I believe that genetically engineered individuals should not be allowed to compete with "regular" athletes. Coming from the rights and relationship lens of the topic, it should be noticed that sports and athletics have a specific standard that should be upheld. People that are at the standard have achieved the capabilities to take part in the sport, others who are below the standard usually do not receive the possibility of being a part of the team or sport, and individuals that are genetically engineered should be held to that standard as well. By having genetics engineered that is creating an entire new "species" of athlete that other athletes, who have not taken part in genetically engineering, cannot hold up to. Sports and athletics have a major role where individuals work and strive for greatness and athleticism, while genetically engineered people are given an upper hand.
I agree with Colin. Coming from the rights and relationships lens, genetically engineered people have an unfair advantage. They should not be allowed to compete because they have advantages that other people do not have. Te only problem I have here, though, is that it isn't that person's fault. They wouldn't have the choice to choose if they wanted to be genetically engineered. It's not their fault because they didn't choose to be genetically engineered. So why should we punish them for actions that aren't their fault? Also, what about people that compete with prosthetic body parts? Couldn't we also say that they have an unfair advantage? Take for example Oscar Pistorius. http://mashable.com/2012/08/01/olympics-carbon-fiber-legs/ Would you guys consider this an unfair advantage? Or is he competing with a disadvantage?
I do no think genetically engineered people will have an unfair advantaged because they will be "built" to be the best athlete possible. Looking through the relationship lens is looking at the effect on the community. While genetically engineered people have a better ability to not be as tired as quickly as "regular" athlete and even the ones that have the slight gene bonus.
I do not think that genetically engineered people should be able to perform in sports because that could be considered a performance enhancing substance. They would have an unfair advantage to the people who were not genetically engineered. Playing sports is supposed to be fair to everyone and to genetically engineer someone would be against that thought and motive
I feel the same way about it being just like a performance enhancing substance. If performance substances should are band, then so should people who are specifically engineered to be an athlete. Both things enhance your performance. So if we allow genetically engineered people compete, then we should allow the use of performance substances to be used by the people who were not engineered, because it would only be fair.
I don't think that they should be aloud to compete with regular athletes because they have a better advantage than the rest of the athletes. Playing in a sport should be as fair as possible and if you have had things done to your genetics then that is not fair. I agree with Tyler that it is like using a enhancing substance.
Including genetically enhanced athletes with 'regular' athletes would never happen because there is an unfair advantage in favor of the genetically enhanced athletes. When that time comes there may be two separate leagues for each athlete. If there was a mixing of the two kinds of athletes competition may suffer due to the athletic abilities of the genetically altered persons.
I agree with Jake, that combining regular athletes and genetically enhanced athletes will be unfair since they are different. It would be like letting the regular Olympians and the paralyzed Olympians running together because it just would not be fair.
I agree with everybody on this. Genetically engineered people should not be allowed to compete in sports. If they were, they would have an advantage on all of the other athletes. This would be taking away the fairness aspect of the game. When an athlete uses Performance Enhancing Drugs, they are trying to gain an upper edge on the competition. Wouldn't a genetically engineered athlete be considered the same thing? If this were to happen, it would change the game of sports forever.
I also agree that Genetically engineered people should not be allowed to compete in college sports. I dont believe that its fair and it also gives them a unfair advantage. i don't think genetically engineered athletes is the same as performance enhancing drugs,but i do agree that it give athletes an unfair advantage.
To all of you who agree that genetically engineered people should not be allowed to compete, Was it their choice to be genetically engineered?? I do not believe that it is fair to the athlete because his parents had his embryo injected with other genes. Using the rights and responsibilities lens there are no rules against it yet and looking at this in the relationship lens is it a fair process? fair in not being allowed to play because you are different?? Just a little thing to stir the pot
I agree with Nick. It was not the persons choice to be genetically engineered, they were given a life and have to make the best out of it. Not letting them play sports would be an unethical thing to do, they did nothing to hinder their eligibility. But the way i see it, how would you know if the gene doping actually did the player any good? How are you supposed to know the player is only talented at the sport due to their genes, and not their hard work and determination to be the best? I believe that even if a person is genetically enhanced to play a sport, that doesn't mean they will be the best at it or even good at it. It will take hard work and determination to be the best, not just having the best genes. Like Rocky vs the Russian. Rocky is a champ.
I do not think that genetically engineered people should be able to compete because they would be considered to be performance enhanced and that is what we make illegal in sports today. Why would it be fair for an average athlete to have to compete against a genetically enhanced freak. It would not be fair and it would not be fun to watch because if you just had a few of they enhanced athletes then the scores of the games would be blow outs and it would not be entertaining.
i do not think these people should be able to compete because that would give them an unfair advantage because they have be genetically enhanced. I think they should make competitions for only genetically enhanced people. It wouldn't be fair and i wouldn't enjoy watching it because the genetically enhanced person would most likely beat someone who isnt genetically enhanced.
