Blog 5

Abortion is an extremely touchy subject in my opinion. Mainly because I am a girl, and I could put myself in that position of having to make the choice to abort or fetus or not to abort a fetus. In addition, I have dealt with abortion through a friend that is very close to me, and I felt that the right decision for her was to get an abortion. I am pro-choice. I feel that there is no justification in the government telling a person that they must carry a baby to term. It is not their choice. Yes, some woman that get abortions multiple times and make the dumb decision to not use a condom or not be on birth control should be ashamed of themselves. However, there is woman like that whom are uneducated and are unaware of all the accessible uses of contraception. Anyway, the real matter here is when a fetus is considered to be a person. I agree with Judith Thompson in many ways. She says that a person is not considered an actual person unless they fit into two of these categories; are a member of the moral community, conscious of extreme and internal events,capable of reason, self motivated, have the capacity to communicate, or has a concept of self. Like Judith Thompson, I agree that a baby is not a baby at conception, but the life does not start until the baby is born. However, I don't feel it is okay to abort a baby after about 4 moths. I feel that crushing a skull to abort a baby might as well be killing it. But, no matter what, a woman should have the right to choose whether she wants to abort the baby or carry it to term, I just hope that if the woman is capable of raising this baby healthily, she will not abort it. I don't think I need to adjust my principles that much. I feel like I morally know what is right and wrong when discussing the abortion of a baby. I don't feel it is as much of a matter as when the baby is considered a person and has the right to life, but it is more of a matter if the woman is capable of raising a baby, she should do it. If she cannot raise it for health reasons, monetary reasons, or not enough help, then she should not make the baby suffer in this world.




I commented on Catherine's blog at
http://catherinedba.blogspot.com/

Blog 4

     The first contemporary issue that I am talking about in my blog is cloning. I am still unsure about how I feel about cloning. Being Christian, I feel that I am supposed to be against it, for it goes against my Christian beliefs. God is supposed to control human life. If a woman is to bear twins, it should happen naturally. That is a natural genetic clone. However, I feel that if a person has the money and intelligence to attempt to be a genetic engineer and clone, then why not let them try. If cloning ever became common, that is when I feel I would be against it. But, if it is only the wealthiest who can attempt to clone, I am not that much against it. Since I am not firm on either side, for or against cloning, I agree with the arguments that both Kass and Tooley present against each other. 


     Kass is against cloning for several reasons. The one that I agree with is that is that it is a selfish of a person to create a clone. A person who wants to clone themselves basically wants another version of themselves to live longer. It is basically a selfish desire to survive your own death. Also, the clone may be stereo-typed or discriminated and have a rough life because they are a clone. I also don't like that fact that the clones life is some-what predicted for them. They have 50% of the same genes, so the clones are so much alike that the clone already will know what he/she is good at or what he/she is bad at, and that takes away from a natural life of making mistakes to learn life lessons. However, Kass says that woman no longer need men to produce because cloning is now asexual reproduction and woman will be on the same level as men. I feel that no matter what, a woman wants a man in her life and not just for the purpose of reproduction. When two people fall in love, if cloning is a possibility, they should still want to create a baby together rather than clone themselves. That is a desire of a woman and a man when they are in love and ready to spend their lives together, they want also to share a baby together. 


     I also agree with some ideas of Tooley and why he is against Kant. Tooley is 100% correct when he says that raising a baby now is completely different than raising them in the 1950's. So, no matter what, the clone will have a completely different lifestyle. Also, he argues that the clones only have 50% of the same genes, and they will not be exactly alike. Tooley also says that when we have children, we have them for ego driven motives. We basically have children to watch part of ourselves grow up again, and by creating a clone, we have the same motive which is to watch ourself grow up again. Tooley also argues that life may be easier for a clone because it is already told what he/she is good at, and they avoid putting time and effort into something that is pointless.


    Basically, I am unsure about how I feel about cloning. I see where both Kass and Tooley are coming from. If I had the choice, I would never clone myself, for it is against my religion and I feel that a clone is just not natural. However, at the same time, I do understand why one would clone themselves.


I commented on Catherine's blog at http://catherinedba.blogspot.com/.