The Abortion Conflict

    Abortion is the act of terminating a fetus of a pregnant woman. Although somewhat frowned upon, it's a common practice used when the mother's health is in danger, when the pregnancy is of criminal origin, when the child's quality of life will be very poor (unacceptably so), when a person's birth control has a mechanical failure (not from their actions), when a family can't afford the child, or when either of the parents is unable to cope with raising a child. Now, each person may decide whether this act is criminal, just, good, or bad, and the extensive involvement of personal belief in the conditions on which to judge this is where all the conflict arises.
    The two sides fighting, generally are pro-life and pro-choice. Pro-choice supporters believe life and personhood begins at birth, where pro-life supporters believe life and personhood begins at conception. Pro-choice groups generally hold that abortion is okay, since the fetus becomes a person at birth. They also speak on behalf of rape and incest victims, citing that such victims need not be forced to suffer more than they were already forced to. In addition, most abortions occur in the woman's first trimester, when the fetus is considered a part of the woman's body and thus is covered under a person's right to control their body and their own futures. Pro-choice members also contend that the right to abortion is necessary for men and women to be on equal footing socially and in the workplace. For example, when a woman gets pregnant, she generally must quit work around the time of birth and spend the next 18 years (at least) raising the child. This puts her 18 years behind a man in the same situation, but if she can abort, then she can be equal. Roe v. Wade, ruling that abortion falls under her freedom to person choice in family matters, supports this in America. Then there lies the issue of illegal abortions, rates of which would rise if women can't have access to it legally. People won't stop the behavior just because it's legally regulated or prohibited, just look at every law, tax, and rule ever made.
    On the other hand, pro-life supports hold that abortion is murder, since the fetus is a person with with rights just like any other person at conception. It follows that abortions, killing the fetus, is murder, since killing another person is murder. Alongside this, pro-lifers leave the rights of the mother with her: they don't extend to anyone else. The group supports adoption, as it follows their views in that the rights to life exceed any personal rights to equality or bodily control. That being said, they claim that a person's right to control their body and to equality belongs to them before conception through birth control and abstinence, after conception the aforementioned personal rights are forfeit. In the case of when a child will have a terribly quality of life, pro-lifers still support life, condemning abortion in that it makes a statement of how handicapped people aren't worth as much as normal people. On the same note, pro-life groups believe that abortion doesn't free women. Instead they should rally for cheap childcare, flexible schedules, and maternity leave in addition to help from the state in getting back into the workforce. The differences between these two groups are massive, polar opposite in nature, flawed, and completely based in personal opinion. (Please note these are general views,  not everyone in a group will agree with all of them)
    There is another group, though, one that looks only at responsibility. For example, it is held that, if a woman has voluntary sex,  she accepts the risks of pregnancy and is responsible for raising and supporting the child, whether she likes it or not. If she used birth control methods, then she will still be responsible, but less so since she tried to avoid it. If the sex is forced, then she is not responsible at all, as she had no choice in the act. This group is focused entirely on responsibility rather than on right, wrong, or legality.
    Then there's paternal rights,  a near unknown but growing movement. Unsurprisingly, most of its support is from men while it's opposition is from women. Men claim that if they must pay for the child for eighteen years, then they should have a say. Most men view the balance as tipped toward women unfairly, but most women see it as fairly tipped. This whole issue stems from differing opinions on the man's role and contributions. If the man works full-time and helps with the home and child after work, is he not giving at least an equal share? In that case, he does deserve rights. In others, as in deadbeat dads, they don't. It all comes down to how much the father will contribute as to how extensive his rights are, but you cannot know the future, only guess it. So the mother won't know until it happens, unfortunately, which makes it very difficult to administer paternal rights in the case of abortion unless you're married or have had a child before with the partner. Also it may be the woman's body, but her choice affects more than herself.
    As I hope you all have seen, no side is flawless. Consider this question: "When does a fetus become a right-bearing human being?" If the answer is at birth, the abortion is legal and omay. If the answer is at conception, then abortion's not okay and isn't lawful, unless the woman's rights supercede the child's own rights, then it would be okay for abortion still. Also, does a mother have the right to decide the future of another? Does that right to control her own future supercede another's if their future is affected by her decisions? If a woman gets pregnant, and keeps the child against the father's wishes, she is deciding her future,  the future of the child, and the partner's future with her choice, as the man has no say. In the case of abortion the man has no such right and as such represents a legal inequality, which may or may not cause serious issues. Finally, does anyone have the right to make law their own preferences? No view represented here has been anything other than pure opinion. All have tried to better society, but your personal opinion must be tempered with actual reason and logic as to why it will better society to be that way. Forcing your view down another's throat is reminiscent not of liberty, but of oppression.

