnancy to full term. There are several pros and cons about the topic abortion. In the United States, people battle with abortion everyday. This is a topic that may take several years to finally resolve with the Supreme Court. Is it that we are murdering a human being? Does a woman have the right whether to bear and have her child? Should the Supreme Court be for or against it? Both sides have very strong points of view about the positive and negative affects. With the case of Madsen V. Woman’s Health Center, the people protesting do have the right to their freedom of speech because it was not trespassing. But will it do any good or have any affect on the woman going in and out of the clinic? Who knows? This is a difficult decision that the Congress will have to decide. We may never be alive when this conflict is resolved.

Society has blamed obesity on the individual. We assume that people are overweight because they are lazy and weak. Obesity has increased dramatically since 1980, so can we explain the increase because we have less willpower than we did twenty three years ago. People evolved in an environment where food was scarce. Under these conditions people ate high-calorie foods to sustain themselves during times of scarcity. Yet there is no scarcity now, and we expend far fewer calories. The environment has changed dramatically over the past one hundred years, and it takes evolution thousands or millions of years to catch up and change our genes.

Scientists are searching for the obesity gene, and perhaps something will come from genetic discoveries that will help some people lose weight. Searching for the obesity gene may be like searching for the gene that determines who will get lung cancer after they smoke. Yes, it would be interesting, but the cause of lung cancer is smoking not biology. Just like food and lack of physical activity attribute to obesity. The remote control, video games, television, and the computer are all factors to this problem because they discourage people from being physically active.

The fast food industry certainly contributes, but it is hard to know whether the industry is responding to consumer demand or is shaping food preferences. McDonald’s has made many marketing breakthroughs such as the drive-through window, serving breakfast, value meals, and the supersized meals. A New York Times article on McDonald’s said three new McDonald’s open every day, and that a cooperate goal is to have no American more than four minutes from one of its restaurants. Also, that seven percent of Americans eat at McDonald’s on any given day, and that is only one fast-food chain. It seems like every service station is being remolded to house a fast-food chain. There are fast-food restaurants in some schools, airports, and shopping malls.

It is not just fast-food attributing to the problem , studies have shown that a typical meal at a typical restaurant has 1,000 calories, and that doesn’t include the dessert or appetizers. One of the first things that people from other country’s notice when they visit the U.S is the large portions served in restaurants. There has been a steady progression of restaurants and manufactors dropping small sizes. Starbuck’s does not have “small” drinks on it’s menu anymore only “tall” and “grande.” It is a great sales technique because people buy larger sizes and perceive them as good deals.

Food comes in bigger sizes, so does that make us eat more? A study done by the University of Illinois sent seventy-nine people home with a video, a one-or-two pound bag of M&M’s, and either a “medium” or “jumbo” movie-theater sized tub of popcorn. On average people ate 112 M&M’s from the one pound bag and 156 from the two pound bag. Likewise the average person ate roughly half a tub of popcorn, whether it was medium or jumbo.

Signs in supermarkets can also encourage people to buy more. Putting a specific number on a sign will stimulate shoppers to buy more than they ordinarily would such as, “2 for $1.50″ instead of “75 cents each.”
Is there an answer to this problem? A doctor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center suggests that we subsidize the cost of healthy food, increase cost of bad foods, and regulate food advertising aimed at children. The typical reaction so far has been, “when will it end, are you going to tell us how to lead our lives and intrude on personal decisions?” When we look back at when people tried to ban smoking in public places or take Joe Camel off the billboards they received almost the same reaction. Nevertheless, that all changed as we recognized all the risks involved with smoking. It is considered a crisis when 425,000 people die each year from smoking related diseases.Yet 300,000 die from diet related diseases each year. This certainly seems like a problem that deserves our attention.

Then next several paragraphs will be describing what a stem cell is and the capabilities a stem cell has. When an egg is fertilized it becomes a totipotent, meaning that its potential is total. In the first hours of fertilization, this cell divides into identical totipotent cells. This means that either one of the cells is placed into a women’s uterus, it has the potential to develop into a fetus. This is the beginning of a new human being. You might be thinking what stem cells have to do with normal human development. It has everything to do with it (CNN Conversation: Stem Cells , June 2001).

Stem cells are astonishingly important in the early human development, multipotent stem cells are also found in children and adults. The most abundant and best understood stem cell we have in our body is the blood stem cell. Blood stem cells reside in the bone marrow of every child and adult, and in fact, they can be found in very small numbers circulating in the blood stream. Blood stem cells have the very important job of continually replenishing our supply of blood cells. These cells include red blood cells,
white blood cells, and platelets. As you can see, a person cannot survive without blood stem cells (Adult Stem Cells, February 1999).

