Abstract This paper examines how human cloning has always been the source of serious debate, raising ethical issues that must not be overlooked. It argues how research and experiments push us toward the reality of cloning and how, in order to face this reality, we should hesitate and consider the effects cloning will have on society. It looks at how human cloning should be considered an unethical practice because, at this point, we cannot be sure of the repercussions and how it is not an exact science. It also puts forward the stance that it degrades humanity and how efforts are being made across the globe to create the first cloned human being without considering the grave consequences.
From the Paper "Perhaps the most important point of this debate is Dolly the sheep. Last year, Dolly died a premature death. According to New Scientist Magazine, Dolly suffered from ?arthritis - a condition that occurs most often in the elderly,? which suggests that Dolly "was aging prematurely" (New Scientist). Although it is still unclear whether cloning or genetics caused the arthritis, many believe it was the cloning. The New Scientist explains the specifics of Dolly's case. In Dolly, certain cells called telomeres were shorter than they should have been when compared to telomeres of other sheep her age. Trivial as it seems, it is important because she was cloned from a sheep that was six years old. In other words, Dolly might have been older than she looked."
Abstract Should physicians be allowed to assist in patient suicide? This paper discusses this issue and explains it in detail. The writer discusses its pros and cons and argues against making such assistance legal. The writer concludes that the negative consequences of the act far outweigh its purported benefits.
From the Paper "Euthanasia is, quite literally, a "life and death" issue. It is no surprise, therefore, that it evokes heated debate among doctors, lawyers, philosophers, academicians as well as the general public all over the world. Although, recent developments in modern medicine have given it a new dimension, euthanasia is by no means an exclusively modern-day concern. Even the ancient Greeks had pondered over the issue centuries ago, albeit without reaching a definite conclusion about its merits or otherwise. In more recent times, euthanasia has been the subject of discussion in various forums including the Supreme Court of the United States with similar inconclusive results."
Explores the controversy within the medical profession and the general public regarding the political ramifications of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
Abstract This paper looks at the controversial topic of a patient's right to die and some of the moral and legal arguments that have been made regarding the topic. Examples of court cases and quotes from legal and medical professionals are cited to help illustrate the complexity and controversy of the right to die concept.
From the Paper "One of the largest concerns of modern society is the amount of control that is ethically possible within a social system that prides itself on democratic ideals of individuality. The rights and privileges of the individual are meant to be balanced with the judicial system's attempts at providing parameters of safety within the community. The political ramifications of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (PAS) are very controversial, both within the medical community and the general public. The issue encompasses the patient's rights, the debate over pain and suffering and the religious prohibitions that bind many people."
Abstract This paper examines how euthanasia is a delicate "life and death" issue that evokes passionate arguments both for and against its legalization. It looks at how proponents of euthanasia look at the issue as a compassionate act and want euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to be legalized and how a number of seemingly valid arguments have been advanced in support of making euthanasia legal. It shows how a closer scrutiny of the medical, religious, and ethical arguments, however, reveals that, on balance, the disadvantages of making euthanasia legal far outweigh the supposed benefits of such a move.
From the Paper "From a religious perspective, most major religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism believe that God gives life and therefore only God should take it away. Most religious people and faith groups consider suicide, euthanasia and assisted suicide and euthanasia "as a rejection of God's sovereignty" and are some of the most committed groups that oppose the legalization of euthanasia. According to the Christian belief, life is a gift from God, and that ?each individual [is] its steward.? Thus, only God can start a life, and only God should be allowed to end it. This belief further stipulates that God does not send us any experience that we cannot handle and He supports people in suffering; therefore to actively seek to end to one's life amounts to lack of trust in God's promise and such an act is considered as a cardinal sin."
Abstract This paper examines the Patriot Act and explains that its objectives include provisions for providing the U.S. with the instruments necessary to combat and prevent future acts of terrorism. The paper argues that the Act, however, is limited on many levels and does not necessarily achieve the objective of preventing terrorism; rather, it imposes limitations on civil liberties and causes unnecessary fears to be raised in the minds and hearts of the American people.
From the Paper "Certain constraints evident in achieving the goals of the Act are presented by clientele opinion, the courts, agency staff, federal rules and even the culture within the U.S. Many argue that provisions in the Patriot Act are not compatible with the U.S. culture, which supports the idea that the government should be charged with "defending life, liberty, and property against both domestic and foreign predators" (Levy, 2003). Though in theory, the act was established to support these causes, many would argue that it in effect denies certain civil liberties and causes immigrants and non-citizens to carelessly be classified as foreign predators in many situations (Levy, 2003)."
Abstract America responded to the 9/11 attacks by strengthening powers of government and, in the process, eroding personal freedoms. This paper argues that it is time to understand that the war on terror isn't a short-term war, and if we are to live governed by the Constitution, which our founding fathers put into place to ensure freedom for everyone, it's time to roll back some of the more recent legislation and work towards more sustainable methods of preventing terrorism. The paper refers, in particular, to the USA Patriot Act and the laissez-faire policy of the Department of Homeland Security. The paper argues that if we continue to give up our personal freedom, we have, in fact, let the terrorists win.
