Death Should Cause Less Trauma

There are some important issues that this class has brought to my attention.  Abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty are very controversial topics and people don’t like to discuss them.  Each person has his or her own opinions about these topics based on their own morals and beliefs.  My claim about death is that it is very circumstantial.  This can be due to a girl being raped and becoming pregnant because of it, the quality of life someone is living when they are in a coma or terminally ill, and if someone kills someone then they deserve to die as well, therefore death is a reasonable way to escape trauma.  Because death is a natural part of life, why can’t these people be allowed to experience fewer traumas, or more in a murders case, by having the option to an abortion or euthanasia?  Others might not agree because unnatural death can cause more traumas to someone, therefore killing in these situations will never be right.  Abortion is the woman’s right to choice whether or not she wants to keep the baby, euthanasia is the right to decide whether or not the person is living a high quality of life, and the death penalty relieves the trauma of the families who are affected.

Having demonstrated the importance of death, in order for abortion to be successful, we need to let it be the woman’s right to decide if she wants to have an abortion.  Sometimes pregnant women are in an unstable relationship due to abuse, drinking or drugs, and sometimes it is just because they are too young.  These women should have the right to decide if they want to have that child or not.  These different kinds of relationships can be traumatic to a woman and if the baby is not aborted then the child can live a traumatic life.  When thinking of abortion we need to think of women who are raped and become pregnant because of it.  When a woman is raped she is going to be traumatized for the rest of her life already and she should not have to carry around the child of the man who raped her.  A girl who is raped deserves to avoid this kind of trauma because she has already gone through enough.  In the course reading “A Defense of Abortion” Thomson talks about abortion is like waking up, being kidnapped and attached to violinist that will die of you unplug yourself.  She argues that you might allow the violinist to use your kidneys, but you are not obligated to do so and have the right to unplug him.  She also argues that during pregnancy you are inviting the fetus to use your body and if this happens to become an intruder rather than wanted then you still have the right to cast out the intruder (Thomson).  Because women are ashamed of becoming pregnant when they aren’t ready for it, many of them decide to take the abortion into their own hands or in the hands of an underground abortion clinic that are unsanitary.  There are 47,000 deaths of women each year because of unsafe abortions (Guttmacher).  Abortion relates to death because a woman can decide whether or not she wants to keep her baby and it can also lead to the death of the mother when done in an unsafe environment.  Someone who might argue against me is someone who is pro life.  These people believe that the fetus is innocent; therefore they should not be aborted because it could not consent.  People need to think about the traumatic part of becoming pregnant when it is not wanted and let the woman decide.

Building on the same principle of abortion, we must also agree that it should be a person who is dying or on life support has the right to euthanasia.  If someone is terminally ill and/or on life support and are in constant pain every single day, then they should be able to make the decision to die or not.  The person is being traumatized by having to stay alive and deal with the pain every single day.  These people deserve to avoid trauma because they have already been given a pre determined time to die.  In the reading, “From is there a Duty to Die”, Hardwig claims that there can be a duty to die before one’s illness would cause death (Hardwig).  If a person is in pain everyday, then their quality of life is not very high.  If someone is not allowed to choose to die, then they might take it into their own hands and hurt themselves.  If someone kills him or herself it can cause trauma to the person who finds them dead, as well as more harm to the actual person because they did it by over dosing on drugs.  Euthanasia relates to death because the person is making the decision to die or continue with their life.  Abortion and euthanasia relate because both of these are choices.  The woman has the choice to keep the baby or not and a person has the choice of euthanasia.  People who are against euthanasia may believe ending your life is unnatural.  They might also think that death is just a way out instead of facing adversity.  Another reason a person would be against euthanasia is because they don’t feel like the life is being preserved.  The people who would be candidates for euthanasia would be people who are terminally ill or on life support, therefore they don’t deserve to go through the trauma of living life that way. 