Another very important stem cell is pluripotent stem cells. These stem cells have the capability of giving rise to most tissues of an organism. The question is how do doctors know about these stem cells and how they work and do? At the present time, human pluripotent cell lines have been developed from two sources, with methods previously done with animals. In the work done by Dr. Thomson, pluripotent stem cells were put into the inner cell mass of human embryos while the embryos at the blastcyst stage. This is also described as the modified blastula which is a characteristic of all mammals. They are also called blastodermic vesicles. Dr. Thomson received embryos from the In Vitro Fertilization clinics. These embryos were going to be used for infertility treatment but the government said that they could use the embryos for the purpose of reproduction only, not research. After the consent was obtained from the donor couples, Dr. Thomson isolated the inner cell mass and then cultured these cells eventually developing a pluripotent stem cell line. Another way of developing a pluripotent stem cell line is by obtaining fetal tissue from terminated pregnancies. After getting consent from the donors they take the cells from the fetus and culture them. This creates another pluripotent stem cell line. These methods create the same cells, which is good because pluripotent cells can do more than just cure tissue (“Stem Cells: A Primer, March 1999).

There are many potential applications of pluripotent stem cells. There are many reasons why human pluripotent stem cells are important to science and the advances in health care and medical care. Pluripotent cells could help us understand the complexities of human development. One very important goal researchers are hoping to reach is to be able to easily identify all the factors involved in the process of cell specialization. Some of our most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell specialization. It is imperative for researchers to understand all these factors, so that they can create cures for these life threatening illnesses. Another important application for pluripotent stem cells is the way they can change the development of drugs and the way we can test them for safety. New medications are usually tested by using human cell lines. Pluripotent stem cells would allow testing with more cell types. This would replace animal and human cell testing but it would streamline the development of drugs. Now for the “far-reaching” potential application of human pluripotent stem cells is the development of cells and tissue that could be used for what they call “cell therapies”. Many diseases and disorders result from the disruption of cellular function. They way we cure these disorders today are by replacing the organ or tissue with another persons organ or tissue. Unfortunately, the number of people suffering these diseases is to great. We do not have the number or donors we need to fully replace everyone’s organ. This is where pluripotent stem cells are very important. These stem cells have the ability to develop millions of pluripotent stem cell lines, which far out reaches the number of organ donors we have. There are myriad number of diseases, conditions, and disabilities pluripotent stem cells can cure. These diseases include Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. While these studies show extraordinary promise in our future, there are many more innovations we have to realize and understand. Technological challenges remain before these discoveries can become a normal clinical practice. These challenges, though very difficult to figure out, are not impossible (“NIA,” May 2000).

Why is stem cell research so controversial? The reason for it is simple. The best way to obtain stem cells is to strip them from a human embryo. In the process of stripping them they are destroyed. Many people consider this murder and murder is against many religions around the world. It is not surprising that the Bush Administration has banned the use of federal dollars for work using stem cells created through the destruction of additional embryos. Congress, in the progress of making that law, has also passed a law stating that cloning is illegal. If cloning were not banned, then researchers could someday offer a countless source of such stem cells. Congress, in a way, has lost the battle of banning the study of stem cells. As Congress debates this emotionally and politically charged issue, science has gone ahead with their research. The have found away around the restrictions imposed by the lawmakers. Making stem cell research a whole new ball game but could also boil up many new ethical aspects.

There are many people that believe stem cell research is a remarkable break through discovery, that it is not murder at all. Christopher Reed, who feel of his horse during a competition, acquiring a spinal injury from the neck down, believes that stem cell research should be legal, for things such as curing a spinal injury. Many people in his case believe that stem cell research is a great medical break through. Many other people believe that stem cell research is superior due to the fact that there is not any need to do transplant surgery, they can just simply inject you with the specific stem cells you need in the organ or tissue that are having the problems.

I myself agree with both sides. Here is the scenario to think of if you were in the position of needing surgery. You have severe congestive heart failure. You need a heart transplant, and your doctor tells you that due to the lack of replacement hearts, you might have to wait a year or more. After the transplant, your body’s immune system might still reject the new heart. Even if the transplant is a success, you will have to go through the effects of immunosuppressive drugs for the rest of your life. That does not sound like a great life to me. What if we had stem cells available to us to use instead of a heart transplant? Again, you have severe congestive heart failure. Your doctor admits you to the hospital. During an operation later that day, she injects some heart cells into your heart, and after an integration period of a few days, your heart is substantially healed. You go home and lead a healthy life. Now that sounds better. It is a very hard for me to deicide which side I would want to take. Although, there are bounteous number of abilities stem cells have, I do not agree with the destruction of the human embryo. I believe that it is murder. Then again, is it really murder? Technically, yes. It is a life being developed. Which means it is a life being taken. In the Roman Catholic church, (which is the church I myself attend) believe that life begins upon conception and I agree with that. But yet there is always another side to a story. We can not just say that we should stop the study of stem cells. Researchers have already found another resource for stem cells. If you think about it, you could say that science itself is controversial. I believe science has changed a lot of ways people view our past, what we have, and how we were created. In some cases they could be correct but the question is should they be allowed to research such controversial things? I guess that if they had not been able to, they way we live life today would be much different. Stem cells are just a new innovative, remarkable, and amazing discovery. Just like the light bulb was or the telephone, except those were not so controversial. The bottom line is, stem cells hold the promise of a healthier, safer, and advanced medical future.

