Friday, February 6, 2015
Being Civil Is Overrated!
Think of a contemporary issue that some people in our society regard as justification for civil disobedience. Then write an editorial for a newspaper or online news organization in which you explain your position of the use of civil disobedience to protest that issue. Use appropriate evidence from your reading, experience or observations to support your argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The death sentence is an extremely controversial topic that is often avoided in conversations due to the pure uncertainty that goes along with crime and punishment in today's society. Some believe that they are harming the country by protesting this law, but in reality, it is okay to protest when the law is at fault. Different people have different beliefs, but according to The Guardian magazine, 1,624 people have been sentenced to death since 1976, which is is an unbelievable statistic.
ReplyDeleteThoreau once said that men must go against the unjust laws, even if it is risky. Going against the death penalty is a justifiable case of civil disobedience because humans are nowhere near being perfect. Some crimes today are ridiculous and harmful, but one must take into consideration the environment in which the offender grew up in and also how mentally stable they are. One should not be punished with death because they have a disorder and need help. In this case, it is the job of the fellow Americans to punish the offender with jail time and labor. It is no better to kill a guilty man than if they committed a crime because the punisher would then, too, be creating a crime. The only difference Between committing a crime for murder and the death sentence is that a select few others "okayed" the death.
A man by the name of Troy Leon Gregg was sentenced to death after being accused of armed robbery and murder. In an act of cowardice, this country killed him and ran away from the problem. This needs to be stopped so that the man could get help and learn why what he did was bad, and this can only happen if he is alive. It is the duty of an individual to save his countrymen and help them heal on earth.
Like every other citizen, the government is not infallible. It is okay to protest the laws on which they made mistakes. Protesting works up the government, even if it cannot be seen. In reality, people do not like to be incorrect, but it is important to exercise the right to be an American- the right to say what is really okay.
Grace, I agree with you on most points you made. Many people who commit crimes are not mentally stable and would not commit these crimes if they were. These people should not have to face death of this is the case. However, there are people who are perfectly stable that commit heinous acts more than once. Take a serial rapist or murderer for example. They have caused so much pain and suffering and have committed these disturbing acts on people more than once. I think that something as extreme as the death penalty maybe fitting of this. If these individuals have committed these crimes more than once there isn't really any way to change their thinking. This is just my opinion. However, "small" crimes such robbery and things of this sort should not be met with the death penalty and these individuals should be given help.
DeleteGrace, I beleive that the death sentance is a terrible idea on how to handle a criminal. Say the criminal murdered civilians. How is it right that we know death isn't right but then take the situation and end it by killing the person? It's like murdering a murderer which is murder. Which completely makes sense.
DeleteIt seems that the current focus in schools these days is not what children are learning, but rather what they are eating. It is very obvious in regards to this matter that educational systems are pushed to promote body image instead of true learning and character building. Most people have seen the videos put out by the First Lady encouraging healthy eating and the endless commercials about fighting obesity and encouraging fruits and vegetables. However, I believe that this is only propaganda used by the government to promote their ideal of a “healthy” government. This only speaks towards the current dilemma in society today where success is not based on your knowledge, only your pants size. It disturbs me that children are so controlled everyday at school about what they are able to eat and that they are already experiencing this notion that being skinny is everything.
ReplyDeleteIn our own school, there are a few times that we are not freely able to choose what we want to eat. I know that the school store has a policy against purchasing foods before a certain time, due to government laws. Personally, I think this is a little ridiculous because what difference does setting a time limit make? It is only an inconvenience and a burden which leaves a lot of students going to practices or games without anything to eat or drink. As of late, I have heard of several accounts where we are not allowed to have the foods we had in the past due to these new regulations. I love history, and the last time I remember learning about government duties, I don’t recall one of them being America’s personal dietician.
