Bodily Integrality

Bodily Integrality is extremely important because it is an issue that comes up in our everyday lives. The way we put yourself out to society can be both acceptable and comfortable for yourself, but someone else may be offended by it. This happens because there is such a wide range of opinion on bodily integrality. This is why I believe it is important to take a closer look at this topic and analyze it, especially since these there are laws in our country regarding these issues. These laws can have serious aftereffects for example, not allowing abortion can lead to illegal abortions where you have fetes and mothers dying. Considering how diverse Body Integrality is from different occupations to different species it is difficult to blanket the entire topic with one clear solution. The oppositional claims would have a lot of emotional claim that would not have any real substance.Everyone has their own moral standard, and once they get emotional they don’t listen to reasoning and push their own beliefs onto the next person. They also will try to give a different definition to a different situation which will put holes in their reasoning. To have a common ground on this topic I believe if you are in whole body and soul and able to make a conscience decision for yourself you should be able to make a decision for yourself if it affects only youself. Once it affects someone else or something else you should not be able to have so much control that you alter him/her/its life so much that you can not be undone the action. Body Integrity can be an emotional topic that need to be looked at objectively that is why I will assert we need to accept sex work, we must accept the porn industry, not support abortion and support animal rights.
After explaining how important Bodily Integrity is we must accept sex work. Sex work tends to be a taboo topic because many people believe it is morally wrong. I believe it is fine to do sex work if you are safe about it and if you are in whole body and soul able to make a conscience decision to do this line of work. This can be a gray area because the person may feel they are forced given their situation but in reality they do have alternatives. If someone in particular is forcing you to do it by threatening your life it is no longer acceptable. As long as it is two consisting adults sex work should be accepted. Both adults understand the terms beforehand, it can be seen as a legal contract. Usually this sex work is done behind closed doors that most people may not even know the details which is exactly why it should be accepted. They are exchanging goods or a service for something in return. It can be seen in the same manner of paying a mechanic to service your car when the check engine light comes on. You have a problem that you can handle yourself but prefer to have a professional handle. When it comes to this topic Lars O. Erricsson shares my same belief of (Erricsson, Lars O) it becoming an irrational discussion once someone see’s it immoral. This is because sex is an exclusive action many will argue can be shared only with someone they love. Once you want to compare it to any other service people then become offended. Once someone has a certain belief for something like a religious background belief it is impossible to change their mind. It would be like trying to say their religious is wrong or change their religion as a whole. Some may say sex work is immoral because it is putting a price on your body when a body does not have price and should be respected. If someone wants to put a price on their body and someone is willing to pay that price then let then let them. An understandable argument is when someone brings up how dangerous and unsafe sex work can be. If we monitor it and have more regulations these issues can be eliminated. In the documentary Whores’ Glory one of the men in that area was interviewed saying if they did not have the brothel district normal women would not be able to go go outside with ut being molested, and if women did not go outside men would rape cows and goats (Whore’s Glory). Sex work and porn can be put into the same category of bodily integrity because they both involve some type of sex work which they exchange actions for monetary value.
Building on the same principle of sex work we must also support the porn industry. This issues relates to Bodily Integrity because porn workers expose their body on film and photography which is then distributed to others. Porn can be seen to be completely different from sex work because it not only involves the actors in the film or photo but also the viewer. This claim of having a negative impact on the viewer is an argument with no reason behind. I say this because especially in the United States there are many requirements to adult content. From something as simple as sex in a film in the theaters, it is rated by it’s content and then there are requirement to see this content. The same thing can be seen if you try to purchase adult content magazines or film. The cashier by law needs to see your government issued identification card to confirm you are of legal age to view such content. The only gray area is the internet. Before entering an adult content website you must check if you are eighteen years or older. You see the effort but with today’s technology there is no way to confirm the the individual is or is not of legal age. I believe the government in the future will find the technology and implement it as soon as possible. Most of the time when people argue about the porn industry they focus on the women involved. Wendy McElroy wrote a great article in Free Inquiry Magazine regarding all the different positions but focus only on women. We must look into the men involved also because man or women they should be seen at the same level (McElroy, Wendy). What I always found industry is how so many people are against the porn industry while others idolise the actos. They refer to some actors and “porn stars”. From everyday people to celebrities themselves like Tiger Woods have this obsession over “porn stars” (Why Do Guys Chase Porn Stars?). As sex work and porn involved two humans the issues of abortion does also but must be analysed in a different manner.
When it comes to Bodily Integrity we should not support abortion. Abortion has always been a hot topic for everyone. We have been voting on it for years and still are unable to come to a clear conclusion on what we want to be done by it. The reason we should support sex work and porn but not abortion is because the two or more parties involved no longer meet the requirement we presented. Sex work and porn includes two consenting adults while abortion does not. The mother may or may not be of whole soul body and mind because they are faced with a decision on a time sensitive issues. The mother may also may not be of legal age which will bring up the issue of being able to make a decision for herself. This leads to the fetus which has absolutely no input in the manner. If the mother does decide to go through with an abortion the cancels all potential of the fetus and the action has to reversible action. Once it is done it is done. Judith J. Thomas give a good argument of if you wake up hooked up to a violinist because they need your help to live. You then must think if you could save his life by remaining hooked up for 5 minutes he can live would you do it or what if it took 5 years would you still do it? I believe this has some relation to abortion but does not. If you are pregnant that means you did something which lead to that. There is no action that can make you prone to being hooked up to a dying person. Also you must put into consideration you don’t have to remain hooked up to this dying person when you are pregnant although limited you are still able to live your life as regular. Finally when pregnant you know you will be pregnant for about 9 months there is no wondering how long you must sacrifice to help this other person. There are alternatives to abortion. If the mother can not financially support a child or is unprepared they can carry out the pregnancy and put it up for adoption later on (There Are Alternatives to Abortion!). As seen in abortion animal rights involve a consenting adult and a nonconsenting living thing.
Animal rights is a tricky issue because it involves two different species. Although it does not involve two humans we need to still support animal rights. The gray area of animal rights is the fact that most of the population does indeed eat animals. I believe we should not neglect or beat animals or kill for any reason. The exception to this is when we do eat animal for nutrition. We have made a business of killing animals for food. This said we have predetermined animals we accept to eat. For example, we can not go kill an endangered species for food. There are animals that are raised for the sole purpose of killing for food. This is accepted because that is their role. This may sound cruel but we have always have a give take relationship. Especially here in the United States we do things to make our lives easier. We invented things like a remote control so we don’t have to get up and walk to the television screen to change the channel, or a vehicle to get us from point A to point B. It is possible to have a healthy diet without eating meat. Meat is a great meat source which is easier than eating a bunch of plant based or egg foods (Lack of Nutrition From Meat for Vegetarians.). Considering the reason it is acceptable to kill animals for food, Alastair Norcross argument no longer makes sense. The argument is trying to justify someone who really likes the taste of chocolate but are unable to taste it without killing a puppy. Other than the fact that this example is unrealistic he has no real reason to kill the puppy other than selfish reasons. There is no nutrition in chocolate and just something he likes. When eating an animal for nutrition it benefits millions (Norcross, Alastair). This can be better seen in a situation where a family is self sufficient and live off of their land. They raise their own animals and eat them to give them nutrition and energy to go through their day to day life.
Body Integrity is an obligation we all have to each other that is why we MUST accept sex work, we MUST accept the porn industry, NOT SUPPORT abortion and SUPPORT animal rights. Bodily Integrity is an important topic we all must evaluate. A good rule of thumb is to consider it is acceptable if it includes a consenting adult of soul body and mind to make the decision that only involves him or herself. Once that action is imposed on someone or something else and is irreversible it is no longer acceptable. We all have our own opinions and it is important to remember to respect other’s opinions. I believe in the future if we all evaluate this topic it would be easier to regard laws. For example how there are age requirements for adult content. As time goes on we can evaluate how things are being handle and if there is a better way to handle it. This said although we should not support abortion there are certain situations it should be accepted for example without the consent of both parents. For example in the situation of a women being raped. Because these situations are hard to prove given our limited technology I believe abortion should be passed as a law until we can better evaluate it.

Bibliography
Erricsson, Lars O. “Charges Against Prostitution: An Attempt at Philosophical
Assessment.” 2nd ed. Vol. VIII. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 367-70. Print. A.
“Lack of Nutrition From Meat for Vegetarians.” LIVESTRONG.COM. N.p., n.d. Web. 28
May 2013.
McElroy, Wendy. “A Feminist Defense of Pornography.” Free Inquiry Magazine n.d.: n.
pag. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. .
Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People.” N.p.: n.p., n.d. 442-48. Print.
“There Are Alternatives to Abortion!” Priests for Life. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 May 2013.
Thomson, Judith J. “A Defense of Abortion.” N.p.: n.p., n.d. 413-23. Print.
Whore’s Glory. Dir. Michael Glawogger. The Match Factory, 2011. DVD.
“Why Do Guys Chase Porn Stars?” By Lenore Skenazy on Creators.com. N.p., n.d.
Web. 29 May 2013.

Is a life without quality worth living?

