Choosing sides

The overall research question is: Do paraplegic athletes with prosthetic limbs have an advantage over able-bodied athletes, and if they do, should they be banned from competing against these able-bodied athletes?

Pro side: Allow disabled athletes with prosthetics to compete against able-bodied athletes. People with disabilities have been encouraged to try and live ‘normal’ lives. They’ve been told “you can do anything you put your mind to.” What are we telling them if we don’t allow them to compete against ‘normal’ athletes; it’s simply not fair. The ‘advantage’ these athletes carry is not so different from that of ‘normal’ athletes who have extraordinary lung capacities, height/ weight, or other exceptional qualities. In fact, these athletes are probably at a disadvantage, as tests have proven that their muscles and bodies have to do extra work to compensate for their missing limbs. Their bodies carry less blood and therefore less oxygenated blood reaches the extremities, hindering their performance. The world of athletics thrives on exceptional human beings who overcome adversity and do extraordinary things. By limiting the kinds of people who can compete at the highest professional level, we are closing the door to future great athletes and role models of our generation.

Con side: Do not allow disabled athletes with prosthetics to compete against able-bodied athletes. It is not fair to those healthy athletes who train each muscle in their body specifically for countless hours, to be put at a disadvantage against these ‘robotic’ limbs. Injury prevention is a top priority for all coaches, trainers, and players. However, if “normal” players begin to realize that prosthetics, and advances in sports medicine equipment can aid in their performance, they might look to the extreme of hoping to acquire a dangerous injury to gain the same advantage as their “robotic” competitors. We don't want players in a competition who are "only as good as their prosthetics" and if we allow these athletes to compete, we run the risk of wondering where natural talent stops and scientific intervention begins.

Me: I’m definitely torn over this issue. Its ironic because a healthy athlete gets put at a disadvantage when science helps a disabled athlete. Under normal circumstances, you’d feel blessed to have a fully functioning, healthy body, but when you see a paraplegic putting up better stats than you 'because' of his prosthetics, you almost feel “gypped.” You know you worked hard, and so did he, but is his talent really there, or is it in his metal legs? Also, the question of injury presents itself; he doesn’t run the risk of tearing a calf muscle, but I do. could his metal legs in any way affect my performance against him? I suppose where I'm going with this is that athletes with prosthetics that give them an advantage in 'normal' competitions should not be allowed to compete.