The physical and spiritual bodies are a part of an extremely complex being. One of the most intricate and complex parts of these bodies is who takes ownership of them. There are varied perspectives on this matter, which include nature, science, religion, government, family, society, and self.
The body is born by nature and dies for nature. Nature takes ownership of the physical body through the organic matter of which it is made. Then when it dies, it is consumed back into the earth to provide nutrients and life into other beings. In Thich Nhat Hanh’s article “Buddha Nature and Our Relationship with Mother Earth”, Hanh states that, “We often forget that the planet we are living on has given us all the elements that make up our bodies. The water in our flesh, our bones, and all the microscopic cells inside our bodies all come from the Earth and are part of the Earth. The Earth is not just the environment we live in. We are the Earth and we are always carrying her within us” (Hanh). This ownership is rooted deep in an individual’s being and is inescapable, as a person is born to it. A human will always have some of themselves belonging to nature through being “breathing manifestation of this beautiful and generous planet” (Hanh).
Science has revolutionized the body. Through procedures like in vitro fertilization, the gene manipulation of designer babies, and the new concept of cloning, science can create life just as if it was nature. This new and successful way of creating life can be shown on the Human Fertilization and Embryotic Authority’s support page, where uplifting stories are shared from individuals that have allowed science to take a roll in their child’s being (Patient). Science also has created procedures that defy n...
... middle of paper ...
...2. 24 Jan 2014.
Rapp, Rayna, and Ginsburg, Faye. “Standing at the Crossroads of Genetic Testing: New Eugenics, Disability Consciousness, and New Eugenics, Disability Consciousness, and Women’s Work”. The Informed Argument. Eds. Robert P. Yagelski and Robert K. Miller. Boston, Massachusetts: Thomson Wadsworth P, 2004. 234-239
“Roe v. Wade – Case Brief Summary.” Lawnix. 24 Jan 2014.
Than, Ker. “Extending Human Life: Progress and Promises.” Live Science. 24 May 2006. 24 Jan 2014.
Todd, E. Mable. The Thinking Body. New York, 1937.
“Who Owns Your Body”? American Civil Liberties Union. June 13, 2013. 16 Jan 2013.
< https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/who-owns-your-body>
Yu, Han. “Memorial on Buddhism”. Making of the Modern World 12: Classical & Medieval Tradition. Trans. Richard F. Burton. Ed. Janet Smarr. La Jolla: University Readers, 2012. 111-112. Print.
The way Jennifer Church approaches the issue of body ownership in “Ownership and the Body”, it sounds as though that we own our bodies is a given fact, and the controversy is over what follows from this and why it is important to have a discussion of this fact. I, however, intend to argue that it is a bad move to allow for the idea of self-ownership (or any sort of ownership of subjects), that it is more likely to perpetuate problems than to solve them to think in this way, and that the belief in the possibility of body/self-ownership is rooted primarily in linguistic ambiguities (“property” vs. “properties”, different senses of “mine”, etc.).
With the increased rate of integrating In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), there has been a steep inclination within the associated needs of specifications. Observably, the development of babies using scientific measures was initially formulated and specified for developing the diverse range of development associated with the same (Turriziani, 2014). However, these developments are noted to be creating an adverse impact on the natural course of events and subsequently, resulting with an adverse impact on the natural process of the development of babies. The initial integrations within the system of IVF for developing babies have further been initiated with the effective use of science to develop a healthy baby. Hence, the use of such progressions can be argued as not hampering the ethical needs associated with the same. Conversely, the initial progression within the same and the changes in the use of such practices are identified as unethical, as it has been acting as a threat in the natural course of development of embryos and altering the natural course of events, suspected to be imposing significant influence on infant mortality (Turriziani,
The mind-body problem can be a difficult issue to discuss due to the many opinions and issues that linger. The main issue behind the mind-body problem is the question regarding if us humans are only made up of matter, or a combination of both matter and mind. If we consist of both, how can we justify the interaction between the two? A significant philosophical issue that has been depicted by many, there are many prominent stances on the mind-body problem. I believe property dualism is a strong philosophical position on the mind-body issue, which can be defended through the knowledge argument against physicalism, also refuted through the problems of interaction.