Gene Therapy is a complex science with many parts to it. Many parts have been answered but there still remains those that aren’t and questions that are just being thought of. Some of these first questions were brought up and worked on by a scientist named Paul Berg. After years of studying, he put his research to test the possibility of splicing genes, which he successfully did. His reasoning for these experiments was to find a way to “manufacture” genes to the benefit of stopping certain viruses. Other pioneers of genetic therapy were Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer who studied recombinant DNA technology. Their research was to eventually create a new DNA molecule by the process of cleaving and rejoining different DNA strands. After these advances started to be made, some scientists realized possible risks of their studies. These men eventually decided it was necessary to get together with as many scientists from around the world to discuss the pro’s and con’s of their studies. A Short while after this conference, another of the same type was held which led to the creation of restrictions and other such rules that were to be followed in the study of genetics.

The first scientists to start genetic research thought it would take decades to make advances that were noteworthy. This turned out to be false. By the year 1971 Paul Berg successfully was able to splice genes. Even further with the research was done throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s. After going unnoticed with the media, due to few advances, gene therapy hit the spotlights again in the 1990’s with many great strides. In January of 1998, scientists made the discovery that when cells divide their DNA strand gets shorter and shorter eventually reaching a point where the cell no longer replicates. With this discovery scientists are now working with enzymes to prevent the deterioration of the DNA strand by the process of telomerase. Telomerase will allow the cells to divide indefinitely and healthier in the body. This process is what cancer cells do and with this knowledge researchers may be able to unlock the ways to fighting cancer effectively. Another discovery made in 1998, proved that the brain does in fact grow new cells (in certain and controlled conditions). Up to this point it was thought to be contrary to this fact. A major discovery in the field of gene therapy again happened in 1999, in animal testings; scientists successfully added a chromosome into a mouse which passed it on to the next generation. With this breakthrough, researches have opened the gate to possible testing for the prevention of ailments in humans and other animals. All this has been accomplished way ahead of the expectations of many in this field of study. One Doctor put it in these words, “A decade ago if you had asked, would it be possible to manipulate a higher cognitive function like learning and memory by changing a single molecule? Most scientists would have looked at you
as if you were crazy!”(Malenka 58)

Much of the research that has been discussed so far is still in “the works”, but not far off, as you may know. Successful experiments with altered chromosomes in mice was done to develop herds of genetically altered animals whose milk can be used and then cultured for producing a vast range of medically beneficial drugs. Another possibility with the altering of chromosomes, in the mice, makes it possible for brain restoration. Knowing that the brain can regenerate itself we may now be able to add genetically altered neurons that have been lost over the years. The medical world could now have the power to increase a persons memory, IQ or even prevent diseases such as Alzheimer’s. One may think that all this gene “stuff” doesn’t affect them but that is where they are wrong; many of the everyday foods people eat aregenetically altered. Examples of this would be: 26% of U.S. corn crop was grown from genetically changed seeds in 1998. Also that year 30% of U.S. cows are injected with the recombinant bovine growth hormone which boosts production of milk. This hormone is made from genetically engineered bacteria. In 1998, 35% of the soybean crop was grown from seeds that had been genetically engineered. 75% of all cheeses contain chymosin, which is produced with bacteria that have been genetically engineered. Also 42% of cotton was grown from genetically engineered seeds. (Kluger 42) Another positive breakthrough would be from the manipulation of embryonic stem cells (Es cells). This technology would allow us to grow infinite numbers of cells and manipulate what they would grow into so they could be injected into infected parts of patients. Diseases such as congenitive heart failure, diabetes, repairing amaged lung cells or the blood of leukemia patients could be altered by Es cells. Other genetically transmitted diseases could also be stopped during pregnancy before the child is fully developed or born.

The future of genetic therapy is all in the hands of the people. The knowledge of its potentials are still trying be unlocked. Many things such as the full understanding of Es cells and the potential to alter humans and make a super being are all being researched vigorously. With this research many great possibilities lie in the hands of researchers. The future of this technology is uncertain due to the fact that scientists and researchers still know little of its full possibilities and consequences. Much safety research is needed to prove to scientists and the world that genetic therapy can be safe and effective way in treating ailments. Since its beginning the study of genetic therapy has been fast developing. Every day advances are made towards the good of man. All this research has been for the betterment of people, whether it be for treating ailments or making changes for the advancement of the human body. Genetic therapy has so far shown that it is a beneficial medical treatment that can be looked forward to being used in the near future.