Death is the unavoidable conclusion to our time on this earth and there is much debate on what is ethical when it comes to how it can take place when it doesn’t occur from natural causes. In this essay I will be examining the topic of death as it relates to abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty. I believe that people have a right to make choices about their body and health and that death is a natural part of society and too many obstacles are being set up in an attempt to avoid it. Quality of life is more important than just being alive and a person living with a low quality of life as far as their health is concerned should have the option to die. Life without quality is worse than dying. While some people may take the stance that all life is sacred and should protected even if it is only for the sake of being alive and not for its enjoyment, I believe my stance is important to a societal morality because the world’s population is increasing and the prolonging of all life actually lowers the quality of life for many people. Trying to get rid of things such as abortion, euthanasia, and death penalty allow the world’s population to rise above what can be sustained by its resources and so death shouldn’t be avoided. In situations where the quality of life of a person or of those in a society is threatened, death is the best option for all involved.

In building on my views on death being a better alternative to have a lower quality of life, I believe that abortion is a situation in which the quality of life of both the mother and child should be considered. I believe that if a mother does not have the means to support a child it is an acceptable option to abort the child in order to save it from the low quality of life it would have to bear if it were to be born. Although some people might oppose my view by saying that abortion is murder and is wrong because murder is a cruel act. I disagree because I believe that the fate that some children endure because their families are not capable of providing even the most basic needs of the child is sometimes worse than if they were never born. The mother and family should be able to make the decision that is most beneficial for the child’s potential life.

Euthanasia is another situation in which the quality of a person’s life must be considered before making a decision on whether they should have the option to end their life however more consideration should be given to the physical health of the person looking into euthanasia than the mental or emotional health. I believe a person should have the right to choose when they want to end their life if they are in a position where they feel that life is not worth it. Patients with terminal illnesses or that are in physical agony should be able to go out on their own terms if they feel that is their best option.

Bibliography

CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/. n.d. 25 May 2013.

 

Censorship: A Love Story

Censorship in America, like many other topics, is not black and white and thus, must be analyzed and evaluated in order to deem its proper application in any issue.  In the subsequent paragraphs, I will be explaining how censorship should be applied within homophobia, violence and sexism in advertising, and news outlets.  I hold liberal views among each of these topics; however, as a result of my first point above, the application of censorship will be flexibly applied to each of these issues all while connecting each other through the same theme.  Some would say that there must be censorship of the LGBT community in society and back that argument with religious rationalizations.  Many will say that censoring anything in advertising somehow takes away country-given rights (emphasis added.)  I know many parents would agree that censoring the news to some extent would be a good idea considering the unsuitable content their kids become exposed to.  Censorship should only be employed and supported when it is used to avoid oppression and hate speech; homophobia inappropriately causes censorship of the LGBT community, without proper censorship of violence and sexism in advertising it can cause wide societal oppression and hate speech and although in a perfect world there should be some censorship within news outlets there mustn’t be, for that would be a dangerous path which is not worth censorship of any kind.

Having prefaced the multiple ways the application or lack thereof of censorship must be used in order to avoid hate speech and oppression, we must push towards censorship of homophobia and motivate society to accept the LGBT legally and morally.  I believe that everyone should have equal rights under the law and should not be negatively judged or recognized as outsiders in society.  Although one can speak volumes about the recent spike in the number of states that recognize and/or perform same sex marriages as suggested in an article published on the Huffington Post website, there still remains a dire portion of America that refuses to come to grips with simply giving all people equal marital rights among the law[1].  Ann Coulter is famously among one of those people.  In her internet article, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Call Our Troops Homophobes”, Coulter bitterly makes what she seems to think are coherent and well-founded arguments supporting the oppression of gays and lesbians in the military[2].  Quite to the contrary, by using blatant mockery and verbal bullying, she exhibits the very core of what is fowl, shameful and just plain wrong with the opposition’s argument of censorship of homophobia.  Luckily, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was finally repealed and while article’s that contain a bulk of hate-speech should be censored to the public, Coulter’s unruly commentary was left to do nothing but give her a bad name.  Many Americans who oppose gay marriage do so with a foundational belief that god intended marriage to be between a man and a woman.  This in itself is a questionable argument but assuming it is a valid one, why can this govern our country?  There is something that is not so insignificant called the separation of church and state.  This, unlike marriage, actually is specified by America’s founding fathers.  Society must take steps to diminish homophobia and beside censorship of hate-speech, it is the responsibility of the people to ensure we reach our goal by incorporating pictures and stories of LGBT and their families in school books, television shows, community events and the like.  After all, they are our nurses, teachers, engineers, and tax payers who contribute just as much as the person next door, so why would feel it is right to treat them any differently?  It is fundamentally immoral to deny the LGBT common American rights and it is equally crucial to continue the shifting of society so that a gay couple can freely kiss each other on the street just like a straight couple can without feeling oppressed or in danger.

Constructing upon the same principle of censorship being practiced only when its purpose is to avoid oppression and/or hate-speech, we must also support censorship of violence and sexism in advertisements.  I believe that the severity of violence and sexism in advertisements has significantly increased over the past couple of decades partly due to the abundance of advertisements all around us and partly because of this notion that “sex sells.”  I feel that the current and potential fall-outs that result lack of censorship in these areas cause damage and take society backwards instead of ahead.  Particularly, and most crucially, what kind of example is the exposure of all of these hate-speech and oppression filled ads setting for children and adolescents?  The Huffington Post published an article in which it lists several sexist Super Bowl commercials[3].  One of which was created by Miller Lite; this commercial shows two polished and attractive women initially arguing over why Miller Lite is a good beer and eventually the two women end up fighting and ripping each other’s clothes off in public in a large water fountain.  I feel this commercial to be highly inappropriate for anyone to watch because it objectifies women and because of the suggestions that (1) attractive women drink beer (2) it is sexy for women to fight (3) violence is humorous, but it is more disturbing to know that millions of kids that were watching the Super Bowl watched this commercial.  Most kids and adolescents do not have the ability to correctly interpret these messages and thus, something like this should definitely be censored from public television and especially during daytime, “family-friendly” television.  An opposing argument is that it is the responsibility of parents to have sit downs with their children to explain what these advertisements mean and why they should not be taken seriously.  The problem is – they should be taken seriously!  It is the responsibility of parents to monitor what kids watch and for that same reason it becomes a societal responsibility was well.  With the ever-growing world of technology it is becoming more and more difficult to monitor and take the time to explain and properly interpret things for young people.  Schools, companies and advertisers should all take responsibility for what our future generations are exposed to because that directly shapes who and what they become.  It is not an “out of this world” proposition that when young kids see something on television or in magazines, that they will try to re-create, mimic or find it to be acceptable behavior[4].

In order to diminish hate-speech and oppression, censorship of homophobia and censorship of sexism and violence in advertisements must be supported, and it follows that we should support no censorship in news outlets.  I feel a slight curve in this issue because I believe that entertainment has taken over the news, not only because of the uprising in popularity and consumption of television, movies, video games, social networks etc., that has shifted and seemingly tyrannized people’s interests, maybe the news thought that it had no choice but to re-invent itself to mirror the entertainment phenomenon.  Some may suggest that this occurred naturally because what sells and provides high ratings is what makes the news nowadays[5].  And what is it that allegedly sells? Sex and violence does.  So, if this is true, is it safe to say that we as a society control the news and what is being viewed/presented?  I have a hard time agreeing with this because I am one of those rare people that actually likes to know what is really going on in the world and likes to be informed of educational occurrences instead of what the dog of the week sis on channel 5.  Having said that, although it would be ideal for me individually to have a lot of the empty, entertainment filled news be censored, I think that opens up the door for important real life issues to be censored and that is unacceptable.  I believe everyone has the right to information – real news information.  There should be no censorship within real news outlets.  I find it increasingly difficult to find such an ideal outlet, but the one source I do count on is Democracy Now[6].  I think that one way to cure the current issue is to separate entertainment from news outlets.  In order to do this, we must again, start in grammar school to educate kids on the differences and importance of the two so that they demand of society changes.  Education is the key to re-establish reliable news sources.

To clearly bind these issues together, we are ethically obligated to employ censorship to protect the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans; we are morally responsible for censoring hate-speech and sexism in all advertisements; and as a society we are to be held accountable for the lack of interest in reliable and legitimate news sources.  Fairness, equality, protection and information are all unequivocal American values and there should be nothing to stand in the way of plainly making these values available to all Americans.  We must make marriage equality the law of the land and enact laws against homophobia in every state.  We must incorporate a government department that oversees and regulates inappropriate content in advertisements.  We must install school subject classes that cover the importance of the news and educate young people to understand that the news is a part of real life which makes it a part of their lives and that it is more important and valuable than the profusion of entertainment that is available to them.

---

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/gay-marriage-fight-usa_n_3319572.html

[2] http://www.humanevents.com/2010/12/08/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-call-our-troops-homophobes/

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/sexist-super-bowl-ads-the-worst-commercials_n_2574109.html

[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2322136/How-sexist-advertising-causes-men-adopt-violent-sexually-aggressive-behavior-aspire-macho-ideal.html

[5] 11^th Edition Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric the use of reason in everyday life by Nancy M. Cavender and Howard Kahane.

[6] http://www.democracynow.org/

A Peaceful Death is Necessary

 

The Topic Set that I have decided to write about is death.  Death is something that is eventually inevitable.  By definition, death is “the permanent cessation of all biological functions that sustain a particular living organism”.  Abortion, euthanasia, animal rights and the death penalty all result in death one way or another.  My claim about death is that for the betterment of society as a whole sometimes death is necessary, but in a way that is peaceful.  My claim regarding death is important to societal morality because I believe society has the moral obligation to protect the rights and safety of their citizens. I believe that death sometimes being necessary should be accepted worldwide as okay because it has a positive outcome on society.  Some oppositional claims about my my topic regarding death, might be that life should be valued more than death and that death is never necessary for the betterment of society.  It is important that death is sometimes necessary to keep us and future generations out of harms way and in safe hands. In the following paragraphs, I will argue that since death is a necessary outcome for the betterment of society, we must support the ethical issues including abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty and animal rights.  Each of these ethical issues connect one way or another, all for the betterment of society.

Having demonstrated the importance of death, I assert in order for death to be successful we must work to support worldwide access to the pro-choice option of abortion. By definition, abortion is the “termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability”.  Abortion is human intervention that does not allow a developing fetus to be born that results in termination or in other words death. Pro-choice movements advocate for legal access to abortion and offer women the right over their own body.  My perspective on this issue is in support of pro-choice.  I believe that if it is your body, then therefore it should be your choice and unalienable right to decide the future for yourself and for your unborn fetus.  Based on our readings we discussed in class, the health of the mother is the ultimate importance and someone who took all the right precautions to prevent pregnancy should not be at fault.  We also discussed individual’s not having a moral obligation to none but themselves.  The first scenario based on not being at fault if taking the proper precautions, was about a woman keeping her window open to let the cool breeze in on a hot summer night, with a screen.  Although her window was open with only a screen, she did not ask for a robber to sneak in through the window.  I thought the window being open stood for the woman’s choice of being sexuality active and the screen on the window symbolized her responsible choice of using birth control or another contraception to prevent pregnancy.  Although she was taking the proper precautions there was still a slim possibility of a robber breaking in or in other words having an unplanned pregnancy, as an outcome of keeping her window open or in other words being sexuality active.  The second scenario involves one having no moral obligations to no one but themselves.  In class we had a discussion about Judith Thomson’s reading.  This argument was based on imagining being kidnapped and waking up one morning, finding yourself attached to the circulatory system of a famous violinist who will die if you unplug yourself.  In my own words I thought about it like this, imagine waking up connected to someone, but not by choice.  If you decided to unplug yourself from this other individual then the outcome would result in their death.  I believe that unplugging yourself does not make you cruel, bad intentioned or a killer even though it does result in their death.  Not only do I not think a woman is not morally obligated, but also that a woman should have safe access to an abortion.  In recent years, abortion restrictions have made abortion harder to access and harder to afford, making it just as inaccessible to many women as it would be if it were outright illegal.  As an outcome of inaccessibility of abortions, thousands of women are admitted to hospitals every year for septic abortions when the procedure was illegal, either from unsafe and unsanitary back-alley providers or their own amateur attempts at home.  Ireland and some African nations banned abortion, except in cases where the woman’s life or health is life threatening.  In Peru, abortion is legal only if it is performed in order to save a woman’s life or health.  This is a life or death decision that only goes as far as ten percent in women.  This law means that it is legal for doctors to refuse abortions, even for young girls who have been a victim of rape.  According to a pro-choice article, researchers estimate that 35,000 pregnancies occur every year in Peru as a result of rape.  This leaves women and girls with either seeking an illegal abortion and facing legal action or suffering with psychological effects of giving birth to their rapist’s child.   It is believed that hundreds of the country’s women die each year as a result of the government refusing to legalize abortions.  Tragically, illegal abortions are the third most common indirect cause of death for pregnant women.  A story that I found very interesting was an article titled, “A 13-year-old’s life destroyed”.  It was about a teenager from Peru who was the target of frequent sexual assaults and became pregnant at the age of thirteen.  Confused and desperate, she jumped from the rooftop of a building in the hopes of ending her life.  Hours later she was rescued and taken to the hospital, where she was found to be in danger of total paralysis if she did not undergo an emergency operation on her spine.  In the United States the circumstances would have been different, but since she was pregnant surgeons refused to perform the procedure, claiming that it would endanger the fetus and therefore be illegal.  This surgery was this thirteen year old’s only hope of ever walking again.  The issue regarding abortion relates to my chosen topic of death because abortion may be viewed as the choice of your own life over one’s death.  Some possible opposing views to my perspective may be that there are other options that include adoption and abstinence, but what if you are taking the proper precautions or are a victim of rape?  Society may view people who decide to terminate their pregnancy as careless and as people who take advantage of the system.  Unfortunately, you cannot draw a line between an individual who is a victim of rape and an individual who took all of the right precautions to someone who has had a numerous amount of procedures performed due to carelessness.  At the end of the day, my claim remains the same due to the fact that all women worldwide should have the choice to do what they want with their own body.  This includes access to peaceful, safe and sanitary surgical procedures, that would avoid the danger of women trying to perform this termination on their own. I believe for the betterment and safety of society, abortion should be legal and accessible worldwide to avoid the danger of harmful and unsanitary self-induced abortions resulting in negative psychological and physical effects.

 Building on that same principle of death being necessary for the betterment of society, we must also support euthanasia and advocate for pro-choice regarding euthanasia for patients worldwide as well.  The second issue within this topic set that I will discuss is physician assisted suicide.  My perspective on this ethical issue regarding euthanasia is the pro-choice perspective as well.  I believe that terminally ill patients should not have to suffer and should have the right to decide when and how they will go.  They should have the right over their own body and the choice to leave this world by a death that is peaceful should be necessary. According to one of our readings by J Hardwig, “there can be a duty to die before one’s illnesses would cause death.”  I completely agree with Hardwig because I believe that one should enjoy whatever remaining quality of life they have left and should have the right to choose whether or not they want to suffer, and should be able to decide when they want to end their suffering.  This issue relates to my chosen topic of death because euthanasia includes the choice of when and how your death will occur.  Euthanasia relates to abortion, because they both have two different perspectives including pro-choice vs. pro-life.  In the case of both abortion and euthanasia, termination and death are necessary for the betterment of society.  In order to prevent patients and mothers dangerously trying to terminate their own lives and the life of their fetus, it is important to have the full support of a doctor who would perform the procedure.  Psychological and physical scarring can result in both cases resulting in negative effects on the individual and many people around that patient or mother.  My perspective on both of them is your body, your choice.  Some possible oppositions to my perspective may be the questioning of whether or not it is ones ultimate decision.  Patients may want to end their suffering one day, but may want to continue fighting later on down the road.  Ultimately, as long as it is the patients decision then I support this practice.  Also medical professionals may not always have the right diagnosis or give the patient the accurate amount of time they have left to live.  Many oppositions to my perspective may value life over death.  In an article I read titled, “Should euthanasia or physican-assisted suicide be legal?” it stated that opponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide contend that doctors have a moral responsibility to keep their patients alive.  I disagree with these opposing views because these people aren’t in these suffering patients shoes.  The patients and their loved ones are hurting as well.  In order to not have a suffering society, euthanasia should be accessible and supported worldwide in order to avoid psychological and physical pain of patients and the world they effect around them.

Continuing to build on the principle of death, we must also support that the death penalty.  Just like abortion and euthanasia, I believe that death in this case results in the betterment of society as long as it is done in a peaceful manner. The third issue within this Topic Set that I will discuss is the death penalty. My perspective on this issue is that I am for capital punishment.  In order for a safe society to thrive I don’t think murderers should have the possibility of rehabilitation or accessibility to be on the streets again.  According to the New York Times, a high percentage of convicted killers kill again out of prison.  I ask myself is capital punishment moral?  I will defend capital punishment on the grounds that society has a moral obligation to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. Murderers threaten this safety and welfare and only by putting murderers to death can society ensure that convicted killers do not kill again.  I believe that the death penalty is an appropriate consequence for ones actions which results in a safer society.  Although I believe death is necessary in this case, since there is room for the possibility of human error, I believe death is necessary but in a way that is peaceful since their is a possibility of existing innocent souls on death row that don’t deserve to suffer.  In class we talked about a man from Norway who murdered 77 innocent people with a bombing and shooting spree.  In the United Stated a terrorist act to this degree would have received the death penalty but since there is no death penalty in Norway, Anders Breivik will only serve 21 years in Norwegian prison, which includes living conditions of what appears to look like a dorm room.  In fact this prison system is majorly based on rehabilitation, something I clearly don’t agree will provide stability and safety for society.  This relates to my chosen Topic of death because death would be the consequence in this case that has a positive effect on society.  A life for a death or a death for a life. This issue relates to abortion because it is choosing “death” over life.  Some possible oppositions to my perspective may include the room for human error and the possibility of rehabilitation.  There are people who have been convicted guilty of murders that have been found innocent through DNA testing and false convictions.  I believe that our science is getting more advanced day by day and that appeals are being answered.  I don’t believe murderers are fit to go back into society through rehabilitation.  In order for a safer society for civilians, the death penalty is necessary but in a way that is peaceful since there is room for human error.

In order to enact that death is necessary but in a peaceful manner, abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty must be supported, and it follows that we should support animal rights as well.  The fourth issue I will discuss is animal rights.  I am against animal cruelty and believe that there should be stricter laws enforced regarding this issue.  Although I am aware that sometimes the death of animals may be necessary for the circle of life, I believe the treatment and death of animals should not be as cruel as it is today in society.  Production and money are ultimately chosen over the quality of life of animals and nature overall.  A great example I would like to share is Temple Grandin, who has become one of the top scientist in the humane handling of livestock on cattle ranches and slaughterhouses.  She revolutionized systems used to prepare cows for slaughter, as well as the design of the slaughterhouse themselves.  Even though she wasn’t fighting to stop the production, she fought to get rid of horrible and harsh conditions cattle don’t deserve.  Although death may be necessary for the circle of life, it should only be done in a way that is peaceful because animals are innocent souls that don’t deserve to suffer.  Us as human beings are part of the circle of life and are at the top of the food chain, which I don’t think makes us bad intentioned because it is human nature.  Although it is questionable whether or not animals are morally obligated to none but themselves and whether or not nature was put on this planet to become part of mass production in a slaughterhouse, I believe that for the betterment of society and to make the world go round the circle of life including the death of an animal is inevitable.  The reason I emphasize that death is sometimes necessary is because in the in class article by Kant, he talks about someone feeling bad if they destroy a creature for no reason, something I completely agree with.  If killing an animal is just out of pure cruelty with no reason such as a source of nutrition, then I think it is wrong.  Giving animals the right to a peaceful death relates to my point regarding euthanasia. When it comes to the point that an animal’s or a patient’s death is inevitable, they still do not deserve to suffer or die for no reason.   I think humans deserve the right of dying peacefully and the right over their own body, which brings me back to abortion. Even though our place at the top of the food chain may be necessary and our right, just like my point regarding the death penalty, there is still a possibility innocent souls that don’t deserve to suffer.

Regarding these four issues, abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty and animal rights, I would assert my claim that for the betterment of society death is sometimes necessary, but always in a peaceful manner.  Society has a moral obligation to keep society safe in a supportive manner.  Some people may value life over death, but it is important to realize that sometimes death is for the better.  In my opinion, the laws regarding the issue of abortion and euthanasia should be pro-choice.  When regarding capital punishment and animal rights I believe that death is necessary in these cases to make the circle of our society go round, but in a way that is peaceful due to the existence of innocent souls.  My perspective of death sometimes being necessary to result in the betterment of society, includes the safety and the rights we as a society deserve.  I believe the laws should be similar to what I personally believe because I have the moral obligation in my mind that reflects on the betterment of society.  In my opinion, some specific steps that could/should be taken by society includes continued protests by organizations advocating for not only individual but worldwide pro-choice regarding euthanasia and abortion, along with fighting for the peaceful deaths for everyone and anything deserves.  It is important to become critical of these issues in today’s society and fight for the positive future for all!

Sources regarding abortion: “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Jarvis Thomson, www.ncregister.com/un-harshly-critized-for-puching-abortion-in-peru

Sources regarding euthanasia:  “Is There a Duty to Die?” John Hardwig, http://euthanasia.procon.org/

Sources regarding the death penalty: “The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense”  Ernest Van Den Haag, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/opinion/death-penalty-new.html

Resources regarding animal rights: “On Duties to Animals” Immanuel Kant, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/arts/television/05grandin.html

My Body, My Right

Bodily integrity is a very important issue to cover. In order to live happy and live fulfilled life, bodily integrity needs to be protected and supported. In cases such as abortion, sex work, and euthanasia, we must stand together and support these issues. Abortion gives women the choice of deciding what will be inside their own bodies and decide if they are willing to commit to creating and bringing life into the world. Like abortion, prostitution should be supported as well. It gives individuals control over their body and not allow others to judge and determine what is right for them. It gives people the freedom to express themselves however they wish. Euthanasia needs to be supported as well because it offers individuals the power over their life. It gives people power and rights over our their own body. For patients who have terminal illnesses, they are given the chance to determine how much more pain they will experience and when they have had enough. All these issue involve bodily integrity and their right to do what is best for them. In the following paragraph, I will argue that in order to protect bodily integrity, we must support abortion, prostitution, and euthanasia.

Having demonstrated the importance of maintaining bodily integrity, in order for it to be successful, all women should have abortion as an option in their lives. Creating and carrying a life for nine months can affect a woman physically, mentally, and emotionally. Forcing a woman to have a child and not giving her an option to refuse can be harmful for herself and even for the community that she lives in. It is unethical to force a woman to lend her body to another human being without her consent. Judith Jarvis Thomas, a professor emeritus of philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains how a woman, out of kindness, can allow a fetus to use her body to live; however, she is not obligated.[1] In cases such as rape, where a woman is force to have sexual relations and gets pregnant, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy. Even in cases where a woman decides to have consensual intercourse and gets pregnant, she should still have the right of whether going through with the pregnancy or not. Some individuals and religious groups believe that abortion is wrong. For instance, their point of view is that once the egg has been fertilized the baby immediately starts developing.[2] Therefore, abortion takes the life of an innocent child. Yet, these individuals are not taking into account the sacrifices, physical and emotional changes women experience while having a child. It is much more than just carrying a developing child around for nine months; it is a permanent change and a commitment that one is making. It is a woman’s choice of whether she would go through with it or not. This decision should not be forced, but rather be given as an option.  In order to protect bodily integrity, abortion is essential. It gives women the right to decide what they would like to do with their own body. Therefore, sex work should be a choice as well in order to maintain bodily integrity.

Build on the same principle of bodily integrity, we must also support sex work as a regulated legal business. Many people see sex work as degradation of one’s body, treating it as a piece of meat, and/or a play toy. However, having prostitution as a regulated business is important in order to protect bodily integrity. First, it allows individual to have the right over their body. If one wishes to trade sexual favors for something of value, it is completely up to that individual to do so. It is a service that is being traded, not one’s body. Lars O. Ericsson, a teacher at the Filosofika Institution, explains that the sex workers do not sell themselves. He further explains that the booker is not for sell but his or her services are. Many people may argue that prostitution treats human beings as sexual objects. Yet, Ericsson explains that the person who is paying for the sex worker is not interested in his/her as a person but is instead interested in the sexual performance. “[However, since when does the fact that we, when visiting a professional, are not interested in him or her as a person, but only in his or her professional performance, constitute a ground for saying that the professional is dehumanized, turned into an object?”[3] In addition, regulating prostitution offers protection for the people in the business. In order maintain body integrity, individuals should have the right to do whatever they like with their bodies and have protection for it. For instance, sex workers should receive “full protection of all existing laws, regardless of the context and without discrimination. There include all law relating to harassment, violence, threats, intimidation, health and safely and theft.”[4] This way, it offers sex workers to continue their business without fear of harm. Overall, prostitution should be supported as a legal business because it helps maintain bodily integrity.

In order to enact bodily integrity, abortion and prostitution must be supported, and it follows that people should be given the option to use euthanasia. Individuals should be in control over their own bodies and decide what is best for them. The use of euthanasia for patients who have terminal illness can be seen as a way for them to decide when their bodies have had enough. Some people argue, however, that it is unethical. For example, J. Gay-Williams explains that euthanasia violates the nature and dignity of human beings.[5] He believes that taking a life away on propose is going against human nature, and it is cruel. Yet, Williams is not taking into account how cruel it could be to force a human being to live in pain and not give them the option to do whatever they like with their body even if it means death. To protect bodily integrity, euthanasia should be an option for dying individuals. It is up to the person to decide if they wish to continue with medication, which in the long run will do no effect, or decide if euthanasia is the best option for them. For example, shown in a YouTube video, Roger Sagner is given the option to use euthanasia. In the video, one is able to see that he was given the option of choosing to end his own life. Ohio, being one of the few states that allow assisted suicide, allowed Sagner to make that decision. In the video, the audience is able to see how much pain Sagner was experiencing. He begged for it. However, before he passed away, he explained how grateful he was for being given the option to use euthanasia and allow him, “to solve [his] own problems.”[6] Euthanasia, prostitution and abortion should be supported to protect bodily integrity because it gives individuals power over their own body.

Bodily integrity needs to be protected and supported. Issues such as abortion, sex work and euthanasia are important issues to support. First, abortion gives women control over their own body by giving them the choice of terminating or continuing a pregnancy. It is a life changing experience that would affect them physically, mentally, and emotionally. Second, supporting prostitution, it gives individuals the freedom to do what they would like with their own body and not be judge for it. Lastly, euthanasia gives patients who have terminal illness a chance to decide when their bodies have had enough and when it is the time to end it all. When is comes to bodily integrity, one need to take a stand and give individuals the opportunity to make their own decision about their bodies.

---

[1] Thomas, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” Princeton University Press, 1971.

[2]  Christian Net. “Pro-Life Arguments Against Abortion.” accessed May 27, 2013. http://www.christianet.com/abortionfacts/prolifeargumentsagainstabortion.htm.

[3]Ericsson, Lars O. “Charges Against Prostitution: An Attempt at a Philosophical Assessment.” University Chicago Press, 1980.

[4] IUSW. “International Union of Sex Workers.” accessed May 27, 2013. http://www.iusw.org/

[5] Gay-WIlliams, J. “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia.” Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics, 7th Edition. Ronald Munson: CA, 1979.

[6] Youtube. “Rodger Sager in Oregon, USA Assisted Suicide.” accessed May 27, 2013.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXZFK762ung&feature=player_embedded

My life is no obligation to you

Due to laws set forth by our government many people are kept from making decisions that should be theirs to begin with. Many individuals are left to suffer day by day with what can turn into months because of the law that prohibits Euthanasia.Many women are forced to bring a baby into this world when they are unsure of how they will support it.  Many individuals are put to the death penalty to only find out later they were innocent. Individuals across the world do not have the freedom they so rightly deserve. Because I believe that I will claim that  for a better functioning society and the bodily rights of citizens in society, I claim that  abortion along with Euthanasia should be accessible to women all over the world and the death penalty should be illegal also, therefore protecting the bodily integrity of every human being. In this post, despite other oppositions I will explain my reasoning.