In order to enact death, abortion, and euthanasia, we must also support the death penalty because people who murders someone causes trauma to the family who family member was killed.  I believe that the death penalty can lead to fewer traumas for society.  If a person murders someone then they deserve to die because they broke the law and did the crime knowing the consequences.  A person who breaks the law and murders someone deserves to experience additional trauma in the hands of the state.  These people must be killed in order to prevent trauma for other members of society, such as the victim’s family.  In the course reading “From Justice, Civilization, and the Death Penalty: Answering van den Hagg”, Reiman argues that the death penalty is a just punishment for murder because of an eye for an eye (Reiman).  It is more expensive to have the death penalty than to keep a person on life without parole because of all of the capital trials and other things the state has to pay for.  The death penalty relates to my topic of death because a criminal has killed someone and then they might have to face the death penalty.  Yes, I am saying that a criminal must die to avoid causing further trauma to the victim’s family.  Someone might say that I would then be saying that abortion is essentially the death penalty because the fetus could cause further trauma to the mother, but I don’t agree because the woman could have been raped.  Therefore the woman has already been traumatized and keeping the baby would cause even more trauma.  A person who is against the death penalty might argue that the criminal should sit in jail for the rest of his or her life to think about what they did.  Even if someone is on death row, they still have the opportunity to think about what they have done because they aren’t executed right away.  They can sit there and think about the trauma the victim’s family has gone through because that person took their life away.  By executing the criminal it can bring the victim’s family peace.  The trauma may never go away but it will help with the coping. 

Abortion needs to be the woman’s choice so she can avoid the trauma of keeping the child when she isn’t ready or has been raped, euthanasia should be the persons choice because he or she might be in pain everyday, causing them trauma, and a criminal who murders someone deserves to die to stop the trauma to the victim’s family and future trauma to other members of society.  If a woman becomes pregnant because she was raped, not having the choice to get rid of the baby will cause more trauma to her than if she could abort the baby.  Abortion needs to be legalized everywhere so women aren’t harming themselves trying to do it themselves.  Euthanasia needs to be legalized so the people who are suffering everyday from their terminal illness or if they are on life support, can be put out of their misery and avoid trauma.  Death penalty is expensive but should be legal because the criminal has broken the law knowing the consequences.  By executing a criminal it can alleviate trauma from the victim’s family as well as possible other members of society.  Society needs to understand that things happen.  A woman who is raped goes through enough traumas and doesn’t need to have to keep the baby as a reminder.  A person who is dying and given a pre-determined time to die is suffering, they should have the option to die if they are in enough pain.  Society needs to think about how the family feels when one of their members is murdered.  That person or criminal needs to experience more traumas by being in prison and on death row.  Overall death is not a happy experience but in these circumstances it might be right to help these people avoid traumas. 


Culp-Ressler, Tara. “47,000 Women Die Each Year From Unsafe Abortions.” ThinkProgress RSS. N.p., 4 Oct. 2012. Web. 27 May 2013.

“Pro-Euthanasia Arguements.” BBC News. BBC, 2013. Web. 27 May 2013

“Death Penalty : The High Cost of the Death Penalty.” Death Penalty : The High Cost of the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Focus, n.d. Web. 27 May 2013.

A defense of Abortion. From Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1, pg 47-50, 54-66. Copyright by Princeton University Press.

John Hardwig, “Is there a Duty to die?”. Hastings Center Report 27, no 2. (1997): 34-42, edited.

Jeffery H. Reiman, “Justice, Civilization, and Death Penalty”, Philosophy and Public Affairs 14, no 2. (Spring 1985): 115-42 (edited)


Would you be able to sleep at night?

Euthanasia is the termination of ones life to end suffering.  This suffering can be because of an incurable disease, a person in a permanent coma or many other things.  A lot of the time the person with the incurable disease is the one who makes the decision but sometimes if a person is not going to wake up from a coma then the decision falls into the families hands.  The term euthanasia derives from the latin word euthanatos meaning easy death.  In the UK assisted suicide is illegal and you can serve up to fourteen years in prison.  

