POST 13
Singer begins talking about the environment in Chapter 12 of his book and asks a question.  He wonders if a dam should be built if it is going to destroy rare trees, creatures, and the overall nature of a region in order to benefit humans with jobs and with electricity.  Singer brings up the point that most politicians only look to the near future and not for generations beyond.  He begins talking about Genesis in the Bible referring to when God gave man dominion over the animals of the earth.  He makes a stance that this implies we should be able to destory all of nature without feeling guilty and without sin.  THIS IS LUDICROUS!!!  Any if not all Christians that I know completely understand these verses to mean that we must take care of nature as God's gift to us and to use it only when needed.  I'm sure if someone nuked a whole area of nature with no reasoning behind it he would be guilty of a sin for killing God's creatures for no reason.  He is not paying respect to God's earth and his creation.  Just because some people of the Christian movement might say otherwise doesn't mean their view is the only view and that it is even the majority.  Singer then talks about future generations and states that our actions will affect generations that we don't even think about.  We must think about them and preserve nature for our children and their children.  As he says so they can at least make the choice between video games and nature.  Because if we destory nature they will not have a choice and will be forced.  He also talks about the fact that there is value in animals and that they feel pain too.  Which we already discussed in the abortion chapter.  Animals should not be forced into suffering just like humans should not.  He also talks about the devastation that our "factory farms" are causing on us and causing destruction of the soil, poisonous methane gases, harmful disease, and etc.  You can see an awesome video of this example on http://www.themeatrix.com if you like.  I firmly stand by him.  I think it is disgusting us stuffing cattle and pigs and chickens in tight cages with barely enough room for them to wiggle.  In an answer to the question of to why act morally I think he very well wrote that their is not right answer to why act morally.  It is different for every person and is not universal.  However, he states that is why we will still need laws and sanctions and etc. to keep us in line.
POST 14
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 spaciation, 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 hitlers 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 is this?  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 intwined 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, condums, 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.  Adultery is a sin of lust.  Therefore if the women never has sex outside of her marraige how can she have commited adultery with a sperm being placed in a petri dish with her egg.  That is crazy.  For couples that can't reproduce I feel that IV fert. is a very great inception.  However, if the couple feels it is too wierd or whatever respect should be given to them and I respect people who feel it is problematic too.  Now for the problem with cloning.  The fact is that humans are imparted with a soul.  Most feel takes place upon inception.  Since cloning doesn't do this in the true method who's to guarantee a soul.  This point can easily be debated however so there is much more reasons as well.  There is something that is trule miraculous about birth for all the amazing things that can so easily go wrong in a pregnancy.  This is a gift that has been given to us from God or nature whichever you attribute.  Shouldn't we hold this sacred and not mess with it.  Instead we will all be one person in a hundred years.  No one will be mixed with different genes, disease will easily get rid of us.  See the great thing about today is different people groups are marrying and birthing causing gene swapping which is extremely healthy.  It helps us grow adapt to illnesses and helps wipe out mutations.  I feel God or nature wanted this and intended this.  Now for Dolly the sheep it was my understanding that she aged EXTREMELY rapid and basically kept the age of the one cloned at her birth.  If that makes sense.  So say I'm 60 and I'm cloned then the child born will be 60 in a babies body.  That is at least how I take it.  Plus how do we even know if any of these cloned fetuses would make it.  Most would probably be still born if I had to guess.  Anyhow.  I simply ask for people to read BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY which was not presented very well in these articles and I feel that is horrible since in any debate you shouldn't be forced on one viewpoint but two seperate writers playing their cases out.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE POSTS
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1