Referring to Jeremy Su's blog (http://www.acidic-fiery-salamander.blogspot.com/) entitled "Giving Birth to Your Sister-Right or Wrong?", I would like to write a commentary.
The blog is regarding a controversial decision of a Canadian mother to donate her eggs to her daughter, who is suffering from Turner's syndrome, rendering her unable to develop eggs.
Jeremy believes that her decision to donate eggs has been unethical and believes that her decision has turned motherhood into merely conceiving and getting pregnant. To this point I may not agree. She has given her daughter a chance to give birth to a child and that alone is wonderful. It is true that giving birth to one does not make you an automatic mother, such is the case of surrogate mothers, but caring for the baby after birth as if the baby was fully yours, i believe, is one of the biggest parts of motherhood. Therefore, her actions of donating eggs does not confine motherhood to conceiving, but instead broadens its definition and does not confine the term 'mother' only to those who have a genetic child.
Another point raised by Jeremy is that the interestes of the child has not been taken fully under consideration as the child would possess reasonable messes up ties with other family members. This i would have to argree on. A child born of this method would acquire incorrect family ties. Such is this case as she and her "mother" have genetic makeup of that of a half-sister. Yet, there exist an age gap and she would grow up to know her genetic sister as 'mother'. This poses a problem when the child grows up to know her origins. The truth cannot be hidden from her throughout her lifetime.
However, I see many possibilities and benefits to this method. Just a Jeremy mentioned, this allows people cursed with such conditions to experience the miracle of childbirth and actually have a child to call your own. I believe that this method is a middle ground between having your own baby and adoption that has yet to be accepted by society as ethical and acceptable.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Virginia Tech shooting
On 16th April 2007, the world was shocked when the news of Virginia Tech massacre—the deadliest single-perpetrator mass shooting in modern US history came to their knowledge. It had killed 33 people, including the perpetrator himself, Seung-Hui Cho. He had a history of incidents at the school, including allegations of stalking, referrals to counseling, and a 2005 declaration of mental illness by a Virginia special justice. No doubt, this might be the key reason that caused the tragedy as reported by most of the mass media. However, this will not happened if he does not have weapons with him, which are the two guns he used to shot the students, professors and himself.
Although the sale of firearms to permanent residents in Virginia is legal as long as the buyer shows proof of residency, Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment. A gun in the hands of an enraged or desperate individual could be a sure recipe of disaster or tragedy. In addition, Virginia Tech has a blanket ban on possession or storage of firearms on campus. However, this policy has been challenged, how can Cho brought in the guns and no one realizes it? All this can be prevented if the school has strong security enforcement. Besides, the accessibility of firearms in US should be re-examining to as the mass shooting reminded us once again how disturbingly common guns fatalities are in the US.
When the citizenship of the shooter became known, South Koreans expressed shock and a sense of public shame. South Korea’s ambassador to the US even asked the Koreans living in America to fast for repentance in apparent reference to fears of possible reprisal attacks against Koreans in US. A minister official expressed hope that the shooting would not stir up racial prejudice or confrontation. News reports noted that South Koreans seemed relieved that American news coverage of Cho focused not on his nationality but rather on his psychological problem.
Although the sale of firearms to permanent residents in Virginia is legal as long as the buyer shows proof of residency, Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment. A gun in the hands of an enraged or desperate individual could be a sure recipe of disaster or tragedy. In addition, Virginia Tech has a blanket ban on possession or storage of firearms on campus. However, this policy has been challenged, how can Cho brought in the guns and no one realizes it? All this can be prevented if the school has strong security enforcement. Besides, the accessibility of firearms in US should be re-examining to as the mass shooting reminded us once again how disturbingly common guns fatalities are in the US.
When the citizenship of the shooter became known, South Koreans expressed shock and a sense of public shame. South Korea’s ambassador to the US even asked the Koreans living in America to fast for repentance in apparent reference to fears of possible reprisal attacks against Koreans in US. A minister official expressed hope that the shooting would not stir up racial prejudice or confrontation. News reports noted that South Koreans seemed relieved that American news coverage of Cho focused not on his nationality but rather on his psychological problem.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Poverty
I believe that poverty may never be eliminated.
Referring to Sarup, he believes that a country with an unfavourable geography, or culture, or economy or polity is severely handicapped to make sufficient technological advances that increase the wealth and living standards of its people. In his example, he states that a poor country may import technology from others as poor countries are incapable of developing their own tech. Yet, acquisition of tech costs a lot, far more than a poor country can afford. Thus, a country in poverty will be trapped in a vicious cycle where they can acquire neither of the required resources. This is particularly true in countries that have a handicap in the first place. They either have insufficient natural resources, or are unable to produce products of significant value for trade. There is no available way to generate a higher income per capita without having enough money to start with. Even with aid, it would be difficult for countries to push out of the cycle, and this is proven by the condition of the world as it is now.
