In reading this weeks articles their were a few things that stuck out to me, but the one thing that I saw that both articles had in common was the ethics of stem cell research and how its treatment or mistreatment of embryos are still the very center of the debate. I know that this kind of sounds rhetorical, but threw this constant bickering of what is right and what is wrong the advancement of this technology is being hindered. The first hindrance came from our very own President Bush by vetoing federal funding that would of greatly enhanced the furthering of this new technology. Because with out money things just don't seem to move very fast or even move at all. Then we jump to the Vatican where they are greatly opposed to this new technology because they believe that man is trying to play God or be God in procreation. Now I don't really know why Bush vetoed the bill I can only read what the article says was his reason, but it seems to me that why can't we have both. Why can't we have both the snowflake babies and have embryos to do stem cell research? If their are still humans on this earth it seems to me that we will always be in ample supply of the raw materials to do both. Here we have the opportunity to help those that are less fortunate and do not have the ability to procreate to be able to procreate and have a child of their own through the advancement of new technology. And here we have the opportunity or promise that through this new technology we may be able to cure diseases that have no cure at this present time, but only through the advancement of this technology we will be able to find these cures. Now here lies the problem, as I see it, some people believe that we are experimenting with creation or the potentiality of creation, but isn't God the one who says what or who shall have life and that life have a soul. Isn't he the one that has the final say in the circle of life. Man is his creation and if God doesn't agree with what man is doing then he shouldn't have made man with the ability to evolve. I like how Green puts everything into perspective when he says that when the first diabetic child walks out of a stem cell clinic cured we will have nothing left to debate on the ethics of stem cell research. I agree and disagree with him because yes it will be what is needed to put this argument to bed, but man will always find something to debate whether its right or wrong. I like how Fortun puts it at the end of chapter X where he states that "genomic fissureXlandscape is not something that is going to be controlled by some exact science, a more representative politics, or a more humanistic ethics. The genomic fisssureXlandscape is where we live and like Iceland it is a harshXbeautiful world." To me Fortun is telling us that genomics is something that cannot be controlled it is something that one just has to sit and admire as it evolves into something of beauty.