Bodily integrity includes the right to remove anything you do not wish to have a part of your body, for example a fetus. The fetus needs you in order to survive but if you do not wish to keep the fetus than you have no obligation to support it. In the reading “Why Abortion Is Immoral” Don Marquis defends the fetus and says, “ the loss of ones life deprives one of all the experiences activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise constituted ones future. Therefore killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest losses on the victim.” I agree with him in the sense that killing someone takes away their opportunities and no one has the right to take that away from anyone but them-self. But I disagree in the sense that,  that means you have a duty to keep someone(fetus) alive with your own body if you do not wish to? If the fetus can be kept alive without being attached to the women then I would support keeping all unwanted fetuses but that just isn’t the case. No one should have to jeopardize their happiness, wellbeing and body for the sake of a fetus they do not wish to have. A great example of this idea was used by Judith Thomas in the reading “A defense of Abortion”. She accepts the fact that a fetus “an innocent human being with a right to live” but she shows that killing a innocent human being is not always wrong . This is her reasoning “Imagine yourself waking up one morning and finding that you have been kidnapped, taken to a hospital, and attached to a circulatory system of a famous violinist who will die if you unplug yourself.” She goes on to say that you could stay plugged in to show kindness but you are in no way obligated to stay plugged in, which is the same for a fetus. Each person’s  Bodily integrity should be protected by the government which is  including the right to abort a fetus. To ensure the rights of womens bodies, abortion should be legal and accessible all over the world.  In the case that a fetus needs your body specifically to live, you have a right to abort it but you absolutely do not have the right to take someones life that is NOT depending on your body to live. This is where the death Penalty comes into play.

 With the amount of error that has gone on with the death penalty and the death penalty in general it should be illegal everywhere. The fact that we as a nation have killed innocent people is just mind boggling. Besides the fact that the death penalty should not exist, we have have killed innocent people because of it. If there is even a slight possibility that we could convict the wrong person and put them to death then it should not exist.  We do not have the right to take someones life, regardless if they have taken someone else’s. By punishing them with the same treatment that was inflicted on the victim we become just as wrong as the murderer. In the reading “ The Ultimate punishment: A defense” there was a fact about capital punishment between 1985 and 1900. The facts were, “7000 persons were excecuted in the United States between 1900 and 1985 and that 25 were innocent  of capital crimes.”  He also says, after that statement that we do other activities that can cost lives too. But thats just it, we have choices to do these activities and we can either chose or not chose to do them which then greater or lessens our chances at death. But the person making this choice still has a choice whether they want to risk their life or not and they know full well what  the consequences could be. But the wrongly convicted don’t have a choice for whether they are convicted or not. They can get blamed for someone else’s wrongful actions and could lose their life.  And because we base conviction upon facts and sometimes facts can be wrong we should not have the death penalty because there can be mistakes. We have no right to jeopardize someone’s life but we do have the obligation to keep our society safe. And we still can do that without the death penalty. By keeping people in jail and instead of having the death penalty we can keep our society safe and if there was a mistake made in the conviction we can correct it without depriving someone of their complete life. I am strong in my position that we do not have the right to take a persons life no matter if they have taken that of someone else. It  should be the governments job and citizens right to protect the bodily integrity of all individuals guilty or not.

Ive talked about the taking of peoples lives whether it be someone to another one but another important position to be thought about, is the taking of one’s own life. There will come a time when youve made peace with this world and are ready to exit this life, and when that time comes you should be able to have action be taken to assist you. Though today Euthanasia is illegal, leaving many sick people suffering in pain day by day wanting and waited for it to end. The government has no right to prohibit what you want to do with your body even if that be to take your own life at 20 or 100 years old. If you have made the decision to stop living then that is your choice and yours alone. People may argue that you have a duty to your family and friends to fight for as long you can, which yes they might have an impact on your decision to fight or not. But at the end of all of that its an individual’s decision whether they want to continue to live or not. In John Hardwig’s writing “Is there a Duty to Die” he discusses the idea of if we have a duty to die and what not. I wouldn’t necessarily say we have a duty to die but more over we have a duty to ourself to make sure we are happy, content, and fulfilled. If we have come near the end of our life and we are fulfilled with the life we have lived and are content with death then we have a duty to ourself to let go. Some people can oppose this idea, like friends and family but honestly we do not have a duty to live a life we do not want to live just for their sake of happiness. We might out of the kindness of our hearts take that into consideration and fight for life just for the sake of their happiness but we in no way have a duty to them or anyone to live. The government should support the citizens decisions that they make regarding their bodies and should protect those rights. I purpose we do this by legalizing Euthanaisa all over the world.

Today We only have obligations because of how we have evolved as a society, and our connections to other people. If we were all individuals with no ties to anyone then we wouldn’t have obligations. So because we are all connected to families, friends, etc we do have obligations to them which can affect our decisions. But we must remember that we are in no way obligated to keep a fetus alive using our body, have no right to kill someone, and have every right to take our own life. To further support these ideas the following should be carried out. Abortion and Euthanasia should be legal and accessible to women all over the world allowing people to do what they please with their body. And The death Penalty should be illegal everywhere. These laws will protect the bodily integrity of every human being. The Government and other individuals opposing this argument need to  Learn to respect the decisions of individuals to do what they please with their life. We should always try to Understand and accept that people have different opinions and they may not be the same as yours. But one thing is for sure, we do not have a right to stand in the way of individuals human bodily rights.  We need to Know our real duties as a society and individuals and the difference between our obligations to ourselves and our duties to others.

Obligations to Others On Poverty, Death Penalty, Abortion, and War

Few possess the tools of production in today’s society and even fewer actually reap the fruits of this production, this necessarily leads to a unacceptable distribution of goods and services among the people of the country. The unfair distribution of goods and services in our country has led to wide spread inequality on the social scale in the form of substandard educational opportunities, and access to medical care for those outside of the more affluent groups of society. The true extent of the inequalities placed on the heads of the lower classes reach further than education and medical care. The reproductions of lives raised to believe in a limited potential for growth due to the inequalities placed on them by a system that seems to have forgotten its poorer majority manifests themselves in ways that should weigh on the social consciousness heavily. Among these reproductions are wide spread poverty, higher abortion rates in underprivileged communities, and more people on Death Row from underprivileged upbringings than any other. Let’s not forget the popularly known fact that historically the children of the lower classes have died for rich men’s wars in higher numbers than any other. The economic system of this country has made its policies of inequality reflective in the Politics of the government that the people have entrusted to provide social justice. Human avarice must be controlled and the masses of disenfranchised people need to awaken to the harsh reality that those in control of our country don’t care about their obligations to others but are actually consumed in a generational avarice.

                Poverty has plagued the working class since the founding of the country with leaders of enterprise caring so much more for profit than people that we have come to violent conflicts in the past in order to win some measure of justice for the labor sacrificed in the name of profit. One such point of conflict was the Haymarket square massacre where police hired by company owners while dispersing a crowd of protesters fired into the crowd killing at least four and injuring many more people. The Haymarket square massacre happened at the turn of the nineteenth century seemingly long ago, but that date set a president. Our reading on poverty by Peter Singer talks about how governments turn blind eyes to the poor. The history of America is plagued with the overreaching of companies and the abuse of employees from the development of company towns that owned the very homes their employees lived in to the modern day anti-union mega corporations like Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart expects the majority of its employees to work for minimum wage with little or no health care benefits. In addition to this Wal-Mart adds to its resume the support of known human rights abusers by selling their products all of these and more have earned them recognition by “Human Rights Watch.”(3) The idea that it is lawful to employ someone fulltime on anything less than a livable wage really draws a picture of the problem of our society. The working class has indeed been forgotten in the United States along with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s dream of a Great Society. Wal-Mart is only a small part of a big problem in fact they can only exist because of this bigger problem, that problem is the acceptance of the idea that the success of the few is worth the sacrifice of the many in other words it’s a problem with what we deem to be our obligations to others.

                Planned Parenthood is a reactionary solution to a social ill created by the unfair business practices of those in charge of cooperate America and more directly of the policy makers they have in their pockets. “Seventy three percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are located in rural or medically under-served areas, according to the organization’s own data,” (4) most Planned Parenthood clinics are located in low income areas, why is that? These are low income area’s in a Capitalist Society where cash is king; low income area might as well mean low opportunity area. The disillusionment of people subjected to growth in a underprivileged neighborhood who attended the underprivileged public schools and are subject in some cases to the crime of these neighborhoods foster a person who doesn’t exactly believe the teacher when she might say that he or she can be anything they want to be once they are grownup. So when a unforeseen circumstance like a unplanned pregnancy comes about, how is a woman who sees necessity everywhere she turns with no clear way out, supposed to look positively on a already difficult situation, so she does the rational thing and decides to have an abortion. Yes the connection between money and personal life decisions like having children ( as unnatural as I think it is) is there and a very real problem difficult to solve if your already struggling to cloth yourself and are all of a sudden faced with the prospect of having a extra mouth to feed. Abortion is the alternative, its free to those who qualify, your parents don’t even need to know and it’s not easy but at least this way you still have the chance to succeed. ( make enough money to live the life style you want)  This is where the idealization of those who we perceive have satisfied personal avarice comes into play and it may seem crude or of poor taste to put it this so bluntly but our lifestyles are undoubtedly linked to pop culture. I stress, I place no value judgment on Abortion for these reasons and I’m by no means attempting to make light of what is undoubtedly a incredibly difficult situation. Yes abortion happens for other reasons, but these are not of importance to the discussion since we are not debating the legitimacy of abortion but whether socio-economic conditions factor into the decision of actually having a abortion. The example is only used to describe how deep the blade of social inequality cuts; it is the society that shapes us how we react to it is up for debate. But the fact remains that we don’t treat others as equals, and it reflects in every facet of life from national economic policy to foreign policy and even in our personal social spheres.

