Cloning

CLONING

1. Should society regulate the practice of surrogacy? In what ways? How should it deal with surrogate mothers who change their minds?

I think that society should regulate the practice of surrogacy. It is a dark market in which babies are the commodities. There are too many babies/children that need to be adopted. Surrogacy has opened up an irreversible Pandora's box.

So, even though society cannot stop surrogacy, it should regulate it by controlling how reproductive technology should be used and who is able to use it. Another suggestion is to only allow the sperm and egg of the husband and wife only, so that the husband and wife will be less likely to have the baby aborted in case they change their mind or if an abnormality occurs.

The surrogate mother signs a contract. The contract should be final and the surrogate mother should have no hidden or natural rights to the baby or rights to abort the baby. Society should keep everything black and white and not beat around the bushes about any rights that the surrogate mother has. She gave up those rights when she signed the contract.

2. What are the positive and negative aspects of surrogacy? Which are the stronger arguments in your opinion? Give your reasons.

A positive aspect is that parents who cannot have a child on their own have the option to. I cannot think of or even believe that there are any other positive aspects than that. A negative aspect is that IVF technology breaks both the natural and the human cycle of producing a baby out of love through intercourse. Another negative aspect is that of the surrogate mother changing her mind to keep or abort the baby, or of the parents changing their mind to abort the baby. Also, the moral status of the embryo and whether the extra embryos should be thrown out or not is a negative aspect. The motivation of the parents and or surrogate mother to have the baby may not always be good ones.

I think that the stronger arguments are the motivation(s) of the parents and or surrogate mother and also the changing minds of the parties. A life should not be born unless the parents have the right motivations to care for it and accept it for who it is, not for one's personal benefits because they are mourning over a deceased child or that they want a light skinned child. Also, it is morally wrong to treat a human being as an object Ð'- to first decide to have one, and then later on for whatever reason change your mind and "give" it back, as if it were a household pet.

3. Hinman raises the concern that genetic manipulation will render people into commodities. Explain why he thinks this is so. Do you agree? Why?

Hinman thinks genetic manipulation will render people into commodities because now, we can choose the way we want our babies to come out. We can pick the hair color, the eye color, gender, skin color etc., much like picking out an article of clothing. I agree with his concern because it is happening today and it goes against natural births.

ABORTION

1. Hinman says, "The ongoing discussion of abortion in American society is often framed as a debate between two sides, usually called pro-life and pro-choice." Briefly write three arguments for each side and conclude with your own words what you think is the stronger argument and why?

Pro-life arguments:

1) Moral status of a fetus Ð'- if and when a fetus is a person

2) Criteria of personhood Ð'- what justifies the claim that a being is a person?

3) Relevance of personhood

I think that the stronger argument for pro-life is the moral status of the fetus. A fetus is something that was produced from conception, and should be treated like a human because that is what it will become. The military practices to save all children and women because they give us what our future will become. The same goes for an embryo.

Pro-choice arguments:

1) The right to privacy

2) The right of ownership of one's own body

3) The right to self-determination

For pro-choice, I think that the stronger argument is the right to self-determination. A woman should have the right to abort the fetus if she is in danger for her life or if there was an unwanted fetus through rape either because of health risks or emotional reasons.

2. Hinman writes of several criteria for the "personhood" of a fetus. In your opinion, which of these criteria makes the strongest argument? Give reasons why.

I believe that the "future like ours" argument is the strongest argument. A fetus has a right to make its own path in life, and abortion deprives them of making that right. A fetus is more than just a human cell, and has aspects of a human being, and killing a human being is wrong.

3. Hinman cites arguments for "the rights of the pregnant woman". What, in your view, makes the most convincing argument about the rights of a pregnant woman? State your reasons.

I think that the stronger argument is the right to self-determination. A woman should have the right to abort the fetus if she is in danger for her life or if there was an unwanted fetus through rape either because of health risks or emotional reasons.

EUTHANASIA

1. Why, as a rule, do we find passive euthanasia more preferable to active euthanasia? How can one make the argument the other way around? Which do you find morally preferable?

We find passive euthanasia more preferable than active euthanasia because the latter involves actively choosing to bring about the death of a human being. On the other hand, active euthanasia can be more preferable because passive euthanasia can cause more pain for the patient than active euthanasia does.

Both seem morally preferable. It depends on the situation really. If the person were in pain, I would prefer active euthanasia, but if the person is not in pain and I cared about them, I would prefer passive euthanasia to allow the patient to live the rest of the short amount of life they have left freely.

2. Why does John Hardwig say, "We have a duty to die?" Do you agree? Why or why not?

Hardwig