Write a paper that compares or contrasts any two essays from the list of five below. Investigate and then compare/contrast (a) what the articles reveal about the ethics of the reproductive practice(s) under study (b) how the authors ground their arguments and offer their perspectives in a persuasive manner.

In order to accomplish these two interrelated tasks, you must consider the questions listed below.

• How would you describe each essay's rhetorical style (e.g., thesis and purpose, audience, organization, recognition and use of evidence, language, assumptions, and biases...refer also to list of traits found in Assignment #2)?
• In what important ways (see examples above) are the two essays similar?
• What are some significant differences (see examples above)?
• What does each article reveal about the authors' beginning assumptions and disciplinary perspectives? Is one way of approaching this topic preferable to another? Why or why not? Do the two perspectives overlap? If so, how?
• Might there be a way in which the two perspectives can be reconciled or integrated to create a fuller understanding of ethics in the practice of reproductive technologies?Amplify and explain.

---after Carolyn Haynes, Miami University, Ohio

• Please limit yourself to four pages. Bibliographic references are required for ideas not your own.
• Your audience for this paper is the college-educated reader of Time, Newsweek, or the NY Times. Use vocabulary, syntax, and format suitable for communicating effectively with an educated, non-scientific, lay audience in bioethics.
• Expectations and limits related to the mechanics of writing, proof reading, and editing, as outlined in the syllabus, are in effect.. A fatal error policy is in effect.
• For this paper, please use a separate page for the title and your name. Staple; do not fold.

Main Learning Objective:
Can the student compare and contrast two expert essays about a bioethical issue, analyze viewpoints that may differ in disciplinary content and perspective, recognize the standards of validity assumed for those viewpoints, and communicate a beginning understanding of how separate disciplinary standards might be reconciled to support a third [better, interdisciplinary] interpretation?