Two proposals have been presented concerning the issue of gene therapy. The first was a proposal to treat cancer. With the p53 gene being recognized as a tumor suppressor, by manually inserting the p53 gene into different parts of the body, it can potentially "cure" lung cancer by prevention. I would agree with this gene therapy basically because if this gene therapy worked, the consequences and potential for the greater good of the community would be increased immensely.
             I first warn you, however, that what I am about to say is entirely theoretical. I believe that if the inhalation of the p53 gene into the lungs preventing lung cancer works, a window of economic opportunity would show itself. Here's how it would turn out: Supposedly that this new gene therapy would work, it could be anticipated that there would be an increase in smokers and a higher demand in tobacco and cigarettes. With this higher demand, the prices would go up for cigarettes. With more and more money flowing into these tobacco businesses, the government can tax higher these businesses. With this extra money, investments in research in the cures for other diseases or from city projects can be started. There are relatively few objections religiously to agreeing with the treatment.
             The counter-arguments for this would be as follows: lifestyle would dictate how these people who are addicted to the nicotine in the cigarettes. By making this choice, it would interfere with "natural selection" and "survival of the fitness." Another argument that would counter my proposal would be the idea of the slippery slope. If this prevention was successful, then the overall lifestyle of the society could suffer, potentially worsening their lifestyles.
             The second proposal, however, I would lean towards rejecting the idea of tampering with the germatic gene therapy. I feel this way b
             ...