The inability to shake the idealization of the supposed satisfaction of avarice thought to be found in the upper classes of society has negative effects that eco throughout. It is a tool that some use to help us discriminate and develop the “I”  “thou” relationship that society feeds on. Someone may have grown up in the ghettos of the country but dreams of obtaining success, that same success that the woman who decides to abort is dreaming about.  The dream of making it out of the ghetto and living among the most affluent of the capitalists is the dream that keeps the masses from coming to the collective consciousness that Marx dreamt of, but more than that. The capitalist pipe dream makes the subscriber believe that he/she is a individual, it tells him/her that no matter how bad the situation around him/her is if he/she is smart enough to play by the rules they can become one of the affluent one of the successful. This is how discrimination among the classes is built, no the subscriber sees people who don’t play by the rules as people who will never achieve success. People don’t want to be associated with these members of society we don’t even want to accept them as part of anything that we are a part of, and so we have prisons. Of the three thousand five hundred inmates on death row nearly all of them are poor, how long can society ignore men and women who they might have been playmates at school at some point. Some may say that the death penalty is a necessary evil. Since nineteen seventy six there have one hundred thirty people set free from death row upon proof of innocence, how many innocents have we killed?. Somewhere along the line society swallows the innocence of seen each other as people trying to find our ways through life and perverts us. Society perverts us to the point that we are complacent with rationalized, institutionalized, murder.  

The most extreme and final action of society functioning as a whole is the most disturbing. War unites the nation into what Freud would call hatred of the outsider. This final perversion of humanity and the utter disdain of assuming any responsibility for our obligation to others is war. “Dehumanization occurs across several domains, is facilitated by status, power, and social connection, and results in behaviors like exclusion, violence, and support for violence against others.”(7) In war we dehumanize the enemy so that we can kill them with a diminished weight on the psyche. But to dehumanize more loosely defined as making someone seem less human than your-self or than a pre-established notion of humanity. It is a form of discrimination similar to the discrimination carried out between classes in class warfare. Indeed the price for dehumanization is the same with casualties of both the war of inequality among the masses and in war. This is the most extreme form of perversion of society’s consciousness of their obligations to others because war not only dehumanizes the enemy, it tends to ignore and divide society along those who favor the war effort and those who oppose it, fooling them into thinking that they make a difference. Protesters and supporters in reality are both paying taxes that fund the war effort, in effect turning every transaction into a donation to the war effort. In this way the true injustice is revealed and the underclass becomes again or rather remains the slave of the bourgeoisie all the while helping oppress another people. Proponents of war may argue that defense of the nation is in the common interest of the country; to this I suppose I would ask how many deaths has he/she supported the realization of. The inequality that subscribers to the capitalist dream accept enslaves them and binds them from any true realization of their obligations to others.  

So what are our obligations to others? Our obligations to others cannot be fully defined, but at the very least we should be allowed to partake fully in the fruits of our labor. The inadequate distribution of wealth is as we have seen at the root of many of our social ills. In a society where cash is king a man’s worth is in many if not all instances based on his bank account.  So it falls onto society to come to a level of consciousness where it can safely say that man/woman has an intrinsic worth and deserves rights accordingly. Only until we come to a place where we don’t refuse the best available medical care to the poor and reserve it for the rich in a negation of avarice at least in some instances can we say that we have met our obligations to others.          

 

 

 

1.)    Reiman, Jefferey H. “From Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty: Answering van den Haag”    Philosophy and Public affairs, 1985 pgs. 306-312

 

 

2.)    Wikipedia ”Haymarket affair” 24, March 2013‎ 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

 

3.)    Human Rights Watch “US:Wal-Mart Denies Workers Basic Rights” Human Rights Watch 1,May2007

http://www.hrw.org/news/2007/04/30/us-wal-mart-denies-workers-basic-rights

 

4.)    Bassett,Laura”Planned Parenthood Plays Key Role For SomeLow-Income, Rural Uninsured”, Huffington  Post. 25,May 2011

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/25/planned-parenthood-low-income-rural_n_840730.html

 

5.)    Johnson, L. Jeffrey “Does a person’s income level affect the likelihood of him/her receiving the death penalty?” ProCon 8,August 2008

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001190

 

6.)    Statistic Brain “Death Penalty Statistics” Static Brain 6,May 2013

http://www.statisticbrain.com/death-penalty-statistics/

 

7.)    Wiki “dehumanization” Wiki 22,May 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization

Sometimes Choosing Death is Necessary

The subject of death has been a very controversial topic for decades. The debate is whether or not people should be able to choose death or if death should only take place naturally. In this essay I will discuss three controversial issues that all include death as the end result. These issues include abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty.  In the United States, the morals of each person differ tremendously, which is what makes coming to an agreement on these issues so difficult. I will discuss my views on the topic of death itself and further discuss each issue in detail. While discussing these three issues, I will argue that since death is a reasonable escape when the quality of life is decreased, we must support abortion, support euthanasia, and support capital punishment.

Many of those who oppose abortion rely on the premise that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. They agree that the woman has a right to decide what happens to and in her body, but when the fetus’ life is at stake, the life of the fetus takes priority. Judith Jarvis Thomson states in the reading, “A Defense of Abortion”, “Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly any time explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion.” Most of the arguments you hear against abortion claim that taking a human life is unacceptable, but they don’t go far beyond that and discuss why taking the human life is unacceptable. For the sake of argument, Thomson accepts that the fetus is an innocent human being with the right to live. Her claim is that, “killing a human being is not always wrong.”  I assume many people would agree that ending the life of the fetus is not the ideal solution. But, there are many reasons abortion should be an option for women. It is not always the case that the woman who ended up pregnant chose to partake in the sexual activity. The woman may have been raped and therefore, the pregnancy was completely out of her control. In this case the woman should have the option to abort the child if she wishes. By forcing the woman to carry a child she does not wish to have, it is not only decreasing the mother’s quality of life, but it is also decreasing the child’s quality of life as well. In other situations the mother may not be financially or emotionally ready to raise a child, in these cases she is sparing the child the future suffering of being raised by a mother who cannot support him or her. In this case, having the child is also decreasing the quality of life of both the mother and the child. The mother will have to sacrifice things in her life in order to provide for the child, and the child will grow up in an unstable environment with his mother financially and emotionally struggling. And lastly, undergoing a nine-month pregnancy may be detrimental to a woman’s health. She may not be physically able to carry the baby and survive the delivery. Thomson states that in this case, it would be generous of the woman to carry the baby to term anyways, but she is by no means obligated to do so. The woman would not be threatening the quality of her life but sacrificing her very life for that of her child. These three examples all prove that we should make abortion legally accessible to all women. These three issues prove that when the quality of the child or mother’s life is decreased, death is a reasonable escape.

Euthanasia is another topic that is very controversial. Most states in the U.S. have deemed euthanasia to be illegal because it is a form of suicide. I believe euthanasia should be an option for people that are experiencing a great amount of suffering in their lives. Many of us are lucky enough to be able to say that we have not suffered excessively. But on the other hand there are people who struggle to get through each day because of the physical, emotional, or mental pain they are in. I believe these people should be able to end their lives peacefully rather than having to suffer until they take their last breathe. John Hardwig states in the reading, “Is There a Duty to Die?”, “…the individualistic fantasy leads us to assume that the patient is the only one affected by decisions of her medical treatment.” The individual in need of medical treatment is not the only one affected by his or her sickness. If they are not able to care for themselves they are putting that duty on others. In order to make life easier for those around them and spare themselves the constant decreasing quality of life, they should have the option to take their own life in a painless way. Euthanasia allows people to go peacefully and die with dignity. This is another example of the quality of life being decreased and death being a reasonable way to escape the trauma.

And lastly, capital punishment is acceptable in order to help maintain a safe society for innocent citizens. Many people believe that sentencing capital murderers to death is contradictory. “How can we punish murderers by murdering them?” These people believe that this is a vicious cycle and the murderers are not taught a lesson by being put to death. I completely disagree with these thoughts. In “The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense”, Ernest Van Den Haag states that murdering and executing are two completely different things. I could not agree more. Murdering is the act of a criminal killing an innocent person. Executing is ending the life of a convicted murderer and bringing him justice for the lives that he took. “Murder is unlawful and undeserved, whereas execution is lawful and deserved punishment for an unlawful act.” There are 20,000 homicides in the United States each year. Some of these murderers killed innocent citizens and then also killed or attempted to kill police officers that worked in the jail in which they were detained. This shows that even though criminals may be detained for the rest of their lives that does not always ensure that they will refrain from hurting others while they are behind bars. In order to keep the police officers and other members of the jail safe, we need to sentence capital murderers to death. Van Den Haag also states in the reading that by committing a capital crime you are voluntarily assuming the risk. People are aware that the death penalty is a possible punishment and by committing the crime anyways, they are accepting the possible death sentence. In order to protect our citizens we must sentence capital murderers to death to prevent them from hurting anyone else. “Sparing the lives of prospective victims is more important than the lives of murderers.” Murderers are decreasing the quality of life of those that surround them by causing people to live in fear of being hurt, because of this, death is a reasonable way to end the trauma.