Euthanasia raises a lot of ethical questions.  One of these questions might be if it is ever right to end the life of a terminally ill person who is in severe pain and is suffering? I believe that if the person is in so much pain and they are suffering and they can make the decision for themselves then I would want to put that person out of their misery.  Another ethical issue it raises is under what circumstances would euthanasia be justifiable.  I believe that it is justifiable if the person is able to make the decision for themselves. Why would you want your family member to be suffering and be in pain.  When someone dies we usually say we are happy they are not in pain in more.  If we could help them not be in pain anymore it would make them happier, as long as they consent.  

We might say it is not okay to part take in euthanasia when it is someone else but maybe when you have a family member begging you to just help them your views might change.  I don’t think it is okay to kill someone but when there is no way they are going to come out of the coma and are laying their like a vegetable or if they are suffering from an incurable disease then we need to rethink how the person is feeling.


Are the Rich Obligated to help?

Poverty is all around us. You can see it as you walk down the street and a homeless person is holding a sign saying, “Anything helps”.  The question is do the rich have any responsibility to help the poor?  According to Peter Unger and Singer they have a utilitarian look on it.  In the article I read it gave a scenario: Suppose that Bob is on his way to the University and he passes by a shallow pond. As he walks by the pond that morning he sees a little child who appears to be drowning. What should he do? He has two choices. One is to go into the pond and save the child, though he would at the same time dirty his clothes and thus miss his class. The second choice is to walk pass the child to get to his class and leave him to drown to death.  Obviously you would stop and help the child. But the other questions asked were: what if other people were around? Or what if the child was from a far away country but Bob could safe him/her with little cost to him?  In the article it explains that it is more of a moral fulfillment to give the homeless person money, send money to a third world country, and help charities out by donating money.  For Bob, by saving the baby it isn’t a charitable act but his obligation. The article explains that if someone could give money to different organizations and not see it as a charitable act but a responsibility because they can afford it without sacrificing much in return then it will be just like saving the baby as an obligation. 

Honestly, you always see the commercials to send like 25 cents a day over to a starving child in Africa and you want to send money but you don’t.  I don’t personally think that it is the rich’s obligation to help the poor. The people who help the poor most of the time are people who have the biggest hearts and care about helping.  I feel like the rich are the people who care the least.  I worked at a church serving food to the homeless over Jan Term and the church started out by serving six people and now every Saturday they serve around 100 homeless people.  The people there aren’t rich but have a heart big enough to help these poor people.

Does sex sell?

Sex sells! So many companies use women and men as sex objects to sell their products.  You wouldn’t be as inclined to try or purchase the product if it was a larger lady who wasn’t very attractive eating the Carls Jr. burger than Kate Upton whose boobs are pushed up to her chin.  You also wouldn’t buy that Calvin Klein underwear if David Beckam weren’t wearing them.  Just because the woman is barely wearing any clothes doesn’t mean it is a bad commercial.  The commercial is meant to help sell the project.  I think that women are portrayed more sexually in commercials or ads than men. 

During this commercial for Dolce and Gabbana the man is barely wearing a Speedo and the girl is wearing a small white bikini.  The girl is trying to look seductive as the man jumps into the water and she jumps in after him.  They both get out of the water and start to kiss.  Both the man and the woman are dripping wet and he starts to untie her bathing suit top.  They show him touching her but and he is about to take her top off someone comes in the shot with action board and yells cut.  On the board it says scene sixty-nine.  The commercial is trying to sell the new Dolce and Gabbana’s cologne and perfume. 

This commercial is a perfect example of how sex sells.  I feel like they take it to another level when they have the scene being scene sixty-nine.  This commercial is sexist too both men and woman.  The woman is trying to be all sexy and the man is shirtless, tan, has a nice body and barely has a bathing suit on.  At least in this commercial both the man and the woman are being used for sexy advertisements but the girl is used more.  Especially when he is taking her clothes off and they show him grabbing her butt. There are so many commercials that are just like this one.

Should They Have to Wear Protection?

