Final CLE Assessment

I chose the issue of sex between an unmarried man and woman. The Bible clearly states that pre-marital sex is a sin, but I personally believe that there is nothing wrong with this. I understand that the act of sex is a big responsibility and commitment between a man and a woman, but I don’t understand why it should be limited to married couples only. For practical reasons outside a religious context, most people would say that the possibility of an unplanned baby would make pre-marital sex unadvisable for unmarried couples, but I think that any boy and girl in love should be able to have sex provided that they understand the possible consequences of their actions and will take responsibility for any consequence that may happen. With this in mind, I consider pre-marital sex to be neutral. It CAN be wrong when done by irresponsibly by people who simply seek pleasure, but it is also right because it is God’s gift to us as a way to express our love for our loved one. Going back to what we discussed in class, the act itself, without a situation, is most definitely not wrong because God Himself dictated us to multiply. However, when we consider the contexts, there are a lot of situations wherein pre-marital sex is wrong.
 There are situations wherein this act would be bad and sinful. When pre-marital sex is done purely for pleasure-seeking purposes like when a man has sexual relations with a prostitute, then it is highly sinful. When sex is not done in a context of expression of love, God cannot bless the act, and it is a sign of giving in to temptation. However, the act of sex itself cannot be considered wrong.
I would consider myself to be a moral rationalist. In order for pre-marital sex to ultimately be considered wrong or right, both the principles and the situation. The Church says that sex itself is not wrong. When it is done in marriage, it is right, when done out of marriage, it is wrong. Therefore, the Church itself is a moral relativist. The Church made that judgment looking ONLY at the situation. I however, considered both the general and the specific situation. In a general situation, pre-marital sex is neutral. However, in a more specific context, when it is done with only pleasure-seeking intentions and irresponsibly by two people who don’t consider the possible consequences, it becomes wrong. Yet, when done as an expression of love, it is still correct.
If a friend came to me and consulted me regarding the correctness or wrongness of pre-marital sex, I would tell him:
First, you must consider the road of reason. What is your purpose for wanting to have pre-marital sex? The act of sex casts pleasure on you, so you should consider the role of suspicion. Is it because you simply want to enjoy the pleasure of sex? Or do you really love the person you are going to have sex with? Yes, the Bible says it is wrong, but the Bible was written by man, not God Himself so you cannot be too sure that God Himself dictated that pre-marital sex is wrong. And if you are still uncertain, take the road of caution and assume it is wrong. After all, it is useless to listen to me and pretend it is right when deep inside you think it is wrong. It will only bother your conscience. However, if your intentions are pure and you are doing it in the context of true love, then you would be a fool not to take God’s gift of sex.


GMO or Genetically Modified Organisms is the name given to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. They have been modified to increase resistance to herbicides and to improve nutritional content.

Some advantages of GMO are herbicide resistance, pest resistance, disease resistance, cold and drought tolerance, and increased nutrition.

Known disadvantages include unintended harm to other organisms, reduced effectiveness of pesticides, gene transfer to non-target species, allergenicity, unknown effects on human health.

My stance on GMO is against it. I think that on a business perspective, the use of GMOs are very good, however they are not worth the health risks they bring. So I am anti-GMO.


Chem Blog 01/11/12

Antioxidants are preservatives added to food to keep the fats from going rancid. Oxygen will react with the antioxidants first before reacting with fats and oils. Therefore, the antioxidants serve as shields to the fats and oils so they don’t spoil easily. BHA and BHT are both soluble in the fats and compatible with ferric salts. Also, they are generally safe. It will take a huge amount of BHA or BHT before it becomes toxic. Still, there are some health implications. The use of antioxidants has been linked with ADHD, allergies, headache, joint pain, weight gain, etc. I believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages because like one of the sites said, it takes a huge amount of antioxidants before it becomes toxic and food preservation has become a very important part in terms of food.

Food Chem – Weird Food

I think the food in those websites were considered weird because from their descriptions, they seem to be pretty repugnant to the senses. They are not the kinds of food that are universally accepted to be considered “normal food”. Of course, I do not know if those food actually taste good, but if they eat it, then it must be somehow good. After all, anything that is eaten is considered food. I guess food that is eaten in every country can be considered normal food. Otherwise, it is a unique delicacy to the country where it is eaten. My five weirdest food would be bird’s nest soup, the cheese with the larvae, fried tarantulas, drunken shrimp, and codfish sperm.

12/07/11 Video Conference with St. Joseph School, Lebanon

Although the VC last Wednesday was nothing spectacular, I still learned a few things from it here and there.

There were a handful of factors that limited our experience with St. Joseph. For starters, their camera was not positioned properly. We could only see a few students at a time, and the camera was not even pointed at their faces. It was difficult to get a good look at the classroom and the speaker, and it was distracting that we were talking to people who appeared to not even be looking at us.

I also feel that the time given was too short. We were only starting to get comfortable with each other and beginning to ask interesting questions when we were cut off by Mr. Jamison. I really feel that this limited the information gathered from the VC. There were still a lot of questions that both sides wanted to ask. So when the VC ended, not much interesting topics were touched on yet making the overall conversation between the two schools not so interesting.

On the bright side, in the relatively short time that we were able to converse, our greatest realization was that being both Jesuit Schools, we found out that many traditions, practices, and goals are very similar. We both give importance to service-oriented activities and organizations in our respective schools. Also, we have a lot of same beliefs, obviously, believing in the same religion.

Looking at the bigger picture, I learned that even though we are in different parts of the world, it is amazing how are religion has connected us in many ways. Lebanon, a country I don’t really know much about except that it is caught in the middle of the war, shocked me when I heard of our similarities. It is also interesting to know that we are not the only one of our kind, and I am actually quite curious now to find out what other Jesuit schools are like around the world.

With that in mind, I look forward to having another VC experience even though it won’t be in Xavier anymore because with each VC, I learn something new about a world different from mine.