Sachs believes that poverty can be removed completely if a step by step approach is taken, such as that of providing mosquito nets in an attempt to stop malaria.
In my opinion it is a worthy solution worth contemplating but poverty is far too wide spread to stop in such a short time. Not all countries face malaria as a problem and providing such aid may do little to alleviate their condition. Furthermore, he points out that few countries actually do as they promise in aiding poor countries, however little the amount. Poverty is something to be eradicated over period of time. Consistent aid must be given until a country breaks free from the cycle of poverty.
I believe that there will always be poverty just as there are smart and less intelligent people. It is somewhat important that there is a balance of the rich and poor. However, we should always try to help the poor when we can.
Referring to Sarup, he believes that a country with an unfavourable geography, or culture, or economy or polity is severely handicapped to make sufficient technological advances that increase the wealth and living standards of its people. In his example, he states that a poor country may import technology from others as poor countries are incapable of developing their own tech. Yet, acquisition of tech costs a lot, far more than a poor country can afford. Thus, a country in poverty will be trapped in a vicious cycle where they can acquire neither of the required resources. This is particularly true in countries that have a handicap in the first place. They either have insufficient natural resources, or are unable to produce products of significant value for trade. There is no available way to generate a higher income per capita without having enough money to start with. Even with aid, it would be difficult for countries to push out of the cycle, and this is proven by the condition of the world as it is now.
Sachs believes that poverty can be removed completely if a step by step approach is taken, such as that of providing mosquito nets in an attempt to stop malaria.
In my opinion it is a worthy solution worth contemplating but poverty is far too wide spread to stop in such a short time. Not all countries face malaria as a problem and providing such aid may do little to alleviate their condition. Furthermore, he points out that few countries actually do as they promise in aiding poor countries, however little the amount. Poverty is something to be eradicated over period of time. Consistent aid must be given until a country breaks free from the cycle of poverty.
I believe that there will always be poverty just as there are smart and less intelligent people. It is somewhat important that there is a balance of the rich and poor. However, we should always try to help the poor when we can.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Capital punishment
After reading both articles and giving this issue some thought, i would have to be for the death penalty. Both authors gave some interesting points worth considering but Becker's arguments stood better.
Becker was on the dot regarding the point that arguments on this issue revolve around deterrence. He states that taking one's lives is considered very wrong, even if that person may be a murderer, however, if the action of killing may save more lives in return for one, then it can be justified. Through his examples, he has proven that the death penalty is considerably terrifying and serves well as a deterrent. More often than not, murder victim are socially more valuable than murderers and if killing one may deter few others from attempting murder, then that is the way to go. Through his article, i feel that capital punishment when matched with the severity of the crime and implemented properly, serves as an effective measure in deterring murder. The death penalty is something horrendous, but i see no reason in removing it as it is capable of stopping murder. I choose the lesser of two evils.
Cassese states in his article points for and against capital punishment but he himself believes that the death penalty goes againsts human rights. In his article, he mentions that even if death penalties were to be abolished, much action must be taken along with it. He believes that inhuman living condition along with poor treatment in prisons is no better than being sent to the gallows and these should be changed. Which brings me to my point; Imprisonment and capital punishment are supposed to be deter one from committing crime. If criminals are not to be subjected to the death penalty and what awaits them is a prison which fervently defends their rights, i myself see no deterrance to committing a crime. Criminals could commit crimes, and treat imprisonment as a small price to pay for being caught. One might even attempt crime right after release knowing that only imprisonment awaits them.
Becker was on the dot regarding the point that arguments on this issue revolve around deterrence. He states that taking one's lives is considered very wrong, even if that person may be a murderer, however, if the action of killing may save more lives in return for one, then it can be justified. Through his examples, he has proven that the death penalty is considerably terrifying and serves well as a deterrent. More often than not, murder victim are socially more valuable than murderers and if killing one may deter few others from attempting murder, then that is the way to go. Through his article, i feel that capital punishment when matched with the severity of the crime and implemented properly, serves as an effective measure in deterring murder. The death penalty is something horrendous, but i see no reason in removing it as it is capable of stopping murder. I choose the lesser of two evils.
Cassese states in his article points for and against capital punishment but he himself believes that the death penalty goes againsts human rights. In his article, he mentions that even if death penalties were to be abolished, much action must be taken along with it. He believes that inhuman living condition along with poor treatment in prisons is no better than being sent to the gallows and these should be changed. Which brings me to my point; Imprisonment and capital punishment are supposed to be deter one from committing crime. If criminals are not to be subjected to the death penalty and what awaits them is a prison which fervently defends their rights, i myself see no deterrance to committing a crime. Criminals could commit crimes, and treat imprisonment as a small price to pay for being caught. One might even attempt crime right after release knowing that only imprisonment awaits them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)