Blog 5

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