The biggest problem that I have with these new food and obesity regulations is that they give young children such a terrible idea of themselves. Children have such a tough time already trying to fit in and be accepting of themselves, yet they have this constant voice overhead telling them that they are not perfect. I know that even when I was in elementary school I would receive a letter saying that I was overweight. That's a great way to boost a child's self-confidence. Even my younger brother who is much taller than I am and doesn't even weight over a hundred pounds receives letters saying that he is overweight. Yet our doctor says we are perfectly healthy. A child should not be taught at such a young age to hate their bodies. God made each person exactly how He wanted us and as long as we are healthy, what does it matter what we look like? It is utterly repulsive that the government takes the opportunity to pass regulations about what a child can eat and put its main focus on this issue. Don't they have more important issues to take care of? And what may be the correct diet and portion size for one child may not be the same for another. The government must cease with these ridiculous regulations managing our everyday and personal affairs such as our diet. Maybe the emphasis should be taken away from America’s diet and focused more on improving the world and striving for peace.
It is perfectly fine to protest ridiculous regulations. For my John Stossel essay, I wrote about this topic and was disgusted to see in my research how much food children were throwing away. It is sad to see this, and I love the quote by the Pope that used to hang above the garbage cans at school that said something along the lines of "throwing away food is like stealing from the plates of the poor." Is it really this important to regulate foods to this extent? Personally, I love the school lunches and think that they are all great, wether or not they are actually good for me. Other people, however, do not feel this way and throw away food everyday but if they did not, they would have to pay extra money. I do not understand the reasoning behind this regulation, but I do like what you said about a "healthy government." The First Lady is supposed to make a change and Michele Obama is focusing on the wrong type of change. Students are stressed and do not need to have a bad self-esteem on top of that. Many people complain about this, but it is time to protest.
DeleteI think that the school stores regulations are ridiculous. They should serve healthy food that should be accessible during all school hours. I think that how the government describes "healthy" is also horrible. Since BMI uses only weight, if you weight so much, you are considered obese. It does not take height or muscle into account. So, even if you are very muscular, you will still be considered obese by government standards. Its is stupid to think like that, and it should definitely be protested! Maybe Michelle Obama should be more worried about promoting health self-esteem instead of school lunches.
DeleteAbbey, this is perfect. As Grace stated, it is disturbing to think of how much food kids are throwing away every day because of the regulations that are in order. By making an effort to show what what is "acceptable" to eat in school, the government is indirectly stating that we need to be worried about the size of our waist rather than the size of our brains. It is such a worry that everyone in a school is unhealthy that sometimes they overlook that kids in that school read on a 7th grade level as a sophomore (this is just hypothetical). Also, another thought is that Michelle Obama shoving healthy food down our throats, dancing with veggies,and stating that her favorite food is a sweet potato does not make me want to be healthy, it makes me want to punch her.
DeleteI understand the goal of these health regulations, which is to promote healthy eating among students. However, I also believe that there are limitations that need to be understood by the government in regards to control of our food. Like you said, schools are ceasing to allow any sort of food deemed "unhealthy" to be distributed, and I think that this is absurd. For one thing, controlling what a student consumes during the school day really has no impact over their health in general. For instance, a student could eat a salad for lunch at school, but come home and have half of a bacon pizza for dinner. Obviously, the school has no control over this. For this reason, I think that eating healthy should certainly be encouraged among students, but not forced. There is a fine line between distributing a single dessert to students along with a healthy lunch, and making the entire menu sugar-free.