As you can see, although death is not always the ideal solution, it is completely necessary is some cases. Each person should have complete control of their body unless they are inflicting harm upon others and decreasing the quality of life of those that surround them. If a woman wants to end her pregnancy, she should have the right to do so. If a person wants to put a stop to their constant suffering and end their life in a peaceful way, they should also have the right to do so. And lastly, capital murderers should be put to death because they are decreasing the quality of life of those that surround them. When the quality of life is being threatened, death is a viable option. 

[1] “A Defense of Abortion” – Judith Jarvis Thomson

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

[2] “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia” – J. Gay-Williams

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_10_Care_of_the_Dying/READING_Gay_Williams.htm

[3] “Is There a Duty to Die?” – John Hardwig

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_10_Care_of_the_Dying/READING_Gay_Williams.htm

[4] “The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense” – Ernest Van Den Haag

http://www.studymode.com/essays/The-Ultimate-Punishment-A-Defense-By-1267733.html

[5] Statistic Brain

http://www.statisticbrain.com/death-penalty-statistics/

[6] Our Bodies Ourselves 

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?compID=100&id=20

Our Obligation to Society

 

Obligation can appear as a commitment solely enforced through law due to its forceful nature. However, moral obligation is also present within individuals as well as society. Within our own society there are a number of ethical issues that can be perceived differently—all of which due to the wide array of numerous morals each individual lives by. For instance, a woman has been married to her husband for only one year. The newlyweds are still undecided whether or not they want a child in the future, but for now, they would like to simply enjoy each other. Within months, the woman learns she has become pregnant despite taking all possible preventative measures. After discussing the issue with her husband, she concludes to abort the child. She figures they did everything they could to prevent pregnancy; therefore she is justified in her decision. Also, they are not yet ready.  In this case, abortion is okay for the woman due to the circumstance she is dealt, yet another woman’s point of view may have differed. In other cases, another woman may presume this instance to be her fate and despite circumstance, she disagrees with aborting her unborn child. What is important to consider in this hypothetical situation is that in the end, each individual has morals, yet all differ upon what some believe is right, others wrong, and how to consider the circumstances. Although there is no concrete moral code to uphold among society, moral obligation remains vital and through that, what about other pressing ethical issues? I believe society is morally obligated to others in many situations such as helping those who face poverty, and preventing war due to its effect on the weak and marginal. In addition, we must also eliminate the death penalty due to its harsh measures on those who are usually poor and weak.

 

Having demonstrated the importance of obligations to others, I assert that implementing moral obligation can be successful by assisting individuals who face poverty. The world’s poverty gap is far too wide and must be bridged immediately. According to the World Bank, the world poverty gap lies at $1.25 per day[1]. What is important to realize is that while many people live comfortably, largely among Western Europe as well as the United States and others, there are people living in countries such as Brazil, El Salvador, and Somalia who struggle to survive solely due to the shortage of food and water. While others spend money on unnecessary material items, people are starving and fighting to survive. It is a wide gap that I believe must be eliminated. Anyone who lives comfortably or has the luxury to buy unnecessary material items should be obligated to help those in need. Those who face extreme poverty are weak and marginalized. They most likely have a slim chance of working to attain a comfortable lifestyle and therefore should be protected.

 

Many believe that it is not required nor is it our problem to help those in need. Ultimately, they may be of a different nationality or perceived to have gotten into those positions by their own actions. However, the reality is that we are all human. Despite nationality or race, we as a society are obligated to protect life and those fighting for it due to their circumstances. It is an undeserving situation no matter who the individual and it is up to us to end it and bridge the gap. According to Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer, “[. . .] if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.”[2] If we are in the means and without succumbing to the level of poverty this person may be in, then we are obligated to do so because they are weak and helpless in their position.

 

Along with the issue of poverty, our moral obligation to others is also successful by extending it to the eradication of war. War also is an instance where the weak and innocent are wrongfully effected. Take for example the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. My Lai was located in South Vietnam where agitated troops ultimately opened fire on weak and innocent civilians:

 

 As the ‘search and destroy’ mission unfolded, it soon degenerated into the massacre

of over 300 apparently unarmed civilians including women, children, and the elderly. [William Calley] ordered his men to enter the village firing, though there had been no report of opposing fire. According to eyewitness reports offered after the event, several old men were bayoneted, praying women and children were shot in the back of the head, and at least one girl was raped and killed.[3]

 

Although it can be argued that it was a one-time occurrence where these troops should not have opened fire, the death of human beings is inevitable in war. These troops may not have been in their right mind at the time, and all due to the formality or war and what it causes physically and psychologically. Had the United States and Vietnamese officials negotiated, this atrocity could have been eliminated. More efforts must be taken to prevent the outcome of war. That is one of the important issues of why an individual is elected into office- for his/her leadership. It is our obligation as well as our leadership to prevent war at all costs—even if that mean months of talks and meetings. If two leaders are unable to come to an agreement, more officials should step in to provide objectiveness and possible solutions.

 

Conviction that some negotiations are impossible to make can be seen through the Camp David Accords II, where former president Bill Clinton made the effort of bargaining the Middle East conflict between former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat.  The accords were to end the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Ultimately, President Clinton did not give up, however. Time ran out and elections took place, ultimately implementing a new leader in replace of Ehud Barak.[4] As a result, violence is a reoccurring issue within the Middle East and innocent victims die every day due to the holy war. Had all leaders persisted to come to a collective agreement, much of this would not be an issue. In retrospect, we as humans are obligated to help the weak and marginalized. By preventing war, this can occur and innocent victims would not lose their lives as frequently.

 

In order to enact our obligation to others, assisting victims of poverty and preventing war must be supported, and it follows that we should also eliminate the death penalty. In many cases throughout history, there have been heinous crimes committed that outweigh others. Nevertheless, all result in victims dying. Yet, what must be remembered is we are replacing what those murderers did with a punishment that is of equal or more value. According to From Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty: Answering van den Haag by Jeffrey H. Reiman, “Calling for the abolition of the death penalty, though it be just, then, amounts to urging that as a society we place execution in the same category of sanction as beating, raping, and torturing, and treat it as something it would also not be right for us to do to offenders, [. . .].”[5] It is our obligation to not repeat the same injustice these criminals commit. However, it is also important to note that in many cases, these criminals are also weak and marginalized themselves. Within the conditions they were raised, there is likely to have been some traumatic experiences that left them mentally ill or vengeful. We must look beyond using the scapegoat of capital punishment and possibly implement other programs that can rehabilitate or help these people.

 

It is possible that not everyone can be rehabilitated, but through this we must be able to draw the line and impose punishment by means of life in prison rather than rehabilitation and instead of the death penalty. For example, after killing 77 people, Norway’s Anders Behring Breivik was sentenced the maximum in Norway of 21 year in prison. It was clear Breivik was not mentally ill; he acted as an apparent terrorist and anti-Islamic killer. According to Why Norway is Satisfied with Breivik’s Sentence by Mark Lewis of the Time World Newspaper, “For the survivors and the bereaved families, a sane man [was] properly punished, while Breivik [felt he could] still burnish his credentials as a political terrorist, without being written off as a madman.”[6] There was a clear distinction Breivik was not mentally ill. Although rehabilitation is an aspect of society’s obligation to prevent the death penalty, we must also be able to distinguish which criminals even serve the qualifications or genuinely need help rather than those, like Breivik, who cannot be tamed. More so, it is our obligation to prevent the death penalty and protect the weak and marginalized—in many cases, they murder and commit crimes due to these very reasons. By that, instead of choosing the death penalty, we must make an effort to identify the root of the cause and see if it is possible to change this person.

 

 

More so, we as a society have an obligation to assist others that are weak and marginalized in society. Through this means we are obligated to help human beings facing poverty, prevent war because it ultimately leads to the circulation of innocent deaths, and lastly, we must prevent the death penalty because it repeats the criminals’ mistakes while not considering they too may be the victim of marginalization. Although obligation may seem like a choice everyone should make on a personal level, why not implement a system of moral guidelines that creates a maxim for society regarding moral obligation? It is ideal for no one to suffer from starvation while the issue can easily be prevented. For that matter, why not instill a moral code that individuals can look and live by as a set of guidelines? There is no need to make it a law, however it should be a code that is commonly stressed and spoken by. It is also ideal for war not to occur; therefore we as a people must step in when officials cannot negotiate. We must force them to come to an agreement because war is not an option, and if they cannot, we improvise until there is a solution. Lastly, I believe it is ideal to prevent the death penalty because it repeats the act of the criminal and does not address the root of why the criminal committed such an act. Why not see if there is hope for that person? Then after, we can determine his/her fate.  Society is responsible for each and every situation. We must step in and make a change through obligation, because without it, there would be no change made.

