One of the many issues the United States is dealing with is abortion, should it be legal or should it be illegal? Republicans are against abortions unless it was rape or something of that nature. They feel an unborn child has right just as well as a person living on earth and they feel no one should have their life taking from them because a person made the wrong choice or was just being irresponsible. However, on the other hand, Democrats feel abortion should be pro choice. They feel we as the government should not decide for any person and what they should do with their life due to a bad decision or a wrong choice.
The author thinks that the way BEJING OLYMPICS uses to test female athletes like taking blood to test hormone, genes and chromosomes violates the innocent life. And the author thinks the athletes should be judged to be male or female not because of the genes in their bodies, but because of who they really are. I agree with the author. I don’t think the athletes should be “gendered” like that. Because if we keep doing this, there will be too many problems.
They have many issues with processes such as IVF as masturbation to gain the sperm used in IVF is viewed as a misuse of the genitals. To Natural Law thinkers the genitals are for reproduction and masturbation is seen as something done for pleasure, and not the purpose of reproduction. Furthermore the destruction of the spare embryos created during IVF goes against the first Primary Precept of Natural Law which is to preserve and protect life, and these embryos to Natural Law thinkers are life. Natural Law is also against Fertility Treatment as a whole when it comes to single people, post-menopausal women and same sex couples as it is not naturally possible for them to conceive naturally anyway which is defined by the laws of nature of which they believe were created by God and must be upheld . IT is however important to note that Natural Law thinkers are not concerned with the consequences of actions, whether they bring good or bad doesn’t matter but what matters to them is whether the action itself is good or bad.
People rely on DNA and science too much, which could potently corrupt our society. Andrew Niccols warns us of the dangers of genetic experimentation, it caused a larger amount of discrimination towards people who had flaws in their genes. People who don’t fit the criteria of a ‘Valid’ are tossed aside and seen as the ‘in valid.’ This was called ‘Genorism’, even though discrimination was against the law, in valids were seen as a
In my opinion, parents should not vaccinate their children if they want to protect them from developing autism. First of all parents should not vaccinate their children, if they want to protect them from developing autism, because families all over the nation are pointing to childhood vaccinations as the cause for autism. Despite what government and medical authorities say about the safety of vaccines, parents are wise to hear what the parents of autistic children say about their children being normal until vaccinations (Attkinson, 2011). Even though this is not official scientific proof, it is definitely loud enough to make any parent think twice before vaccinating their children. Secondly, parents should oppose vaccinating their children as a way of protection from developing autism because of the significant step of banning mercury from being included in vaccines, which was taken by the US government related to this matter (Campbell, 2004).
By victor claiming he can produce life, it lowers the potency of the soul itself and belittles its creation - this is blasphemy and would have been outrageous for the Victorian’s as it was seen as taboo to promote science and challenge religion. Sutton¹ says that this idea “Gnaws at the autocracy of the soul, by sporting with the possibility that man is capable of ‘making’ himself…” “Gnaws” implies that both Victor and Dr Jekyll are trying to explore deeper into the world of science in an attempt to achieve something powerful, but it connotes that this is deemed a negative thing. “Autocracy” refers to absolute authority or power, which in this case is associated with God, so if the soul can be replicated by one such as itself then this lessens its absolute authority. Whilst creating the monster, Victor gathered body parts from other dead being’s, which brings the question of where then; does the monster’s consciousness come from? This is clearly a deliberate denial of God.
Also he mentions that people might have stopped appreciating America when we re-elected Bush because it made them all look like hypocrites. Hilton makes an interest point of humanizing America, saying that one cannot look at America as perfect, because its imperfection adds to the greatness of the country, he makes it clear that foreign countries attitude is freudian in the sense of, they do not want to look at what their own problems are, so they take a
The way I see it, human cloning is just another way for the government to try and control people. The world is already over populated so, why would we need these clones joining our societies and we don’t know what kind of risk they bring to our future. The possible creation of a human being through cloning raises many ethical concerns. It constitutes unethical experimentation on a child-to-be, putting these kids at unsafe risks of bodily and developmental deficiencies. Sending a clone to school is a major risk because, if the other kids don’t except him no one knows how the clone will react to social rejection.
Is this ethical? Should parents be able to pick what sex their child will be? (Cline,2012). It is wrong to grow human embryos in containers and throw out the ones that are considered to be the wrong sex, they are thrown out in the trash on a daily. Its horrifying to know that this is happening in our society.
The new bill proposed by President Obama was shot down by Congress and not voted into effect. One persistent argument of those who advocate for the Second Amendment is that guns are inanimate objects and therefore cannot kill people by themselves. They believe that it takes a person behind the gun to pull the trigger, and therefore the real cause of these mass shootings are society and its lack of restraints on the “madmen” who live among us. There is a simple rebuttal to that banal argument. We have limited control on people’s medical diagnoses, lifestyles, or events that “trigger” said behaviors.