Do you agree with Homers choice to work in the same field practicing the same views as Larch even though they do not share the same values on the topic of their practice?
I thought that the John Irving article was interesting. I personally am pro-life. I do also kind of believe in circumstances though. In some circumstances, like the one reffered to in "The Cider house Rules" where the girl is a victim of incest and rape, I do agree that she should have a choice, but I dont agree with killing a fetus, so I am not really on either side 100% I guess. That is a really though one for me. I think personally if it were me I would still carry the baby, whether or not I was going to keep the baby. But maybe I wouldnt want to if I were actually in the situation. If it is bad for the mothers health to be pregnant and she is, then I first of all think that she should have been more careful and taken more procautions to not get pregnant, but if it does happen, then in that circumstance, I would agree that aborting the bbaby is the right option. Like Drs sometimes say, there might be a choice between you being healthy and losing the baby, or losing both you and the baby. I think that Mills theory kind of can relate to that. He believes in doing the thing that will bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people, so to back that up, you could say that it would bring the greatest happiness to have the mother live, rather than losing both the mother and the baby. I thought it was interesting that even though Homer belieed that a fetus has a soul that he would want to continue to practice the way that Dr Larch had been. I personally would not have done that. I would have refused and done something else with my knowledge rather than do something I was completely against just to make a living for myself.
Do you think it was ethically appropriate for Dr. Frankenstein to go find parts of human bodies and take them from people who had passed away and create a whole new life from those parts?
This is a tough question for me. Right of the back, without even thinking about it I would say no. I dont think it was. I grew up learning to respect those that had passed away, they are taken care of kindly and carefully and the buried and not bothered again. Also, I think it is gross. But, if I take a little time to think about it, then I guess it is kind of cool. Most of us live our lives hoping that we can become something, and that wee will be remembered when we have passed on. So it would be kind of cool to be able to be a part of something like that. I mean, it was a huge thing for Dr. Frankenstein to be able to build a moving and working being from the parts of other beings who had passed away. If you think about it, it is kind of like organ donation also. The parts of one being were used to benefit another person. But also, ethically thats not good.. because it was like organ fraud... these people did not give their permission for someone to come along and take their body parts off of them to use for someone else. They may have wanted to stay fully assembled...
I think that both of these topics are so broad that you could argue them either way for a long long time and never be able to come up with a right or a wrong. I really liked the ways that these authors talked about and portrayed these topics though. In fairly clear and descriptive ways that explained both sides of the topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment