Blog 5 - Applying My Principles (Second Contemporary Issue)

My principles seem to have remained the same after discussing the contemporary issue of abortion. As I stated in my previous blog, I believe that humans should not have so much control over matters of life and death, as that is God's job. I don't think humans should have the right to decide when a person dies because we did not create said person. I also believe life begins at conception, so in combining the two previous principles, we can decide that I am pro-life. However, I don't think something as complex as abortion is a black and white issue. If delivering the child puts the mother at risk of death, I do think an exception can be made, as well as in the case of rape (though there are so many couples on waiting lists for adoption; if you are not fit to take care of a child, I'm sure there is an infertile couple who would be more than elated to adopt your baby). Also, as mentioned in the discussion, I am a male, and since I am not carrying any baby, it is really not my decision to make.

As arrogant as this sounds (I really don't mean to come off as arrogant, so i'm sorry if I do), I don't believe my principles need adjusting on the matter. I believe what I believe and I have a solid foundation and reasoning for doing so, and I would never force anything on anybody else because others are entitled to their views as I am entitled to mine. I feel that my opinions are not too rigid; they are moderately flexible viewpoints which suggest that I don't claim to know everything about life and morality (and i'll certainly admit to that). However, the philosopher that was least consistent with my viewpoint was Warren. Some of her points definitely held some validity, like the criteria for being a human being (though I don't know why she came up with the idea that you needed to fulfill two of them to be human; I felt that the number two was kind of picked at random), I disagreed with most of the things she said. I disagree with the idea that a fetus is not a human because they are dependent upon the mother. I don't think that is a strong argument because the counterargument was much better (that small children and the handicapped are also dependent; whether physical dependency or not, they would not be able to survive without the parent/guardian).

I commented on Alex's blog this week.
http://ethicalwellbeing-richardsa.blogspot.com/

Blog 4 - Contemporary Issue

The first contemporary issue, cloning, was extremely interesting to discuss because of the valid points on each side. Personally, I did not feel as if it changed my personal principles at all. The topic of cloning, I felt, did challenge and conflict with my personal beliefs. My views on cloning, abortion, the death penalty, and a few other controversial issues are generally influenced by my belief in God. In short, I don't think it's my place to mess with life (for abortion, I believe that life begins at conception and we should not be able to decide its whether the fetus lives or dies; death penalty is even more obvious). As far as cloning goes, it kind of seems like "playing God" to me; I don't believe that humans should have that much control, to create life in any other way than the natural way that I believe we are meant to and have always done. I also think it dehumanizes, as once you are not the only you, you are no longer unique. Men will also be essentially obsolete at this point, which could cause many issues (the population would likely become mostly female, which could lead to many females without a significant other). Things could also get absurdly complicated legally for obvious reasons. Due to this, it was pretty easy to decide my stance on the issue. I would side closest with Kass on the issue of cloning. Kass speaks about dehumanization, as with cloning, human nature is completely malleable; this compromises the value of what is "natural", whereas pre-cloning it would have been held in such high regard.

I commented on Ilsa's blog this week.
http://illybueno.blogspot.com/