Majority Rule

Is it right that your personal preferences and opinions should affect what options another has? On one hand, we all want to live in like - minded communities, it eases social cooperation and helps us achieve harmony. After all, our entire culture works with majority rule, so the majority's views tend to control what happens in a country, state, city, etc. But, many times, the popular view may infringe upon personal liberties of groups and individuals within. Take the pre - Civil Rights Movement era: the majority view was that Africans were less than human, and undeserving of basic human rights in our country. Or take the Holocaust: millions of people died because the majority saw them as parasites and trash. However, we have also seen where majority rule has saved us from, surprisingly, holocaust and brought us closer than ever to true equality. When Adolf Hitler began his war to leave Germany the supreme powef and to create the perfect race, the majority of the world's powerhouse countries decided they didn't agree and stopped him, ending the Holocaust. And then take the Civil Rights Movement: Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. protested and risked life and limb to convince the majority to change, and to make life more equal for all. Ever since then, repressed groups have protested and made their plight heard to achieve equality. People imposing their opinions and perceptions on others has caused a great deal of bad, but it has also caused a great deal of good in this world. So what are ways we can use majority rule for good? How can we ensure it isn't used for things like the Holocaust again? Leave me some comments, I'd love to hear them! And by the way, this is just a quick look at this topic. Later,  well go through it more deeply.

Euthanasia's Dilemmas

Is euthanasia just? Or is it criminal? Euthanasia is where a person has someone help them die. It's somewhat similar to pulling the plug on a patient in need of life suppoert, except the patient decides actively when to die. The dilemmas involved deal mostly with the mental status of the recipients. Many people would agree that the laws are there to help stop people from making their last mistake. Many others, however, would question how anyone else has the right to decide that for them. Take, for example, a loved one with terminal pancreatic cancer. This loved one is almost certainly going to die, and it will be a painful one. Do they not have the right to choose to avoid it? Or must they endure a painful death because they're not seen as mentally competent in the eyes of others? Take another example: a loved one winds up comatose, diagnosed by multiple doctors with a very low chance of waking up. Traditionally, unless the patient has an order for what their wishes are, their spouse, their executor, or family decides the patient's fate, without the loved one's active consent or dissent. But why is that any better of an option than someone deciding for themselves? If the person deciding was close to the patient, they will most likely have great difficulty making a decision based in logic and reason. So I ask, how is it any different for a person in bad mental health to decide their fate? Or for a person faced with an extremely painful death to choose another path? In almost any scenario, the deciding parties will be in no mental condition to decide logically. Ultimately, it will come down to situational details, personal beliefs, and legality, but, barring that, just consider this: who has the right to decide whether or not someone may chose to die? Does it rest with the recipient? Or with others? Leave me comments with your opinion!!

Love's Conditions

Unconditional love, it's a very noble sentiment, no? However, unconditional love is still conditional. But first, let's have a look at what unconditional love love is. Unconditional is an an adjective defined as "not conditional or limited", and love is defined as "an intense feeling of deep affection." Therefore, unconditional love should be intense, limitless, feelings of conditionless, deep affection. This works fine when the person loved never changes, but that isn't realistic. In fact, it is impossible to love someone without conditions. Take, for instance, two young lovers. They are deep in love, , but one makes a mistake when the have a huge argument and cheats. How many people would honestly completely forgive their partners and and move on as if nothing had happened? Better yet, how many people are okay with their significant other in a relationship running around having sex with others? The answer is a resounding no, although I won't rule out that some may be okay with it. Now this isn't a condition for everyone, just some people. Others in open or polygamous relationships may be okay with it, but they may have other kinds of conditions, like being honest, or to take care of them when their sick, or even to always be a nice person. People often use the excuse that the other person has changed, or that their not the same person they used to be. In both cases, they did not love the person. They loved the malleable personality they had at the time. What I feel most people mean when they say unconditional love, is that they will love their significant other through anything that happens to them, not through any changes the person goes through. They'll be there through anything, as long as their significant other remains with that personality. The point is that, no matter what, there exists a condition that, if unfulfilled, would mean the end of that love.