Question 8.
Finally he talks about poverty and the fact that we have more then enough food and money in the world to take care of these people yet we do not so we can live in luxury. He states that there is an argument that we are committing murder by not offering assistance to these people. Yet he states that traditionally murder has an intended target and requires you to actually physically do something to commit murder. Not by simply not doing something does this act usually commence. However, he states that because if we would have done something a person could have lived but since we didn't that person died. He then talks about how measly the USA is giving of it's per capita toward poverty. I find this extremely disgusting a sad considering the UK is beating us by almost 50 times. Absolutely amazing. I definitely think that if you have the money to give you should instead of lavishing in fur coats and maids. In regards to poverty, it personally sickens me that we have more then enough food to go around the world yet it doesn't. I try to give as much as I can to organizations like World Vision and I feel all people should too. It doesn't take much 5 or 10 dollars a month can send packages to a family that has nothing and can help them out. If you have any spare money why wouldn't you help others. That's what humanity is about. Loving others.
In his discussion of refugees he presents an interesting and thoughtful example of if we were hit by a nuclear weapon. He asks that if we had built a huge underground bunker with luxuries of swimming pools, food, and etc. and yet had plenty of room left and the amount of time needed to stay was limited so that we had extra food and people were outside dying would you let them in or would you have to ethically. Would you leave them to die, let some of them in so it would still be comfortable but still you�d have just enough, or would you try to stuff as many in as possible and not leave much space at all but still have enough food but not comfortable. Also is it fair that since you paid for this and they didn�t that they should be able to come in. I really couldn�t answer this question. I personally would let them in because of my personal views and my own ethical code but as to a whole I don�t know what would be the best thing. I really wouldn�t care personally about the financial aspect at all.
Here is the point I think he was trying to stir is that we all pay taxes into the US so is it fair to allow refugees in from war torn places and starvation since they haven�t paid at all. And I think it is fair. These people have a right to live without pain and suffering as Singer stated under the topics of abortion and animal rights. So therefore we should have known that in being an American we are compassionate to others. What is it the statue of liberty says, bring me your weak, poor, and starving or something like that. I mean come on. Now I�m not talking about illegal immigration as that is a whole different issue. However, when it comes to war refugees why shouldn�t we help, we have plenty of food and taxation, and organizations that are specifically about that.
Question 9.
In the first article the author Mr. Shermer introduces the topic of cloning. He goes over the ethical considerations that where introduced when cloning seemed to be moving toward it actually happening. He goes over what the bioethical council said to President Clinton and shows that Clinton along with several members of the medical/science/ethical community wanted to pass a ban on cloning of humans all together. He also points out that the majority of Americans oppose human cloning stating that only God can control life.
In the next article is the discussion that a cloned individual will have an identical personhood or personality. He makes a very true and good point that the clone can simply not be exactly the same as the person cloned. This is true due to environment, time speciation, and etc. Like in the article even twins have different personalities and often grow out to be different in height and weight. He says that even if we cloned a million Hitler�s he would put odds on it that the clone would never take over Europe and wipe out almost an entire group of people. I couldn't agree more that I'm sure the person who was cloned would be different in personality. So then why do people want themselves cloned so badly???????The next article discusses the fact that religious and secular people say that only God can do that and that only nature can do that. The author asks why this is. He feels it is ludicrous to not allow science to enter into this part and claims that because twinning is allowed naturally then cloning should be. He thinks that religion should stay out of science and science shouldn't stay out of religion. Well I feel that both are actually more entwined then people think. I for one love science and am a Christian as well. I feel the more we learn about science the more it proves God's existence unlike the way most people think that science disproves God. I laugh at them because evidently they haven't seen enough of the scientific evidence that many scientists like to hide because it shows them wrong in their predispositions. He states that a clone will be a different person then the original and therefore is of no threat to mankind and can be used to help people. He also asks why people were so against birth control and IV fert. yet now they are allowed. Well mostly it is rare that religious groups hold that birth control is immoral. The pill, condoms, and other contraceptives do not allow a pregnancy to occur so therefore it is OK since it is not abortion. However, the "morning after pill" which is usually taken many days after can abort a pregnancy after implantation. That is the cause for concern and still is by the way among major religious groups. Now for the IV fertilization being adultery.