I believe that genetically engineered individuals should not be allowed to compete with "regular" athletes. Coming from the rights and relationship lens of the topic, it should be noticed that sports and athletics have a specific standard that should be upheld. People that are at the standard have achieved the capabilities to take part in the sport, others who are below the standard usually do not receive the possibility of being a part of the team or sport, and individuals that are genetically engineered should be held to that standard as well. By having genetics engineered that is creating an entire new "species" of athlete that other athletes, who have not taken part in genetically engineering, cannot hold up to. Sports and athletics have a major role where individuals work and strive for greatness and athleticism, while genetically engineered people are given an upper hand.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Colin. Coming from the rights and relationships lens, genetically engineered people have an unfair advantage. They should not be allowed to compete because they have advantages that other people do not have. Te only problem I have here, though, is that it isn't that person's fault. They wouldn't have the choice to choose if they wanted to be genetically engineered. It's not their fault because they didn't choose to be genetically engineered. So why should we punish them for actions that aren't their fault? Also, what about people that compete with prosthetic body parts? Couldn't we also say that they have an unfair advantage? Take for example Oscar Pistorius. http://mashable.com/2012/08/01/olympics-carbon-fiber-legs/ Would you guys consider this an unfair advantage? Or is he competing with a disadvantage?
DeleteI do no think genetically engineered people will have an unfair advantaged because they will be "built" to be the best athlete possible. Looking through the relationship lens is looking at the effect on the community. While genetically engineered people have a better ability to not be as tired as quickly as "regular" athlete and even the ones that have the slight gene bonus.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that genetically engineered people should be able to perform in sports because that could be considered a performance enhancing substance. They would have an unfair advantage to the people who were not genetically engineered. Playing sports is supposed to be fair to everyone and to genetically engineer someone would be against that thought and motive
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way about it being just like a performance enhancing substance. If performance substances should are band, then so should people who are specifically engineered to be an athlete. Both things enhance your performance. So if we allow genetically engineered people compete, then we should allow the use of performance substances to be used by the people who were not engineered, because it would only be fair.
DeleteI don't think that they should be aloud to compete with regular athletes because they have a better advantage than the rest of the athletes. Playing in a sport should be as fair as possible and if you have had things done to your genetics then that is not fair. I agree with Tyler that it is like using a enhancing substance.
ReplyDeleteIncluding genetically enhanced athletes with 'regular' athletes would never happen because there is an unfair advantage in favor of the genetically enhanced athletes. When that time comes there may be two separate leagues for each athlete. If there was a mixing of the two kinds of athletes competition may suffer due to the athletic abilities of the genetically altered persons.
ReplyDeleteI am responding from a relationship lens because it deals with the fairness of competition
DeleteI agree with Jake, that combining regular athletes and genetically enhanced athletes will be unfair since they are different. It would be like letting the regular Olympians and the paralyzed Olympians running together because it just would not be fair.
DeleteI agree with everybody on this. Genetically engineered people should not be allowed to compete in sports. If they were, they would have an advantage on all of the other athletes. This would be taking away the fairness aspect of the game. When an athlete uses Performance Enhancing Drugs, they are trying to gain an upper edge on the competition. Wouldn't a genetically engineered athlete be considered the same thing? If this were to happen, it would change the game of sports forever.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that Genetically engineered people should not be allowed to compete in college sports. I dont believe that its fair and it also gives them a unfair advantage. i don't think genetically engineered athletes is the same as performance enhancing drugs,but i do agree that it give athletes an unfair advantage.
ReplyDeleteTo all of you who agree that genetically engineered people should not be allowed to compete, Was it their choice to be genetically engineered?? I do not believe that it is fair to the athlete because his parents had his embryo injected with other genes. Using the rights and responsibilities lens there are no rules against it yet and looking at this in the relationship lens is it a fair process? fair in not being allowed to play because you are different?? Just a little thing to stir the pot
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick. It was not the persons choice to be genetically engineered, they were given a life and have to make the best out of it. Not letting them play sports would be an unethical thing to do, they did nothing to hinder their eligibility. But the way i see it, how would you know if the gene doping actually did the player any good? How are you supposed to know the player is only talented at the sport due to their genes, and not their hard work and determination to be the best? I believe that even if a person is genetically enhanced to play a sport, that doesn't mean they will be the best at it or even good at it. It will take hard work and determination to be the best, not just having the best genes. Like Rocky vs the Russian. Rocky is a champ.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that genetically engineered people should be able to compete because they would be considered to be performance enhanced and that is what we make illegal in sports today. Why would it be fair for an average athlete to have to compete against a genetically enhanced freak. It would not be fair and it would not be fun to watch because if you just had a few of they enhanced athletes then the scores of the games would be blow outs and it would not be entertaining.
ReplyDeletei do not think these people should be able to compete because that would give them an unfair advantage because they have be genetically enhanced. I think they should make competitions for only genetically enhanced people. It wouldn't be fair and i wouldn't enjoy watching it because the genetically enhanced person would most likely beat someone who isnt genetically enhanced.
ReplyDelete