Most people don't seem to put much thought into what they think. H. .. Sounds strange, but it's true. You never really have an opinion on something until you sit down and think about it. You might have some notions of an opinion, but not a working theory. It seems that the best way to think about things is to either talk about them with someone else, read about them in someone else's writing, or write about it yourself. I like to discuss things with people, but I never seem to be able to work out an entire "thought" without sitting down and writing about it.

I've never had an excessive amount of patience for reading other peoples' philosophical writings. For the most part, I like to figure out what they " re trying to say, but the act of reading usually puts me to sleep. There seems to be something about reading philosophy that hits me like a pound of turkey dinner. Damn triptophane. Because of this inability to read through actual philosophy books, I never seem to get much more out of a philosophy class than the overall idea and a pile of books that I haven't read. Actually, I think this gives me a kind of pure perspective.

The theories I come up with are usually pretty original. Interesting things come from working in a vacuum. I am usually hailed for my original thoughts, but graded down because I write things at the last second and get a somewhat indecipherable product. It all makes sense to me when I write it, so I just keep going. Hopefully, the things I write here will make a little more sense, as I probably won't be able to resist the temptation to mess around with them at every possible oppurtunity. I can't seem to just let this homepage sit.

If you have anything to say, want to start a discussion, or want to send something to me to put up as a response, please do so. I would like to get feedback. I would especially like it just to see how many people actually read this crap. Not to say that there's a lot of crap present at the time I write this. I've been having a very difficult time getting started on this "writing philosophy" thing. I had a ton of ideas when I started this page, but now they seem to have disappeared.

I think it's because in the summer I don't get the intellectual stimulation I get during the schoolyear. It's amazing what you can get from just reading the crappy student newspapers. Anyways, I'll post this up, and have something to work off of. The Act of Abortion is Morally Reprehensible in All Cases By examining the morality of killing, and the rights and responsibilities of each party involved in the act of abortion, it can be shown that abortion is morally reprehensible in all cases. These cases are defined by the reasoning behind the act, i. e., the mother's motives.

Motivations from comfort, the harm to or possible death of the mother, and cases of rape or incest can all be examined, and in none of these situations is there sufficient justification for the act of abortion. The act of killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of the totality of its experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments; this is one of the greatest losses a being can have inflicted on them. (Marquis, pg 28) For the same reason, it can be decisively shown that the act of abortion is wrong. The act of destroying a fetus, whether it is currently a person or not, deprives it of its experiences, its entire existence.

Regardless of its current status, a fetus will eventually grow into a human being, and it therefore has the same potential as any other, and further, has the most to lose. If the loss of the totality of experience is seen as a bad thing, or if the act of living is seen as a good thing, then this act of abortion is just as wrong as killing a full-grown human being. There is, in this case, no difference between aborting a fetus and killing a person. The Non-Aggression Principle (Locke) states that one may "not take away or impair the life, liberty, health, limb, or goods of another... unless it be to punish an offender (i.e. one who himself has violated this principle)". In the case of abortion, those who commit the act are violating every item specified by Locke, in taking away everything the fetus could ever have. One might object to this, on the grounds that the fetus is impairing the mother's life, health, or goods, and states that on the grounds of the N.A.P., the fetus itself is punishable for its own violation of the principle.

This reasoning is unsound, in that the fetus is not responsible for bringing itself to it's current position, and therefore has committed no act of aggression against the mother. In fact, those responsible for the existence of the fetus, namely the genitors, are those responsible for any act of aggression (against the mother), because they are responsible for the situation. Displacing the responsiblity to the fetus is morally irresponsible. Therefore, the act of abortion, by the Non-Aggression Principle, is morally reprehensible. H. .. Damn triptophane. H. .. Damn triptophane.