Response to Madison Parker's Article

            I am commenting on Madison Parker’s article that focuses on the donation dilemma in selling organs. Millions of people all over the world are awaiting all sorts of transplants from a generous organ donor. Madison does not believe people should sell their organs, and stated valuable information to support her argument. First, people should not have the right to sell their organs because it is unfair for the underclass or even middle class in society. Having this right, would give more power to the upper class because they have the money to buy the organs. Instead, Madison believes that this procedure should depend on the each individual’s health circumstance and even age. Second, Madison questioned, where is the money coming? If it comes from the government, then it could increase individual’s taxes. Or if it comes from the recipients, then it will create a competitive process in receiving organs. The Martin Wilkinson’s article that the class reviewed does not change Madison’s mind in this process. She still believes that organ donation should be voluntarily with no cash value at the end.

            My original opinion of this process was that people should have the right to sell their organs. Since people have the right to there own body, they should be able to sell their body parts. I believed it would only increase the number of possible organs, and at the end, save more patient’s lives all over the world.  However, after reading Madison Parkers article, I now believe that selling organs is a negative process. I never considered how it would become unfair, and create opportunities for only a certain number of people. I agree with Madison that it should depend on the circumstance, and even age of the patient, not on the people who have the money to purchase the organs.

            Overall, Madison’s arguments where clear and confining. She made me think about a whole other side to this organ donating process, and how selling organs could become a competitive process. Now I do not believe people should have the right to sell there organs, and the medical field needs to find another way to increase the number of organs available for patients. 

Technorati Search

              One possible topic for my persuasive paper is: Should children be home-schooled? From Home-Schooling to Classroom: Kids Face Challenge of Transition was a blog that helped me learn more about my topic. The author of my specific blog is Rebecca Dube, a MSNBC contributor.  She is a member of The News One Staff in Nations of Black It seems that the authors are very active, and create a multiple of blog’s daily.

            There are many types of web content other then text on his blog. Since this is one of the many blogs written by News One, there are many links offered to view other articles printed by News One. For instance, you can search for the latest news, most viewed, and celebrity news and gossip blogs. Also available are a multiple of links to related content for home schooling ranging from 131 days ago to 60 days ago. Other forms of media include advertisements, such as Groupon, PB Teen, and Facebook. At the bottom of the article, you will see an area for comments, where you have the ability to post or read comments from other peers. Readers will have to register and login to post a comment, which I believe will make this process a time commitment. Analyzing the different advertisements and other links while viewing this page shows me how a blog is not just about the article, but also a way for the author to advertise other information.

            From Home-Schooling to Classrooms: Kids Face Challenge of Transition was written on September 29, 2010. The style of this blog will be different then my persuasive paper because it will focus on a different subject matter that is related to home schooling. This article is more related to the parents, and the emotional effect on them versus the child. My paper will be concentrated more on the effects of home schooling, and if it has a positive or negative impact on the child for the future. 

http://newsone.com/nation/newsonestaff4/from-home-school-to-classroom-kids-face-challenge-of-transition/

Personal Evaluation- "How to Make a Protein Smoothie"

            My demonstration video was on “How to Make a Protein Smoothie.” I demonstrated to the class instructions on making a rasberry-bannana smoothie, a snack I believe is healthy for all college students. While I was watching the video I critiqued myself in both positive and negative way.

             What I enjoyed about the speech was how I had two visual aids, the PowerPoint and the actual making of the drink. The PowerPoint provided the class with information related to smoothies, important reminders and tips, and a variety of different recipes. The purpose of the PowerPoint was to organize the essential ingredients, and give an overall layout of the material needed in the process.

            However, there are many aspects of my speech I wish I were stronger at. First, my introduction was not exciting and attention-grabbing. Therefore, I was not able to capture the audience’s attention, and make them feel involved. I also did not review the steps in the beginning or the conclusion of my speech. This step would have helped organize the information in the introduction, and sum it up the conclusion. Another thing I can work on is my body positioning, and how I use my hands. Instead of just playing with my fingers and pants, I should use my hands to engage the audience, and show more confidence using correct body language. Lastly, I wish my actual demonstration for the smoothie were stronger. My ingredients were not all lay out and organized in front of the class, and could have possibly gotten the audience confused. I could have gone more into detail about my steps, versus spending the time explaining the PowerPoint.

            Overall, I enjoyed presenting my speech, and teaching the steps for a smoothie to the class. I also benefited from watching the video, and took note on many things I need to work on. For my next presentation, I will now be more prepared and confident in my speech and myself.

LINK:

http://sharing.theflip.com/session/a86aa934a0d9268c01bca74f1ee40011/video/23921741  

Response to Becca Bailey

I agree with the ideas and believe Becca Bailey presents in her paper. She realizes that the book, TILOHL, is an important story, and should be recognized by the public. She believes it is beneficial for the community to be more aware of doctor’s researches in the medical field. Becca states that doctors do not have the right to be “sneaky," when their role in the hospital is to be trusted. Unlike Henrietta, patients deserve the right to the specimen in their own biological nature.  
When asked her opinion on the obstacles the author, Rebecca Skloot, and a reader could face, she brought up many valuable struggles. Since, the novel takes place in different time periods, the amounts of research could have been hard to relate and keep in align. This time span of material would make it tough finding necessary and reliable scientific information.  Becca also states that Skloot could have dealt with emotional struggles while learning information about Henrietta poor family. As a reader, Becca stipulates many challenges you could face throughout the story. She finds it frustrating learning about the role doctor’s play in the novel, and how they used Henrietta’s biological material without permission.  Readers can also face emotional pain while discovering the position that Henrietta’s family had on the matter. While Henrietta’s cells were making millions in the science world, her family suffered everyday by living on welfare. 
Overall, I agree with Becca’s statements about the book. We both think that this novel is important to be read by the public, but readers ought to be aware of the possible emotional challenges they could face by learning about the material. Both of us stand strong in the idea that this book discusses a moral issue since Henrietta’s family was unaware of her cells being distributed. The scientific and moral matters TILOHL discusses are matters that all Americans should recognize. 

The Right to Provide a Second Chance to Life

            I believe individuals should have the rights to sell his or her organs. People have ownership of their own body if they are alive or not, and it is up to them to decide how their body should be used. I think the individual has two choices: bury, criminate the body, or donate its body. By becoming an organ donor, you are able to save the life others, and impact the lives of their love ones.  According to the United States Network Organization, “Each year more than 25,000 organ transplants are made possible by 6,000 deceased donors. Live donors account for another 7,000 transplants, including kidneys, and partial liver, lung and pancreas donors. Meanwhile 65,000 tissue and cornea donors provide more than 900,000 tissue and corneal transplants annually.” Just thinking about it, one body has many elements, and has the ability to convert a human to health. Major donations include: heart, lungs, kidney, liver, pancreas, and the intestines. Let’s remember the bones, tendons, tissue, and even skin lost in many cases. If your body is able to provide a second chance in existence for someone, then I believe people have the rights to sell their organs.

Since I already agree with people having the right to their own organs after death, my opinion after reading the article does not change. People should not be stopped from selling their organs, especially since they are not harming the life of others around them. One topic the article discusses is the possibility of individuals being paid for their personal organs? I believe it does not make a difference because in the end, doctors are still receiving the same thing, the healthy limbs. However, if the rate of organ supplies increases, then providing money to the donor could be a possible solution in increasing the supply. By  providing your organs to an individual, you are giving them a forever gift of life.