The differences of mind and soul have intrigued mankind since the dawn of time, Rene Descartes, Thomas Nagel, and Plato have addressed the differences between mind and matter. Does the soul remain despite the demise of its material extension? Is the soul immaterial? Are bodies, but a mere extension of forms in the physical world? Descartes, Nagel, and Plato agree that the immaterial soul and the physical body are distinct entities.
Life always ends in death. Death is something most people do not like to think about but is inevitable. Other people give extensive thought and planning into what will actually happen to their mortal body. As long as we live, difficult decisions and choices must be made; even what we want to happen to our bodies after we die. Societies no longer just bury or cremate; corpuses are preserved, reused, and recycled. The United States of America as well as other countries offers traditional, unorthodox, and unusual disposal options which are influenced by culture, religion, or cost factors.
The omnipotent promise of ART, coupled with parents’ deep desires to have their “own child”, overwhelms and overshadows the capacity to think, sometimes with tragic consequences. We see parents who relied on reproductive technologies to conceive now expect other technologies will rescue and maintain their babies. It is heartbreaking to hear NICU parents wonder if their pregnancy would have been healthier and the baby more likely to thrive if they had transferred only one embryo. Or listen to them worry that it was the selective reduction from quads to twins that brought on the premature labor and then birth at only 25 weeks.
In everyday life it appears that the body is overlooked in its relation to the mind. This notion of body and mind separation is not something that necessarily sits well with people. The debate can sit on either scientific knowledge or religious beliefs. Currently this is what we deal with when this sort of debate occurs. With the various belief structures prevalent in humans we can’t assume argument is stronger than another.
The mind versus the body has been a debate for many years, debate has always proven to be an extremely controversial discussion between various people and their beliefs. For many the idea of the mind being separated from the body is impossible to even think about and unreasonable, yet others may argue that mind can in fact be an entity apart from a physical body. Those who are monist believe that the world is simply made up of one substance, and minds must be contained in a tangible body in order to exist (“Monism”). Contrastingly, dualists emphasize the idea that the mind and the body are each compsed of different substances, allowing the pair to be separate. While these ideas have been unde scrutiny
Verhoeven, Martin J. “Buddhism and Science: Probing the Boundaries of Faith and Reason.” Religion East and West, Issue 1, June 2001, pp. 77-97 http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/VerhoevenBuddhismScience.htm
Another aspect is that human bodies are created as a unity of body, soul, and mind. The existence of the three aspects of the human body defines the functional ability of a person, although normalcy is only enjoyed when the three are in sound states. The implication of this formation is that disruption of a single segment of the body affects normal performance of the body as a whole. Additionally, the bible teaches (Proverbs 25:28) about
Since Descartes many philosophers have discussed the problem of interaction between the mind and body. Philosophers have given rise to a variety of different answers to this question all with their own merits and flaws. These answers vary quite a lot. There is the idea of total separation between mind and body, championed by Descartes, which has come to be known as “Cartesian Dualism”. This, of course, gave rise to one of the many major responses to the mind-body problem which is the exact opposite of dualism; monism. Monism is the idea that mind and body one and the same thing and therefore have no need for interaction. Another major response to the problem is that given by Leibniz, more commonly known as pre-ordained harmony or monadology. Pre-ordained harmony simply states that everything that happens, happens because God ordained it to. Given the wide array of responses to the mind-body problem I will only cover those given by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. I will also strive to show how each of these philosophers discuss what mind and body are and how each accounts for God’s influence on the interaction of mind and body, as this is an interesting distinction between them, as well as the important question of the role of substance. This is important, I believe, because it helps to understand the dialogue between the three philosophers.
There are two major religious beliefs on the soul, and though they may seem diametrically opposed, we must remember that our ideas on the soul exist only because of the conditioned acceptance of these religiou...
The biological perspective started with 17th Century philosopher Descartes’ idea that the spiritual mind and the physical body are separate. It searches for the cause of behavior in the function of
It is apparent that we are personified entities, but also, that we embrace “more” than just our bodies. “Human persons are physical, embodied beings and an important feature of God’s intended design for human life” (Cortez, 70). But, “human persons have an ‘inner’ dimension that is just as important as the ‘outer’ embodiment” (Cortez, 71). The “inner” element cannot be wholly explained by the “outer” embodiment, but it does give rise to inimitable facets of the human mental life such as human dignity and personal identity.