In the essay, Risk Free Life by Leonard Pitts, the author explains that a risk free life is not only impossible, but not fulfilling. People can’t have a life without risks in it or else they would be living in a bubble. Pitts illustrates both sides of this debatable idea by discussing the pros and cons of genetically selecting babies to prevent Alzheimer’s. Although the author is sympathetic to the mother’s decision, he points out that trying to achieve a risk free life and reducing risk is not only impossible but can also reduce life’s pleasures. As stated above, the author gives an example of a woman trying to negate risk in her future child’s life. The woman has an Alzheimer’s gene and wants to have a baby that will not inherit Alzheimer’s. …show more content…
People can’t have a life without surprises. There is always going to be something that comes up. The woman from the above example may get a kid free of the Alzheimer’s gene, but that same child could get cancer or die in an accident. Trying to have a risk free life is not realistic. Response The author of this article, Leonard Pitt, stated, “To live is to be surprised. And shocked.” I agree with this statement. In my life I’ve been shocked. When I was eleven my mom murdered my dad and went to prison for fifty years. Now I’m with loving and caring parents. This goes to show that there is no telling what’s going to happen next. I agree with the actions of the women in the story that had her eggs screened. It’s a good idea to have the eggs screened for a deadly disease, if the screening process can be done at the egg stage. If I were of the female gender and honestly wanted to know if my child would inherent the Alzheimer’s gene, I would have the eggs screened. I hope the woman understands the limitations of her choice and that people can’t predict the future. If a person desires a child they should know they can’t prevent every danger lurking around the corner, and their child probably wouldn’t want them to