From the Paper "Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act also gives the FBI virtually unlimited power to search bookstore and library records and see what people are reading. Before PATRIOT, the government needed probable cause and a warrant from a neutral judge in order to obtain such records; now they can see what a person is reading without that person even knowing about it. The Fourth Amendment's guarantee of ?[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search an seizures? (The Bill of Rights) doesn?t prevent this new power granted to our government agencies. Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford University, argues that under the Cohen Theorem, reading anonymously is "so intimately connected with speech and freedom of thought that the First Amendment should be understood to guarantee such a right" (154)."
Discusses how the United States can protect itself from enemies within its own borders without harming the ideals of freedom on which the country's Constitution is based.
Abstract The tragedy of 9/11 is the most recent case in point of how a nation can take its freedom and liberty for granted, which ultimately allows others to tear down that which has taken over 200 years to build, protect, and defend. This paper shows that the Patriot Act of 2001 undoubtedly faces numerous legal challenges in the upcoming months and years. While the issue of protecting the nation cannot be forgotten in the aftermath of 9/11, neither can the lessons learned from the Alien and Sedition Acts, nor the tragic mistake of interning thousands of Japanese-Americans under no more than suspicion and bigotry. The paper explains that the challenge of defending a nation from outside aggressors is simple when compared to the problem of defending the nation from those who would attack it from within.
From the Paper "Under the Patriot Act, the FBI needs only to certify to a FISA judge that the action is based on investigating terrorism. There remains no need for evidence of a crime, or probable cause, only that the search is designed to protect against terrorism. Under the Act, the judge has no authority to reject this application. While the Department of Justice (DOJ) calls this "seeking a court order," in application it is much closer to a rubber stamp. In the pragmatic application of the Act, the target of a search needn't be a terror suspect himself, so long as the government's purpose is "an authorized investigation ... to protect against international terrorism." (Lithwick and Turner, 2003)"
Is same-sex marriage a civil rights issue? This paper considers major arguments against same-sex marriage and contrasts them with arguments in favor of it.
Abstract This paper focuses on religion, the influence of religion on politics, the Federal Marriage Amendment, and marriage rights and privileges. The paper sheds a positive light on the topic of same-sex marriage. Resources are current, and the paper is argumentative.
From the Paper "Recent political events have shed sudden light on an issue that the American public has long been avoiding: Same-sex marriage. Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? As human beings and American citizens, are same sex couples entitled to the same protections that law provides to heterosexual married couples? Unlike the usual pro/con debates, this particular issue has three sides. There's the "no" side that argues that the benefits of marriage are sanctimonious and that they should be provided only to opposite sex couples. The "yes" side would argue that marriage is a basic civil right and should be provided to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. The third side meets the previous two extremes somewhere in the middle, stating that while the term "marriage" is sanctimonious and should be reserved only for opposite sex couples, the benefits of marriage should be available to all couples regardless of sexual orientation. Each side has its own theories in a debate that is anything but black and white."
Abstract The paper examines the controversy of the Patriot Act and answers many of the myths claiming that it infringes on people's civil liberties. The author discusses how this law has been a vital tool in helping to fight terrorism. It shows how, previously, governments agencies did not work together to share information and now, as a result, of the Patriot Act, agencies are exchanging information, which is key to preventing terrorist attacks. This paper, therefore, argues that, although certain sectors of the population may feel that the Patriot Act affects their civil rights, in general, the Act assists in protecting the country.
From the Paper "One of the most vocal critics of the Patriot Act is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Their biggest objection of the Act is to Section 215, which permits agents to seek business records by showing a judge that this information is required to help a terrorism investigation. Under Section 215 the FBI does not have to show probable cause of wrongdoing to obtain a warrant, as is required in other criminal cases. The ACLU contends that Section 215 is unconstitutional because it gives the FBI the ability to spy on and track everyday protest groups such as the National Rifle Association, Operation Rescue and Greenpeace, simply because they can be considered domestic terrorism groups."
Abstract This paper provides background information on the case against Martha Stewart and her involvement in the Imclone stock scandal. The paper looks at the arguments presented by the prosecution, the arguments presented by the defense, the verdict, and then offers some afterthoughts concerning the case.
From the Paper "Imclone is a biotech company that produces oncology pharmaceuticals. Imclone's most famous drug to date has been Erbitux, a compound that is used to fight certain types of cancers. On December 27th, 2001, Martha Stewart sold 3928 chares of Imclone. The problem the prosecution had with transaction was she sold the shares one day before the FDA announced it had rejected Imclone's application for approval of Erbitux. The days following this announcement sent Imclone's stock price way down. The fact is that even though Martha Stewart made a profit of $51,000 by selling her shares, she was never actually charged with insider trading."
