Would you choose your child’s gender?

I thought that this was a very interesting article.  If I needed to have an in-vitro, I think that I may choose the gender of my child. Those procedures are not cheap, costing about $18,000 dollars.  Therefore If I could afford to have this procedure, why couldn’t I choose the gender of my child?  This same concept is used in making sure that the baby hasn’t received any unwanted genes from their parents.  It has become quite interesting the advancements that our society has brought forth.

Will Crack-Cocaine Sentencing Reform Help Current Cons?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1915131,00.html

Crack I dont smoke nor sell it. But I dont think that a person who sells crack is one hundred times the criminal a person who sells cocaine or pot for is for that matter. In this article the author describes the current movement in the house and senate to abolish the 100-to-1 ratio rule -which makes 1gram of crack equal to 100 grams of cocaine- for crack possession compared to cocaine possession and distribution. This ratio is not only unfair and seemingly unconstitional it is in accordance with mandatory sentencing guidelines which the feds handed down. So good there is movement towards abolish a seemingly cruel punishment.

The problem is that their is actually doubt wether the people presently incarcerated will be effected by a ruling to abolish the 100-to-1 rule and mandatory sentencing guidlines they were put away under. The house and senate are being hush hush on weater the ruling will be retroactive. Now why would a ruling that abolished a law for being unethical in terms of constitional law not be retroactive. Why would the prisoners put away under this system not be relaesed or at the very least be afforded a new trial. Why because the government does not want to face law suits that releasing these individuals, would be like admitting to. I say the feds made a mistake and they should own up to it. They handed down unfair mandatory sentences, taking a judge and jury’s opinon out of the equation. I see it as a highly unethical move on the feds part, drawing out this process of abolishing such guidelines and even considering the option of not making this revaluation and ruling retroactive which would release so many individuals who have been imprisoned for way to long. What do yall think about mandatory sentencing, retroactivity or the crack 100-to-1 ratio?

The Job Market: Is a College Degree Worth Less

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1946088,00.html

The author of this article sites the fact that a bachelor’s degree is no longer sufficent or less sufficent than it once was  to make yourself stand out. Unemployment for grads is close to 11% this may be disturbing to you. The author finds that more students than not only need to but are intending to seek  at education beyond their bachelor’s degree.

My ethical question to this article is what obligation do colleges have to ensure that their students who will need to secure at least a master’s degree to differentiate themselves on the job market. Are able to do so at a resonable cost and in a resonable amount of time. I think with the current trend of business seeking out those who are educated beyond a bachelor’s degree. That colleges have an ethical obligation to streamline a bachelors and masters degree a hybird so to speak which can be achieved in five years or less. So that students with limited resources are not put at a further disadvantge by having to take a job they are over qualified for until they have enough money to get that next degree. I think that I have been forced ot take classes in college that literally offer no advantage to me, they are classes full of busy work that really I gain no useable real world knowledge from. So colleges should eliminate some of these type of courses from their curriculum and add classes that are ment to better prepare students for or are master level courses.