A few things to note before I reply.
The class is a discussion-based class. You signed up for two issues and presented the idea in a 15 minute presentation. Before the presentations began, we spent about a week during the semester discussing bioethical principles(with one class actually learning the the principles and another where we learned how to apply those principles). In all seriousness, this class was not focused on an in depth examination of the philosophy; rather of an application of those principles. Most students in the class were expected to have taken a philosophy 101 class so this background in those principles should have been already there.
However, a biology teacher was teaching the class. He is an Indian (as in the Asia India) and about 70 years old. He is also starting to forget things, but still is very knowledgeable about his subject. After the presentations, he would give his own opinion about the issue and then allow students to contribute. Of course, at the end of class, he would ‘force’ his opinion at the end of class by having the last word.
In my participation, I was one of the more vocal students in the class. In our discussions when the prof took a stance that was obviously wrong, I argued back. In the presentation I gave about global warming, I specifically went over arguments that he had presented and gave certain studies that refuted his statements. He took it in stride but still was stubborn on his beliefs. In fact, we have several discussion in his office after class about these beliefs, but again we just agreed to disagreed
Our final was over the use of the principles we had learned at the beginning of the semester. It was kinda weird since the final was only over one week’s worth of material. I won’t complain about that.
Anyways, back to the questions.
My final was essay-based. The first question on the test that I wrote ‘untruth’ to was:
Sam is a 15 yr child adopted to another family. His biological mother heavily drank during her pregnancy with Sam. In consequence, Sam has had 55 surgeries to correct the many problems which fetal alcohol syndrome has done to his body.
After Sam was born, his biological mother went on to have 9 more children with one only surviving to this day, and has similar problems compared to Sam. Even after aggressive counseling and a detox program, Sam’s mother continued to have children while drinking. Would it had been prudent for society to sterilize or place Sam’s mother on contraceptives to prevent the births? Use the principles we learned to explain your reasoning.
The other question:
One company decided to harvest the eggs of its supermodels and sell them for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Explain the moral obligations that the supermodels to the buyers of the eggs. Do they have to give genetic information or a medical history or is this situation ‘Buyer beware’? What should happen should the parents buy an egg, fertilize it, and are not satisfied with the results? Use the principles we learned to explain your reasoning.
On the first question, I assumed that contraception was OK and said basically the person should only be given a contraceptive to prevent children in the world.
On the second question, it really didn’t allow me give another viewpoint, so I assumed that this idea was ‘OK’ rather than just saying selling is wrong.
“If you were in medical school and the only way to get an ‘A’ was to perform an abortion for you teacher, would you?”
I think there is a huge difference between giving the ‘right’ answer on a test and performing an abortion and that analogizing the two is incorrect. One is taking the life of someone and the other is writing a ‘belief’ down which no one else will read but the professor (little chance for scandal). I obviously would not do an abortion; however, I am willing to regurgitate facts which I do not believe in, to graduate and earn a position where I can change lives for the better, especially in the medical world where there are liberal quacks everywhere.
“I think your professor should be grading you on your bioethical argument, regardless of whether or not you “agree” with him with his personal convictions.”
I agree, he should but it was apparent that in our presentations, that even a properly constructed argument using these principles would not satisfy him.
“Pleasing your professor should not take priority over what you believe. There will be many instances of “going against the grain of society” as a Catholic adult, and it’s important not to follow along with wrong or immoral notions just to be liked.”
As I stated previously in my post, I ‘went against the grain’ in class. In fact, most of the class would probably agree with me that his reasoning is kinda outa wack sometimes and went with the Catholic teaching.
"Is it a sin to write God does not exist just to get an ‘A’ on a test?
the answer should be clear. When you start bending the truth and compromising your beliefs, where do you stop?"
What if its not just to get an A on the test? This A would be instrumental for me to keep 4.0 in my science GPA and allow me to have a much better chance to enter medical/graduate school than a B or C (I already took a drop from my global warming presentation).
Technically, since the test gave hypothetical situations where I could not answer the correct answer, I have to ask in my situation is this even compromising my beliefs?
I don’t know if you can make it such black and white. Would it be better for me have a spot in medical school or some guy who doesn’t even believe God (assuming our qualifications are the same)? Obviously me!
However, medical school will not admit you if you state that you will not prescribe contraception to patients in your interview.
So, now I was wrong about being wrong,…I think,…
) and he used them the ‘correct’ way in the sense that if the theories were valid, he applied them correctly.