Essay

In the essay “Unspeakable Conversations”, a renowned scholar, famous for animal rights, believes that parents of disabled babies should be able to terminate their lives. The essay has been written by Harriet McBryde Johnson who is an intellectual lady but unfortunately, disabled. She tells us about her own points of view as well as her opponent Prof. Peter Singer. After reading the essay, I gather that Prof. Singer wants to legalize the killing of disabled babies. He also says he believes that it should be lawful under some circumstances to kill, at any age, individuals with cognitive impairments so severe that he doesn't consider them ''persons.' Why does he believe so? What is on his mind? Is he full of hatred? Perhaps, in the beginning it may seem so but when I continued reading the essay with more focus, I actually was able to gather some interesting points that define his claim.

Actually Prof. Singer does not want to kill any infant however he does want the parents of disabled babies to have an option to terminate their children’s lives as soon as they’re born. However when questioned about what he thinks of mix-raced babies who cannot be adopted compared to white babies, he admits that it would be horrible to kill them but he is stuck to the point that “Disability makes a person worse off.” The way author has defined Prof. Singer, I am

Malik 2

convinced that he is not a bad person at heart; it is just his point of view. The way he treated his disabled guest (the author) who happened to be against him was quite interesting and full of kindness.

According to the Prof. Singer, disabled babies grow up in a terrible way and they lead a hard life with not much hopes and dreams like normal people which I admit is true. He thinks those people cannot enjoy and benefit from their life as much as a normal person can and certain things that they ever wished to do are out of their reach which leave them as heart-broken. Thus, he argues that a disabled baby’s life should be terminated as an infant so that he would not have to lead a hard life. But has he ever considered the fact that no matter if the baby is disabled or normal; he is still a child of his parents and deserves the same amount of love like any other child? Has the author ever thought about that fact that to a parent, no matter how a child is born, that child is something very precious and it is not easy for them to terminate his life? How right is the author? Is the option he is suggesting the last thing to do? No, it is not the last thing to do because the author of the essay “The Case against Perfection” which is somewhat related to this one, suggests a better option.

In the other essay “The Case against Perfection” that I read soon after reading the previous one, I felt at ease. Why? It is because in this essay, the author argues against human genetic engineering. As it’s a fact that the technology is advancing rapidly, breakthroughs in genetics can be very essential for the human kind. It has already been used in treating various diseases and disorders and humans and has helped them lead a healthy and good life. It is now

Malik 3

possible to enhance our muscles, memories, and moods; to choose the sex, height, and other genetic traits of our children; to make ourselves "better than well."

The author of this essay believes that there is nothing wrong with designer children, bionic athletes and genetic engineering. Cloning, a kind of genetic engineering produces the clone of a child. Although the scientists have been working way hard to come up with the best possible way to clone a human, the author hopes and wishes that once there is a best harmless and flawless procedure available for the world to avail, there should be no objections to it. Thus, he asks the readers, “What, exactly, is wrong with creating a child who is a genetic twin of one parent, or of an older sibling who has tragically died вЂ" or, for that matter, of an admired scientist,