Abstract This is a position paper arguing that the key to solving society's problems with guns is to address the core issues rather than simply the symptoms. The paper suggests that the solution likely lies within education about guns and about the value of all life.
From the Paper "Gun control has been a hot topic for years in political and human rights debates, and although it may seem to be on the back burner today due to concerns over terrorists and other threatening worldly forces, it is not any less relevant now than ever before. People who are opponents to the gun control efforts feel that they are often intrusive into the private lives of citizens and unconstitutional. Proponents of gun control laws believe that it is an important part of stopping violent crime and improving the moral fiber of our society. Both sides of the issue have legitimate concerns, however it is questionable whether either group is currently proposing any solutions that will truly solve the problems that have spawned this debate."
Abstract This paper examines how the question of under what circumstances does one sovereign nation have the moral authority to initiate military aggression against another sovereign nation is a question that has been debated since the beginning of human civilization. In particular, it analyzes the use of military aggression against Iraq during the United States invasion of 2003 and whether it establishes a radical precedent in modern times that violates the previously recognized principles of moral justification for war and inaugurates the adoption of a "first-strike" policy by the United States in international relations.
From the Paper "In the new war against terror, it is a mistake to focus primarily on the means possessed by the enemy. The attack of September 11 shows the overwhelming devastation that can be wrought with incredibly little means, when there is sufficient planning and motivation. Terrorists do not need a crazed dictator to provide them with extraordinarily lethal chemical and biological weapons. These can easily be made with minimal laboratory equipment using readily-known methods. And the means to deploy them can be found by exploiting the technology of the free world. Plan of action as well as intent are therefore of great importance to consider when evaluating a threat."
Abstract This paper examines how human cloning has always stirred healthy debate and how philosophical theories regarding the issue of cloning range from the technological to the ethical. The value of human life is also juxtaposed with the benefits to those who are suffering. It looks at how some view cloning as an inevitable process that is bound to occur as society forges ahead into the next age of medical discovery, while others see the act of human cloning as a slippery slope that will lead to cloning for spare parts, thus removing the dignity of life itself.
From the Paper "When we consider these varying views, we discover that many philosophical viewpoints revolve around the issue of values. In other words, cloning devalues life because it degrades others as a means to our ends. John Kilner, in his essay, ?Human Cloning Would Violate Christian Ethics,? staunchly believes, "human cloning will cause the deaths of human beings"(Kilner 13). In short, the act of cloning, whether or not it saves live, devalues life itself. He asserts that because cloning is not yet a perfect science, many human embryos would be lost and therefore, the "cost is unacceptably high" (14). He grounds his argument on the ?277 failed attempts? (14) that took place before Dolly was cloned successfully."
Abstract This paper attempts to shed light on the "newest" platform on which creationists stand: intelligent design. The paper does this by first delineating the concept of creation and the new "scientific" explanation for creationism. The paper then goes on to point out the shortcomings of this new platform and concludes that, in reality, it is just a deliberate effort made by the creationists to veil their goals with a cloak of superficially scientific support.
From the Paper "The search for knowledge regarding the origin of humanity is about as old as its inhabitants. Since the early 1800's mankind has continually narrowed the debate down to two opposing ideologies: one of creation and one of evolution. Ever since this partition of ideas, science has been at odds with religion. Yet just as ironic as the debate itself, it appears as if these two conflicting views have attempted to settle their differences with the current prevailing argument. But a closer look into the recent creation/evolution debate reveals that indeed claims being made by present day creationists are still, at best, erroneous. Thus the purpose of this paper is to shed light on the "newest" platform on which creationist stand: Intelligent Design. In order to fully understand the claim that they make, we first must clearly delineate the often misrepresented concept of evolution. In doing so, one can unmask the falseness in which creationists seem to aimlessly wander."
Abstract This paper examines how, since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, employment claims of discrimination on the basis of national origin have risen substantially. It looks at how, with the increase in discrimination based on national origin, it seems appropriate to talk about what national-origin discrimination is and what workplace protections exist under Title VII to combat this type of discrimination. It focuses on these topics, looks at the development of Title VII, and identifies the impact it has had in the workplace. Additionally, it looks at who is and is not protected under Title VII and reviews policies and procedures that employers can implement to limit their exposure to such claims.
From the Paper "National origin discrimination has been broadly defined as "including, but not limited to, the denial of equal employment opportunity because of [an applicant or employee"s] or his or her ancestor's place of origin; or because an applicant has the physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group? (EEOC). It is illegal for employers to segregate, limit, and or classify an employee based on the individual's national origin, which may rob them of benefits, opportunities, or privileges in their employment (Bennett 401). Oddly enough, according to the EEOC, it is suggested that national origin discrimination is often based solely on physical characteristics, such as facial features, which is not an appropriate basis for determining national origin. The EEOC also protects against discrimination on the basis of association or marriage with individuals of a particular national origin group; attendance, membership or participation in schools, churches, temples, synagogues or mosques; or any people with a surname affiliated with an ethnicity."
