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.

Advertisements

Its not really your decision, but its our duty

I really found the points in — writing about our human connection and how this is what is restricting the decisions of individuals. Despite thinking we are individuals and as much as we would like to have our personal decisions not affect others, that is simply not the case. Because through our lives we form relationships friends, families and so many people that when we come to such a hard decision of keeping ones self alive or not it really does not come down to just ourselves. And I believe thats why we have such laws that restrict us or deem as bad to commit suicide and to want to die at when old age has limited our quality of life. Because now our decisions affect others. Society has put the burden of our obligations to others in front of our choices and decisions.

As much as I believe you should be able to make your own decisions about your body and well being, it does seem selfish sometimes to make decisions that we are well aware will affect the ones we love and car about.

For example Abortion which is another bodily choice that should be the woman’s choice no matter what. Nothing should stop her from making the right choice for her. I also believe this is true for Euthanasia. I don’t think the government has a right to restrict when you would like to die. It is not there body and not their choice. What gives them the right to make the choice for you. Yes, the decisions would affect people but that would just be something that people would have to live with seeing as it wasn’t their choice to make.

Though the death of a relative would affect us and as much as we want them to live, it is not up to us. And maybe if we were more open to accepting that fact then it wouldn’t be so hard and horrible when the situation arrises.

This video is very interesting, it talks about how your thoughts about the situation your in can change the karma you will deserve  after. Or at least I think thats what he means. Thoughts are very powerful and I definitely think that if you have good intentions behind something truly then thats what counts. Just like the reasons behind women’s aborting, I think there is also positive intentions behind peoples decision of when to die. And we have a duty to ourself to die when we know and feel its right that is more important then our duty to our loved ones. We should just hope that they will be there supporting us in the end.

 

An eye for an eye (o)_(o)

^ this video is not the right one it is in a series and the one I’m referring to is called “Final Meals of Innocent Executed Inmates”

Capital punishment is such a complex issue that is hard to come to a common ground with my self to say if I think it is okay or not. Throughout Haag’s reading I found my self confused many times, but also agreeing in some areas and disagreeing in others.

From what I can make of it I personally see capital punishment as doing the same evil to the guilty as was done to the victim. No one is justified in taking life away from someone so what makes it okay for the criminal system to do the same. I strongly believe the guilty should be punished no doubt. But by doing what they did to someone else makes us no better. Especially when it is done accidentally. When the wrongly convicted are killed to the death penalty we have actually done the same thing as murders have done. We have killed an innocent person, so then who gets sentenced to death for murdering them?

Surprisingly I found a video that shares the same idea as me. In this Youtube video they share pictures of victims last means before being executed. But the only problem is that these people were innocent. If there is no way for us to be 100% sure that the person we are about to kill is 100% guilty of the crime they are being convicted of then we have no right as a society to end their lives. If there is room for errors then we should not have a death penalty. Ending a life is a very big tricky thing, because once its done there is no undoing. The man on the youtube video was once for the Death Penalty and has now switched because of his realization that many people were being killed that should have not been. The Death penalty does not serve justice, and in fact when done wrong we have ended up doing  the same disgusting act as the criminals. Its not a very good example for society. It actually makes me scared for our criminal system. Killing murders does not make anything any better, it actually makes us look ridiculous when an accident is made and we kill someone innocent. This system is ridiculous.

Pono – hawaiian for ” Do what is Right”

This reading took me back to our class example of if we were morally obligated to stay hooked up to a machine in order to preserve someones life. And it all ties back to the fact that you do what you can live with. It would not necessarily be bad to unhook yourself from the machine because it is not your moral responsibility to keep this person alive using your body. But it also would not be good to unhook yourself from the machine.

A good majority of people in the world are not oblivious to the problems of poverty happening across the world. A good good majority of these people that are informed about it, do nothing to help. So this obviously means these people are content and can continue on living knowing they are not helping these suffering people across the globe.

Personally I agree with Singer in the sense that you ought to help if you can. If you can help someone then you should. You may not morally HAVE to but if you have the option and time and resources etc. to make someones life, or day easier then why not help. And if its not taking a huge part out of your life then you should. But I also agree with Arthur’s reasoning too, For example I have picked up a homeless person hitching and given them a ride to where they have had to go. I had the car and I had no where to be in a hurry so why not?  But this doesn’t mean that I have the time and gas money  to go around all day picking up homeless people and taking them where they have to go. And I think this is what Arthur is trying to say.

Poverty is such a huge topic to tackle and everybody’s morals are so different that some would let the child drown in the river and some could not bare to have that on their conscience if they didn’t in some way help to save the child. It is an issue that is very hard to judge.

 

Towel Dress, Spray on Hair We good to Go!

