Abortion and the Ridiculous Amendment

There are certain issues in the domestic political realm that have always been and will probably always be 'ballot topics.' Every election, specifically but not exclusively the presidential race, these issues become major points of policy objective. Of course, each candidate's platform will contain some form of policy projections depending on the person's party and personal objectives. And again, while these policies and the political promises they embody vary widely, there are some issues that will always be present and for so many elections have ended up being the deciding factors for many voters. Sometimes these hotbed topics are appropriate issues to be regarded during candidate selection, such as is the case in policy regarding taxation and immigration law. But some issues should no longer be issues up for discussion, restriction or reform; and these topics often become part of a candidate's platform because of the strong emotional response they elicit from the American population.

For much of the twentieth century women have struggled to be heard and considered in the political realm. The first national convention for women's rights was held in 1850 but it wasn't until 1920 that women were given the right to vote or stand for electoral office; seventy years is a very long time for anyone to lobby for recognition. (This is not to discredit or leave out mention of the struggle many racial minorities have experienced in the political arena). But I digress.

The point I have been trying to make, that women's rights has been an issue for debate for over a century, is really the root of the real issue I wanted to discuss. In 1973 the supreme court ruled that in the case of Roe v Wade, a woman's decision to have an abortion is a private one and therefore protected by the 14th Amendment's due process clause, which includes a right to privacy. 

Regardless of where you stand personally on the issue, it should at least be easy to acknowledge that the government shouldn't have a say in this and that it should be a private decision for a woman to make. But given that Amendment 1 was just passed the ease I just spoke of is not a common position, at least not in this region of the country. The language in the amendment is ambiguous and ambiguity allows wiggle room that could very quickly solidify into more restrictive policy. Again, its not a matter of what you or I think is right because we have the freedom to elect never to participate. The issue I take with it all is that in outlawing abortion (or at least making it nearly impossible to be able to) the government (and the American populace, because it was an issue up for vote) has been given the power to act paternalistically; but if I remember correctly, no one really likes that type of behavior, right? Ultimately we have subjugated the rights of a significant percentage of the population to that of another.

Would human clones have souls?

The advances that have been made in the medical field truly are astounding, and cloning (regardless of where you stand on the issue of its ethical status) is a remarkable scientific achievement. But as with many other new medical technologies and procedures it shares an issue and concern that is associated with the slippery slope fallacy. It seems to me that in the case of cloning organs this practice is morally permissible, it solves the problems and stresses that accompanies those in life-threatening situations in need of organ transplant. But how can limitations be placed on the distance one is able to go? To me, the cloning of a human being is morally wrong (a view I think most of you agree with, at least thats what I gleaned from our class discussions) but the valid arguments we may have, surely proponents of the rightness of human cloning will have seemingly valid arguments as well. So because there is the potential of something harmful or wrong coming from the ability to genetically clone organs, and consequently human beings, does that mean that we shouldn't encourage further development?
Another issue I have arises from my own religious perspective. God creates each of us with a soul, so when we create a human being how would the soul be accounted for? I guess it could be looked at from thinking that because God of course knew the person was being "created" He assigned them a soul. Whenever I really start to think about this and the distinctions and implications, I get really confused. Its difficult to adequately describe or explain the problem. Because we aren't necessarily given souls in a sense that we receive them, we're just born with them. Right? What do y'all think?

FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE

You can view/download your Final Exam study guide here.  (You'll notice that I've already marked the correct answers on the multiple choice sections.  You will need to be prepared to answer questions from the second section in the form of an essay.)

Cloning a lost child

I do not understand the reasoning for cloning a lost child.  I also do not agree with cloning of an entire human being.  Cloning a lung or heart for a person who needs a new one, that I find morally permissible, but an entire human I do not.  I think, though no time soon, the idea of cloning a lost loved one or child is unethical.  Even if a child is cloned there is no way of knowing that the child will have the same personality as the child the parent is trying to replace.  I believe that people have souls and that souls are unique to one person.  That is also my reasoning why I think cloning organs, except for the brain, are okay to clone to prolong a life.

Sent from Windows Mail

Genetic engineering: Taking away what makes is you you

If you think of someone you love right now, anyone, what do you think about? Is it about how perfect their nose is or how symmetrical their face is?  Do you think about how nice they are or if they have a bad temper?  Most of the time our imperfections are what makes us “special”.  Our unique talents and ways make us.  Now think of a world where everyone is the same. There are no longer any undesirable attributes or personalities.  That sounds like an awful place to live to me.  I don’t think we should eliminate imperfections by genetically engineering babies in a lab.  What keeps that from being any different than what Hitler did by selecting only blue eyed blondes were worthy enough to live? I don’t feel he had the choice to determine who can live or die. I see the argument to where we can eliminate diabetes and other medical conditions.  In a sense that sounds amazing if we could rid disease before it ever gets here, but I think things like this help define us. I also think the world would overpopulate if everyone could live to be 103. 

Sent from Windows Mail

Is surrogacy baby-selling? Does the surrogate mother have any rights to the baby?

Surrogacy is the act of using one’s uterus to carry another couple’s baby.  Most of the time the baby is an egg from the hiring mother and uses the sperm of the hiring father to create the fetus.  In some cases the hiring mother may not have a usable egg and the surrogate’s egg can be used.  I do not feel that surrogacy is baby-selling.  If anything I think surrogacy is prostitution of one’s uterus.   It could also be seen as the surrogate mother is taking advantage of an infertile couple’s desperation to have their own biological child.  I think as long as the couple and surrogate mother are in agreement and a contract is written, then surrogacy is morally permissible.  I do feel there needs to be laws put in place to protect the surrogate mother and to protect the hiring couple.  I believe each surrogacy case should have a binding contract that can be upheld in court.  In the case of if the surrogate mother has rights to the child, I believe, since there is no binding contracts right now for surrogacy, that if both egg and sperm are from the hiring couple then she does not have any rights.  If by some chance the egg belongs to the surrogate mother, then as of right now by law, she has the maternal rights to the baby. She however should not be able to keep the biological father from the baby. 

Sent from Windows Mail

Sicko

On the movie “SICKO”, I was very intrigued on how other places tackle the health insurance issue. Unfortunately I do not see the United States ever adopting this type of health care insurance.  I don’t believe that a universally “free” health insurance plan would be the best.  The best way I can explain why I don’t think the healthcare system that the French and Canadians have is a good idea is by explaining how I bought my daughters wooden swing set.  I research and research multiple places online to find the best for my money swing set for my daughter. The prices ranged from 300$ to 3000$.  Of course when I saw the 300$ swing alarms started going off in my head saying, “yup this is the one.”  When I began reading the reviews on the swing set, there were 31 reviews, not a single one was positive.  Everything I read about this product was how cheaply made it was and it did not last.  The higher the price on the wooden swing set, the better reviews I began to read.  I declined to buy the cheaper swing set because I wanted a quality swing set for my daughter, not one that would come tumbling down and be unsafe.  Healthcare is the same way, yes everyone having health insurance would be nice, but there would be no incentive for the healthcare to be better.  Unfortunately the higher the price usually means better quality in service.  The financial competition is what gives the USA their top notch health care and research.  I do think everyone needs insurance and that companies should always provide insurance to their employees, but I do not think universally free health insurance would be any better than what we have now.

Sent from Windows Mail