Analyzing Ronald Munson's 'Screening For Marriage'

In Andrew J. Cherlin’s essay “American Marriage In Transition”, he discusses how marriage in America is evolving from the universal marriage. Cherlin’s definition of the universal marriage in his essay is the man is the breadwinner of the household and the woman is the homemaker. In the 20th century according to Cherlin, the meaning of marriage has been altered such as the changing division of labor, childbearing outside of marriage, cohabitation, gay marriage and the result of long- term cultural and material trends (1154). During the first transition of marriage, Cherlin discusses how in America, Europe, and Canada the only socially accepted way to have sexual relations with a person and to have children is to be married (1154). The second change in marriage occurred in 2000, where the median age of marriage in the United States for men is 27 and women is 25 (1155). Many young adults stayed single during this time and focused on their education and starting their careers. During the second change, the role of law increasingly changed, especially in the role of law in divorce (1155). It is proven in today’s research marriage has a different definition than what it did back in the 1950’s. Today marriage can be defined as getting married to the same gender or getting remarried to someone who already has kids. The roles in a marriage are evolving to be a little more flexible and negotiable. However, women still do a lot of the basic household chores and taking care of the

Love is defined as an intense feeling of deep affection. Although it is not as easily defined as some may make it. Every situation and the lessons we learn from those times, help to form what we believe love to be. For some it may be a physical attachment that others degrade to lust. For some it may be their reason for continuing on in life; but overall for most, love is what drives our lives. From childhood to adulthood we seek to find relationships that will fulfill our hearts and make our short time on Earth a little more enjoyable. However as well as any other activity we partake in, ways in which we perceive love and marriage have changed over time. Although there is slight variations, when most imagine the life of a married couple pure happiness is what is expected. As wonderful as that expectation may be, not every marriage fits into this ideal. The criteria of marriage used to be based off of what your partner can offer you. However as times have changed and gender roles have begun to disappear, marriage has now

The entire point behind this idea is to lessen the amount of children that are born with genetic disorders. However, this research has garnered many critics, and they have some valid points about why it is not a good idea. The critics are saying that this line should not be crossed because the amount of women that could be positively affected by this is small. Also, the director of the Center for Genetics and Society, Marcy Darnovsky, stated that “mission creep” could become very real if this happened.

George F. Gilder was a graduate of Harvard University and even served in the United States Marine Corps. His love for economics and writing landed him with a successful career as a speechwriter and later his skills allowed him to contribute to numerous economic reports in The Wall Street Journal. Upon researching the author, I was surprised to learn that Gilder wrote speeches for President Richard Nixon. The book, “Men and Marriage” (written in 1986) is a revised edition of “Sexual Suicide”, a book where he voiced his opinion claiming there is are significant differences between males and females and how these roles are detrimental to marriage, family and thus modern society. Additionally, the book points out the central purpose of marriage and the family structure. These thoughts originated back in 1973 when he first embarked on ideologies surrounding gender/sex. George Gilder considers himself, “a critique of the feminist movement and its politics” (viii). Despite some changes to these ideas from his previous edition some thirteen years ago, his objective to revise Sexual Suicide was for personal reasons which included his growing son and his very own marriage. Through the help of numerous associates, he believes these revisions were made possible. He even had aide from a friend in the White House and the Census Bureau which assisted with the encouragement and statistics throughout the book. The author claims his predictions in 1973 had demonstrated

This can come as a blessing to some couple who have a high genetic genes for certain diseases. This has also, helped couples who have very sever fertility issues. There are new techniques being used for genetic screening right now. The process works when an embryo can be selected by sex and then checked for a number certain disease-bearing genes on it. This can lead to either a pre-implantation stage when using In Vitro Fertilization, only

Basically the article claims that everyone is impacted by genetic testing, either positively or negatively. There are many potential benefits which can arise as a result of genetic testing such as individuals that are identified as carrying potentially harmful genetic alterations can receive regular

In Improvements in Prenatal Genetic Testing Raise Ethnic Issues, R. J. Crayton produced an article about prenatal testing and whether or not parents should be allowed to have these tests done. First the situation of a high risk baby who will have a disability or defect after birth, so the parents decide to abort the child is being viewed as an inequality to the disabled community. Secondly, certain adoptions are put on hold since the biological parents chose to not carry the unborn child through the entire pregnancy, however, the surrogate mother wants to carry the child through the entire term. Lastly, research shows that the results can be a false positive, so unintentionally the parents decide not to keep the unknown, but healthy baby.

