BLOG #5

         I feel as though abortion is always a topic of great disagreement, and it’s always the same argument every time. Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice there are always certain exceptions. I am pro-choice, but only to a certain extent. I believe that if a woman wants to abort her baby she has every right too, and shouldn’t be judged because no one else knows what her circumstances may be. However, I don’t support the killing of an unborn baby if the child’s skull has to be crushed in order to complete an abortion. There’s always a grey area, even those who are pro life should be able to see the legitimacy of a woman who was raped and therefore wants to abort the child.

         I believe that a person becomes a human once their heart starts beating. This contemporary issue affects my own principles because clearly – I don’t advocate the killing of other human beings. But I’m not going to point the finger at someone for getting an abortion. Since abortion is such a touchy subject, I feel that in regards to my principles there are always exceptions, or like I said earlier, grey areas that need to be explored. In a sense, I feel that the only adjustments that need to be made when it comes to your own as well as other principles is to be less judgmental, and more open minded. In regards to human cloning, Tooly states that we restrict our children. Perhaps that is why some women who aren’t well off chose to get abortions. Rather than bringing a child into the world that will automatically be restricted in life, they abort it. However, I don’t believe that we have children for ego driven motives. I would say that having a baby is a selfless act, and if someone is not in the position to be selfless than they shouldn’t be having a child.


- I commented on Danielle Grosso's blog: http://daniellegrosso.blogspot.com/

BLOG #4

         In regards to human cloning I cannot distinctly say that it greatly affected my personal principles because it was something that I hadn’t ever taken the time to think about. I understand Tooly’s argument for human cloning, and in essence it does make sense. While Kass’ objection against it could be that human cloning demolishes what it means to be a unique individual in society, and that holds true in most cases – but then one has to look at twins as well. Whether twins raised together or apart they both can compare greatly and contrast vastly. I can support cloning from the respect of using it to eradicate diseases and other genetic dispositions, and to medically create new organs for those who need them. Unfortunately, cloning entire humans seems almost to be an act in which defies God.

         I by no means believe that neither myself nor any other human being can be put on the same pedestal as God or any other higher power. I support cloning in the respect that it can better people’s lives and cure diseases such as cancer, or Autism and Down syndrome. But I believe that creating an exact replica of yourself comes from a selfish desire and therefore, goes against my principles and is not morally right. So I’d have to say that I agree with both philosophers, and if cloning ever became prevalent in society today it should be done on only a small scale, and for and in extreme cases only. Simply creating clones for ego driven desires would be threatening to the world. Imagine four Adolf Hitler’s or Justin Beiber’s running around this world. It would be anarchy. 


- I commented on Marshay Rice's blog http://marshay-monet.blogspot.com/