---

[1] “The World Bank,”

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GAPS

 [2] “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Peter Singer

https://bb.laverne.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1206025-dt-content-rid-2269838_1/courses/201330_1569_HUM_305_M/poverty%20reading%201.pdf

 [3] “American Experience—Vietnam Online.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/my_lai.html

 [4] “History of Failed Peace Talks.” BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6666393.stm

 [5] “From Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty: Answering van den Haag.” Jeffrey H. Reiman

https://bb.laverne.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_90607_1%26url%3D

 [6] “Time World- Why Norway is Satisfied with Breivik’s Sentence.” Mark Lewis

http://world.time.com/2012/08/27/why-norway-is-satisfied-with-breiviks-sentence/

 

 

Censorship: An Ineffective Cure for Society’s Ills

Censorship is dangerous. Giving an individual or an organization control over what can and cannot be experienced is a lot of power that can be corrupted. As Americans we value our freedom of speech but this value is not limited to citizens of the United States. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes freedom of speech as a human right and it is recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”. Freedom of speech and the freedom to express our views are basic human rights. When we censor expression we stifle creativity; it is creativity that holds the answers to the questions we seek and the cure to the ailments from which we suffer. Censorship in fact brings more attention to the subject the censor wishes to eliminate. Adding the allure of secrecy often makes the subject more curious and the draw to the object more intense. In the following paragraphs, I will assert that censorship is not the proper tool to use to protect those we deem vulnerable, we must oppose censorship of sex work, homophobia, pornography and sexism/violence in advertising.

As we recognize the importance of free speech as recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ineffectiveness of censoring information some may deem harmful we must have uncensored sex workers in order to put proper safety measures in place. There is and has always been great controversy surrounding the sex work industry. Prostitution, often referred to as the world’s “oldest profession,” has been both a means for economic empowerment for women as well as a source for social degradation and or embarrassment. In her article, Defending Prostitution Charges Against Ericsson,” Carol Pateman argues, “To be able to purchase a body in the market presupposes the existence of masters. Prostitution is the public recognition of men as sexual masters; it puts submission on sale as a commodity in the market…”1 If Pateman’s claim s true then certainly we as a society should be working towards the end of prostitution specifically, and sex work in general. Consider, though the effectiveness of censorship on eliminating a social ill. We need only travel back in history to the prohibition of alcohol to see that making something illegal or legally inaccessible will not quell the desire to consume that which we censor. Speakeasies ran rampant across America. Homemade stills produced alcoholic beverages affectionately known as moonshine without being regulated or monitored. Moonshine “runners” modified their engines so that they could deliver the product quickly and out run the law if necessary. The government taking matters into their own hands and making the decision for society that the consumption of alcoholic beverages should not be consumed did nothing to cure the social ills the censorship was intended to alleviate; it actually heightened the desire for the banned substance and created more ills than it sought to cure. Harry White views sex work as a profession and not a subjected position; one that might benefit greatly benefit from being “unionized.” It is his view that if the sex work industry is censored it would drive it underground and would expose the women some are motivated to protect to “violence they did suffer from police, pimps and others when pornography was strictly illegal.”2 He likened censoring sex work to closing factories to solve the problems of low pay, insecurity and poor working conditions among factory workers. The simple fix of imposing the you can’t do that anymore rule on society will not eliminate the sex work industry nor will it solve the problems generated by the industry.

Neither can homophobia, though it may be offensive and even detrimental to our society, be successfully thwarted through censorship. Homophobic speech is more common than some may realize. It works it’s way into our everyday vocabulary without us even realizing it. Take for example the term “gay.” My mother would use the term to mean happy. I would use the term to mean homosexual. My teenaged son used the term to mean bad, until I corrected him. In 2002 a student, Rebecca Rice used the term “that’s so gay” at school and was reprimanded receiving a warning and a notation on her file. Her parents sued, and claimed that Rice’s first amendment rights were violated because she used a phrase that “enjoys widespread currency in youth culture.”3 That is disturbing for more than one reason. It’s hurtful to those individuals that you’ve categorized as stupid, silly, or dumb by associating their group with a negative connotation. It’s unnerving if Rice did not realize the harm she was causing with her words. (This could likely be the case as I determined from speaking with my son and his friends.) It’s tragic if Rice understood how hurtful her words were and decided to use them anyway. According to the list compiled by Warren J. Blumenfeld4, among other things, “Homophobia can be used to stigmatize, silence and, on occasion, target people who are perceived or defined by others as gay, lesbian or bisexual but who are in actuality heterosexual.” We can all agree that this is only one of the terrible consequences of homophobia. As a cure, however, shall we stigmatize, silence and on occasion, target people who are perceived or defined by others as homophobic? Certainly not. And if we did, would that stop people from feeling or thinking hurtful or negative things about homosexuals that may be kindling to incite violence or other hurtful actions towards them. Then, maybe we should start monitoring and censoring thoughts. Ridiculous, I know.

Censorship of sex work and homophobic rhetoric cannot be tolerated neither then can the censorship of pornographic materials. We are afraid. We fear how exposure to what we deem immoral material might effect our most vulnerable in society. We are afraid of what may become of those who study images on paper or screen might do when found in similar real life situations. Wendy McElroy in her article “A Feminist Defense of Pornography,” states her position as a “pro-sex” feminist: Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically.5 In his article, “Why Pornography Should Not Be Censored,” Antony Grey says of censorship, “Censorship – whatever its pretext – is the denial of our freedom to choose what we can read, see, hear and do. It consists of arbitrary interference with free communication and is a distortion of the marketplace of ideas.”6 We want to protect our young and our vulnerable from the unwanted attention and actions of those influenced by pornographic materials but can we reasonably expect to remove the influence of pornography from society by censoring it’s publication or will driving the pornography industry underground and even more mystic to the already taboo trade? For the most part children already know pornography is not accepted in society but that hasn’t stopped little boys from sharing Playboy in their secret clubhouse. Though the society stigma may keep Hustler Magazine off the living room coffee table it certainly hasn’t kept it from under the bed, in the tool box or being delivered on thin the brown kraft paper wrapper. As we have seen in the examples of sex work and homophobia, censorship does not eliminate the dangers society seeks to eradicate. Censoring an industry only moves it away from society’s ability to regulate it; once it goes underground we no longer have the ability to enforce laws that make the industry safe for it’s participants.

As we see the ineffectiveness of censoring sex work, homophobic messages and pornography it is clear that censoring violence/sexism in advertising would not give us the desired effect. Advertising has a purpose: to entice it’s audience to buy. As long as the message is filling that purpose, it will remain unchanged. Social action then, like a boycott of a particular manufacturer that produces violent or sexist advertisement would be of maximum effect to remove this disturbing media. Charlotte Hilton Anderson calls a study that claimed women see these sexist and violent advertisements as high art or as a type of fiction shenanigans.7 She goes on to say, “And if the point of advertising is to sell something then I’d have to see proof that these ads move merch before I’ll believe my fellow sisters really do like it rough.” I agree that a photographed image of a gang rape scene will not move me to purchase Dolce & Gabana however, are the advertisers pushing the envelope of acceptability so that they may be accepted in the high end glamour magazines? And, once accepted in the publication, not to be glazed over with the other 80% advertising content but be dramatic or shocking enough to make the consumer stop the page turning frenzy and focus long enough for the company logo to register? “…we expect censorship to work for social change; in the past it has always worked against it. A government of feminists can be usurped overnight by a government of wowsers, offended by tampon advertising or any hint of sex.”8 States Adele Horin in her article “Why Censorship is Worse than the Sexist Ad.” She states that self-regulation is a different matter from “hauling in the government to set the rules.” Clearly this would be the better solution; asking the industry to come to a reasonable set of guidelines to hold itself accountable to and holding court on itself to ensure that the industry remains an integral part of society rather than having an outside entity determine what it can and cannot produce.

It is the responsibility of society to protect it’s vulnerable but censorship is not the best protection against the ills created by sex work, homophobia, pornography and sexism/violence in advertising. Some might think censorship rids society by removing the message but thoughts, intents and desires cannot be censored. When we act in fear as a defense to things we find offensive our efforts are negated by the allure of the taboo. And if we persist in censorship we run the risk of capping the creativity of society by making it unacceptable to imagine, think or create outside of the accepted norm. Messages can be damaging, especially those directed towards are youth. I submit a better defense against these dangers is education. We must as a society educate our citizens early and thoroughly. As early as primary education, we must implement media awareness education so that we understand the role that media plays. Citizens should know the difference between advertisements and news, opinion and fact, healthy behavior and violent fantasy. It is our responsibility and our duty to educate ourselves. Media awareness education curriculum should be created and implemented in the public school systems across the nation. An informed citizen is not easily beguiled by hate messages, imitator of violent or sexist messages, or a participant in risky behavior that endangers his own health or that of his community. We cannot take away the basic human right of the freedom to express self by censoring the message we must instead arm ourselves with education that we may rightly disseminate what is good for our own self.

1Carol Pateman, Defending Against Prostitution: Charges Against Ericsson 2Harry White, Anatomy of Censorship: Why the Censors Have it Wrong (University Press of America, 1997) 3Gimme Five | the blog of a busy guy, Censorship vs. Hate Speech and the Word Gay, http://www.gimme-five.com/censorship-vs-hate-speech-and-the-word-gay/ 4Warren J Blumenfeld, How Homophobia Hurts Everyone: A Theoretical Foundation 5Wendy McElroy, “A Feminist Defense of Pornography” 6Antony Grey, Why Pornography Should Not Be Censored, http://www2.libertarian.co.uk/sites/default/lanotepdf/polin085.pdf 7Charlotte Hilton Andersen, Dolce & Gabbana Says Women Like It Rough, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlotte-hilton-andersen/dolce-gabbana-says-women_b_547268.html 8Adele Horin, Why Censorship is Worse Than the Sexist Ad, http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6ZxjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aeQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3251%2C165096