Another big benefit of testing is the ability to know in advance the health of a baby. It is no longer necessary for parents to be to have to worry about the health of their child. The technology is there to know in advance. Some people have major health problems in their family. This testing could make it possible for them to give birth to healthy long living children. The whole point of prenatal genetic testing is to improve life through good health. There are enough things

In her essay titled “Why I [Still] Want a Wife”, Judy Brady argues that wives are automatically assigned the role of primary caretaker and homemaker in a traditional marriage. Brady states that in her marriage, she is expected to earn an income while her husband pursues a higher education, she is expected to perform all parental duties exclusively, tend to all housework, her husband’s sexual needs and desires with no regard to her own, and be a hostess while keeping quiet and doing all the above pleasantly. In her style of writing, Brady appears to be hostile and her entire piece comes across as one sided and unfair. While I agree that marriage should be based around inherent equality, I disagree with the way Brady chooses to present her argument as she presents the conditions of her marriage as universally applicable. I do not consider her argument as effective as it could be if Brady chose to be less biased and contradictory in her presentation. If Brady wanted her argument to appear more persuasive, she should have refrained from telling the reader that she does not like being exploited while at the same time telling the reader that she wants to have someone to exploit. Brady presents the conditions of her loveless marriage that is lacking basic respect as universally applicable which is unjust. With her style of writing, Judy Brady leaves her essay open to disagreement. She could have prevented this simply by being less biased and generic with her references to what it

The testing is not a bad idea as such but it should not be done to children. This regards to personal autonomy where it would be better if the testing is delayed until an individual is old enough to make his or her own decision about the test. A person’s genetic information should be private and counselling should be done to elucidate the basis for and consequences of the test in question. Individuals should be allowed to choose when and which

Firstly, being able to detect genetic disorders, such as Down Syndrome, could result in the parents aborting the fetus. Margaret Somerville said in Choosing The Perfect Child,"In short, the new genetics is functioning as eugenics, but that fact is not identified. Decisions by individuals based on preimplantation genetic diagnosis of IVF embryos, or prenatal screening of foetuses mean we will eliminate certain groups of people, for example, Down's Syndrome children, from our society. In short, an outcome that would never be acceptable as public policy is being implemented through the accumulation of individual choices”(actionlife.org). To abort a child because of their genes are incorrect and need extra assistance with daily chores is selfish and inhuman. Not to mention, if a family had PGD on their child and received a false positive result, the unborn child could very well be killed needlessly. Then secondly, if all PGD got rid of all genetically transferred diseases, it could affect the world’s population. Since more lives would be saved, the world’s population would increase at an alarming rate. It would cause the the world’s resources dwindle down extensively and make the resources very

There are many questions that would arise, for example, who would have the rights to the genetic information? There are no uniform standards for genetic testing from state to state. Nor are there strict policies protecting the vulnerable. The current standard is GENA, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, but it is severely lacking. While GENA protects against employers and health insurance companies requesting genetic test results, it does not cover mortgage lending, housing or schools, life or disability insurance. (U.S Department of Human Services). Before considering mandating genetic testing there should be clear and concise policies in place.

Although genetic testing can benefit society in numerous ways, such as the diagnosis of vulnerabilities to inherited diseases and ancestry verification, it also has the precarious capability to become a tool in selecting a more favorable genetic makeup of an individuals and ultimately cloning humans. Genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life and may result in discrimination, invasion of privacy, and harmful gene therapy.

The fear of genetic discrimination is a phobia gripping many people around the world. People find themselves asking, could my genetic information raise my health bills? Could this cause me to be rejected from a job opportunity? These anxieties are causing people to lash out at genetic research, and ultimately the human genome project. People do not want our understanding of human genomics to advance. This is because the risks of the development of the technology could inflict on them. A major risk is genetic discrimination. I believe that genetic discrimination is wrong and governments should continue to prevent it because it is an invasion of privacy, it violates equity, and it could really hurt people with genetic

This would mean that this testing would be more affordable for the commoner. Once testing has been completed and data interpreted, someone will know if they are a carrier for a genetic disorder. If it turns out that they are, instead of waiting for symptoms to arise, genetic treatment of the disease can be done to save the person’s life before it is even in jeopardy. This could prove to be very helpful. People spend thousands of dollars on treatments for a genetic disorder, and the treatments do not even fully rid the patient of the disease. The patient will have to take the medication for the rest of their life to calm the symptoms of that disease. With the advancement of gene therapy, a patient could receive a minimal number of treatments which will not just calm the symptoms but rid the patient of their genetic disorder completely. This, in the long run, could save the patient time, money, suffering, and ultimately it will save their life. This is only the beginning. As time passes, doctors will have the knowledge to save many more lives in the same manner.