Blog 5 - How did the second contemporary issue effect your principles? Are you better able to see areas where your principles need adjusting? What adjustments need to be made? Which philosopher's position was least consistent with your own principles and why?
Just as the weeks prior, my Catholic upbringing plays a big role on my view of the second contemporary issue of abortion. This is a very tcouhy subject because my religion has taught me that all life should be valued and that the right to life outweighs all other rights. However, I am also a teenager in the 21st century and know that sex as well as abortions has become a very open and accepted topic. I find abortion to be morally wrong and that has everything to do with my principles of respecting every and all human beings. I could definitely see where my morals could need adjusting because for some people abortion may be their only or best option and I understand that. For some people it may be the only answer however, for the most part I am an advocate for pro-life. Some adjustments could be that in order to respect all life, the mother's life also needs to come into consideration. For this reason I do not judge those who have had abortions or are pro-choice, but I can say that I would not have an abortion. I was particularly fond of Noonan's article because it defined when a human life begins to the best ability. I also enjoyed the counterpoint section. I found myself and my own principles least consistent with Warren's article bause she claims that the rights of the fetus should not come before the right of the woman carrying it. I find this absurd because if a mother was to carry the child nine months and have a baby clearly she would need to put the child before herself. Why should it be any different while in the womb? I find it to be selfish.
I commented on Beck's page.
http://becksbradley.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-5.html?showComment=1335321458059#c1225027203746640233
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Blog 4
How did the first contemporary issue effect your principles? Did it challenge them? Were your principles helpful in working out your response to the issue? Which philosopher's position was most consistent with your own principles and why?
After reading the articles on human cloning I obviously had conflicting views on the issue in comparison to my personal principles. At first the idea of human cloning sounded completely wrong to me because I am a firm believer in fate and what's meant to be will happen. Human cloning disproves that and basically says if your child was killed at a young age, it's okay we could just clone them which didn't sit well with me. I guess I could also be a result of my Catholic upbringing where I believe God has a plan for everyone.
However, one of my other main principles is do unto others what you would want to have done to you which made me take a second look at the issue. This is where I found I agreed mostly with Michael Tooley's arguement. Two of the things he talked about that made me change my views were the topics of cloning to better the society and to save lives. Tooley talked specifically about Einstein and explained that if we would have been able to clone Einstein the possiblities and opportunities he would have proved us with for scientific improvements would be limitless. However, the only thing I was still stuck on was the fact that who decides which people should be cloned and who shouldn't be. For example someone could pay to clone great people such as Einstein but they could also clone awful people like Hitler. Also, when they talked about how cloning blood marrow would be able to save a teenagers life from leukemia this hit home with me and was the real selling point. A number of important people to my life have died from things such as cancer and I know that personally if there was any way I could bring them back I would, and cloning provides people with this opportunity. Even though I'm completely for letting things happen as they are meant to be, when you put yourself in such a situation your views change. I'm glad we read these two articles because they did in fact broaden my horizons and challenge my views. It makes you see both sides to the arguement.
I commented on Luke's blog.
http://lukedemuro.blogspot.com/
After reading the articles on human cloning I obviously had conflicting views on the issue in comparison to my personal principles. At first the idea of human cloning sounded completely wrong to me because I am a firm believer in fate and what's meant to be will happen. Human cloning disproves that and basically says if your child was killed at a young age, it's okay we could just clone them which didn't sit well with me. I guess I could also be a result of my Catholic upbringing where I believe God has a plan for everyone.
However, one of my other main principles is do unto others what you would want to have done to you which made me take a second look at the issue. This is where I found I agreed mostly with Michael Tooley's arguement. Two of the things he talked about that made me change my views were the topics of cloning to better the society and to save lives. Tooley talked specifically about Einstein and explained that if we would have been able to clone Einstein the possiblities and opportunities he would have proved us with for scientific improvements would be limitless. However, the only thing I was still stuck on was the fact that who decides which people should be cloned and who shouldn't be. For example someone could pay to clone great people such as Einstein but they could also clone awful people like Hitler. Also, when they talked about how cloning blood marrow would be able to save a teenagers life from leukemia this hit home with me and was the real selling point. A number of important people to my life have died from things such as cancer and I know that personally if there was any way I could bring them back I would, and cloning provides people with this opportunity. Even though I'm completely for letting things happen as they are meant to be, when you put yourself in such a situation your views change. I'm glad we read these two articles because they did in fact broaden my horizons and challenge my views. It makes you see both sides to the arguement.
I commented on Luke's blog.
http://lukedemuro.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)