I think as a country the United States is ridiculously obsessed with commercials and advertisements. You cant go anywhere with out seeing them. Billboards, sky ads, park benches is nothing sacred. We have become so revolved around making the next dollar. And Im sure more than half the country has even noticed what a huge impact advertisements have on our way of living . We are the puppets and we do what ever they want. We are controlled by these commercials we see everyday whether we like it or not. We buy all the products on tv because we are made to think that we cant live without them and I’m almost a 100 percent sure we can all can continue on living life just as good without the help of a Snickers bar, or bounty Paper towels, or the newest luxury car.

Thanks to the thousands of stupid informercials we are tricked into buying more products that we DO NOT NEED. Do you really need a “Tiddy Bear” to keep your chest comfy while you drive. I mean is this really that big a deal. Do you really need a gold club that you can pee into while your golfing because now going to a restroom is too much work?! Or is this just another useless product that we don’t need but are made to think we need to make our lives easier. And hey anything that makes americans lives easier……their SOLD!! If this video doesnt convince you of how many ridiculous products and unnecessary items we are pressured into buying each year then I dont know what will.

The amount of product consumption in the US is quite sad and embarrassing and the sad thing is people don’t even know that they are being manipulated into buying every single product in their homes that we could do without. Americas new Slogan should be “Less Is More” hahahah like that will ever happen 😀

Princess, Doctor, Pornstar, Firefighter?

Though many feminists see the women in the pornography business as being “exploited” and  that the women are “oppressed” maybe they just aren’t seeing what the women in the pornography industry do see. In the video Sasha Grey, a 18 year old porn star explains her reason for being in the pornography business and what what she gets out of it. I find that what she says are  the same things as a girl who would say they wanted to grow up and be a doctor would say. She feels “in her own element” and “self exploration in a positive way”. Just as mentioned in the reading by Nina Hartlet and ex-porn star who also believes ” posing for pornography is an uncoerced choice that can be enriching.” There can be many reasons to why a women joins the pornography industry and not all are bad. And Sasha Grey is a good example of that.  She has  confidently chosen the path she wants to take and is comfortable with it. Along with being in the porn industry she has “normal” goals as one would say, to travel the world, have kids, and even produce and direct films of her own. And not pornography ones at that! Who is someone to judge someones decision as to if it is morally acceptable if its fulfilling to them! The problem is it IS being judged by many for the fear that it is exploiting women and is hurting the women themselves that are involved. But who is it really hurting if these girls choose pornography for themselves and enjoy it. No underage children are involved, no one is being violently hurt during these films? If anyone should be supporting female porn star’s it should be Feminst!  Feminist should be the women that are standing behind porn stars supporting these women and the choices they make, not criticizing them for it.

I agree with Wendys points that support that pornography benefits women both personally and  politically and be seen as valid to. Pornography allows people around the world for what ever reason to satisfy a natural craving and basic need that is no different from our desire to eat, or drink water. That need, needs to be satisfied. And if it is satisfied without the harming of people and in a civilized way, what seems to be the problem? We easily pay for a meal when we are hungry, how can paying for pornography when we are horny be so different.

I also believe ” a Women’s body a Women’s right” just as with abortion. If a women chooses to show off her body and have sex with men for others to see then so be it. Its her body not yours, no one is asking you to do it!

Not sure where I’m going with this hehe

After reading “A Foundation For Judgement” in our Ethics book it really seemed to bring  together all of the discussions that we have had in class up until this time into one big connection. Every time we have a discussion in class about ethical issues in the world we are able to hear so many peoples opinions that opens our minds to not only different ideas but different perspectives that we may have no had before. Everyone comes to class with there different beliefs and opinions that they may of had for years or gained through experience.

In the reading about Humes argues that ” there is no logical way to get from knowing what IS to knowing what OUGHT TO BE”. This idea just made me think back to our discussion about abortion and peoples different reasonings and how peoples opinions changed based on different scenarios. And the opinions of people on this issue was based on our moral compass as I would call it. Every ones morals vary and Hume believed that we all do have a “moral sentiment, that guides us” which I believe to be true. And it sometimes all boils down to what we can do and what we can “live with” as we said in class.

But what I found more interesting was the difference of Relativism and Absolutism which again ties into our past discussions in class. In the book it says ” A moral absolute is a norm or principle that is true at all times and in all places and admits no exceptions.” But i feel like with some moral absolutes this can be not possible. And thats what we discuss in class. For example how abortion may be seen as unacceptable but in one case if a girl got rapped then it would be aloud? So like it says in the book, many moral norms, however, do admit of exceptions and therefore cannot be absolute.” Sometimes there are exceptions and Its like that with any right or wrong thing I believe in the world. There can be justifications based on the situation and there can also be a different opinion based on the persons moral compass and what THEY believe to be okay and right for them.

Im almost positive I knew were I was going at the beginning of this post now I’m not too sure what happened but this reading really did help with understanding what we have been talking about in class. Hope somebody can understand my nonsense!