Do you think the men should be protected while having sex during a porn shoot?  In 2012, the Los Angeles County made a law requiring condom use by porn performers.  It was a 9-1 vote in favor of men wearing condoms during porn shoots, which was a win for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has been rallying to protect the health of porn stars for many years while lawmakers ignored it and chose not to crack down. Los Angeles County were the first people to take up the issue and they had an almost unanimous vote. There have been many shoots that have been suspended due to the fact that many people had HIV.  With this new rule in place it would require porn producers to pay a fee to fund surprise inspections of their shoots.  “Diane Duke of the lobbying group Free Speech Coalition said, “This is government overreach. It’s not about performer health and safety; it’s about government regulating what happens between consenting adults.” Weinstein said that gay porn performers have been using condoms for years. 

I think it should be mandatory for the men to wear condoms when filming porn because who knows how many women he has been with during other film’s.  I know some porn groups test their porn stars before they do any films but I don’t think that the low-grade porn does the same testing.  I think that many people that are in this billion-dollar industry are not clean. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t want to protect themselves against any diseases they could contract.  I think it is great that Los Angeles City Counsel passed this ordinance because it is something that should have been mandatory many years ago.  What do you think? Should the men have to be protected while having intercourse?  Should gay couples have to be protected as well?

People Taking Action

This week I am going to be presenting on Affirmative Action and Fairness on Robert K. Fullinwider.  His article starts out by talking about different people and their role within affirmative action.  He first talks about David Duke who was a former leader of a white supremacist party and is now a state legislature who got 60 percent of the white vote in 1990.  This theme of his campaign was the injustice of affirmative action, the need for civil rights for whites.  The next person he talks about is Brian Weber.  Brian works for the Kaiser Company chemical plant.  Here the black employees were only allowed to work the unskilled jobs and the company would go and look for outside workers who were trained by someone else for their craft jobs.  Eventually they decided to train their own workers and promote from within.  So for every one white person who was hired they had to hire one black person until 30 percent of the craft workers were black which was a quota. For Brian he didn’t like this, which is weird because it was only going to benefit him in the long run.  Wouldn’t you want your company to promote from within so you can move up and get a higher pay?

In a Supreme Court case in 2012, Fisher vs. University of Texas, a girl claimed she wasn’t accepted to the University because she was white.  The university was looking to make the campus a more diverse place and said if they cannot use race in their admissions it would be a “setback for our university and our campus.” During the case the university did admit to wanting to increase the percentage of black students on campus.  There has not yet been a settlement for this case it said that it was going to come in this spring.  The university did say that diversity is a selling point to the school and they would loose a lot of people if they weren’t diverse.

Female Genital Cutting

I found a website called Women Leading Change and the article was called Female Genital mutilation-my story.  The article is about a 22-year-old girl named Keziah Bianca.   It is her story of when she had her genitalia cut and what she is doing about it now.  She understands why her family made her have the operation but she doesn’t want other girls to have to go what she went through.  She remembers it like it was yesterday.  She explains how her community does the type one cutting of partial or the entire clitoris because they believe it to be dirty and it makes one sexually active.  After she tells her story she explains how she is part of the YWCA.  The YWCA, Young Women’s Christian Association, is the largest and oldest women’s organization in the US.  It is also a welfare movement with branches in many countries.  Keziah is part of the branch in Kisii, Kenya.

She explains the program that they have is where they train young girls starting at the age 10 on an alternative right of passage and a way to say no to female genital cutting.  She says at the end of the training they “graduate” and are given a certificate to show they have gone though a stage of their life that qualifies them as circumcised.  This program also trains the parents and the circumcisers on the effects of female cutting and what the rights the girls have to say no.  This program teaches the circumcisers how to make money other than cutting because it is inhuman to women. 

Personally I believe that this is sad.  There is no reason for women to have to go through such pain for something that is not necessary.  I understand that this tradition is in some cultures but when the women don’t have a say in it, then it is not right.  I am glad there are now programs for people to learn how this is harming women.  I know I am not from a culture like one of these but to think that this is happening to women and they don’t have any say in it makes it unacceptable.