Blog 4- How did the first contemporary issue effect your principles? Did it challenge them? Were your principles helpful in working out your response to the issue? Which philosopher's position was most consistent with your own principles and why?


My principles were challenged by the idea of cloning, but I feel that my personal principles also assisted in determining what I agreed with and arguments I did not agree with.  I agree with stem cell research to find more insight into growing organs.  As a science major, I do see importance in the need of growing a person's organs with their own cells.  It will minimize rejection rates, and extend life.  However, cloning humans as a whole challenges moral and ethical rights.  There would definitely be expectations that the clone would have to become something greater that the original human.  I feel that we are all born, unique and diverse, and have to fight to become something greater.  If cloning becomes apparent, genetic engineering is not far behind.  Therefore, parents will be able to genetically make their offspring....perfect.  That then brings the question of how will the child manage under the stress of being "perfect"?  When parents have such high hopes for their child, anything done incorrectly would be problematic and confrontational.  
I feel like I agreed with Kass more only because as a whole, I generally am against cloning.  I agree that it is repugnant to want an offspring that is identical to oneself.  It does become a selfish right to want to outlive ones own death.  Childbirth is a beautiful and natural thing that has been occurring ever since life on earth.  It is a spiritual bonding between a husband and wife when they have a child, made up of both their DNA, because it is a mixture of each other.  However, cloning would take away the reproductive assistance of the male.  
This week I commented on http://jessbiondi.blogspot.com