DeleteIn Hong Kong, there are currently people protesting the way Mighty Beijing has decided to let them elect their representative and leader. Hong Kong used to be ruled by Britain, and if you went their, it is clear Hong Kong is Britania's daughter. Hong Kong loves economics, global trade, and seaports. This allows Himg Kong to gain large amounts of money. Sounds great! But Britain's lease on Hong Kong ran out in the 90s and the United Nations felt like there should be no more global empires. So China got control of Hong Kong but promised the people who were used to freedom and capitalism that they would leave them alone for 50 years. China has basically kept their promise. Hong Kong has been rather successful and they appeared to be doing great. But then elections came up. They were guarenteed by Beijing that they would be able to vote democratically for their leaders. They are going to be able to vote. Beijing did not go back on its promise. They did however, deceive them because Beijing is picking the people who are allowed to run. This really angered everyone because they feel like Beijing is trying to fully absorb them and make them fully a part of China. So...now we are in the present day and people are actively protesting this. Henry David Thoreu said that it is a man's civil duty to disobey unjust laws. This may not be a law, but Thoreu's words still do apply. The people of Hong Kong are doing the right thing because they should not just submit to oppressive Beijing. When people submit to oppressive governments, that's when tyranny reigns supreme. I hope the people succeed in their efforts and can vote for whomever they want to vote for.
ReplyDeleteVoting is supposed to be a freedom that allows a governed people to ensure their government is acceptable for their way of life. The candidates for government leaders come from citizens, and are chosen from the political parties' best leaders. In this way, the people effectively govern themselves. For another entity besides the people to chose their governmental candidates disrupts the freedom of voting. An outside entity cannot pick the best candidates for government positions simply because they are not a part of the governed people. They can look at qualifications and attempt to pick good leaders, but they will not have the same perceptions as those who are being governed. On the other hand, an outside entity can attempt to pick a leader that would support them, but may not necessarily be a good leader for the people. In either of these instances, voting has lost its most essential quality: the power of choice.
DeleteBullying is a problem many schools are seeing in and outside of school. This act can start as early as Elementary school and go on till death. With students in Elementary school, the problem with bullying usually gets taken care of quickly because many teachers look for the early signs of bullying. Some of these signs for children who are being bullied is loss of friends, feeling ill constantly, and declining grades. Teachers can also recognize the bully by looking for signs like blaming others for their problem, and being aggressive. Looking for the early signs of bullying is an easy way to stop a lot of the problem before it gets to far out of hand.
ReplyDeleteBullying is a terrible process that only makes the victim stronger and the bully weaker. I would know because of my experiences I had with bullying. I turned out to the point that I could no longer be friends with a group of girls because they were just downright nasty to me. All of my friends at public school were guys in middle school. Honestly, I after I ditched the drama queens, my year turned out to be better than I thought it was going to be. The boys made me feel stronger and protected when the girls would spread rumors about me. I never truly found the reason to why those girls bullied me. To this day, I refuse to talk to them and show then just how much better I am without them. Some of them still try to talk to me, and I am nice back, I just still cannot find the courage to ask them why.
The last with bullying he helped me by not letting others thoughts bother mine, and by confronting people when they do have something to say about me. I learned this changes the whole concept of bullying around I turn out to be not as small as they thought I was. I also have been able to help others be able to come over and face their fears and stand up to their bullies. Since I transferred to ECC, I can say that there is no bulling compared to a public school. No one will truly understand that until they have been in a public and a catholic school. The difference between the two is very different.
The thing about bullying is that many say they are against it, but somehow it still slips though their finger tips. This could be compared to Thoreau's thoughts comparing the people to a standing army because they state what they want to change but do not put it into action. There are many movements out there that are a standing army when they could be a fighting one. In order to change that, people like me who have been bullied in the past need to take a stand together to show that we made it though the harsh remarks and turned into a stronger and better person. This will help the victims now being bullied know that they are not alone.
Isn't that the truth! I have to agree with you that you do not know the difference until you have been at both schools. At public, they were really good at ignoring people and knowing how to make you feel like you are nothing. At ECC, I have not experienced any bulling as well. People here are so much nicer to you. Like Thoreau, so people say how bad it is for people to be bullied, but they do nothing about it. Its sad, but at least people at ECC do not bully like the public school kids do.
DeleteNo one has any clue as to what goes on in a public school as opposed to a catholic school. Do not get me wrong, ECC has its fair share of drama, but here it is a family. Your friends honestly become the people who would throw down for you the moment you start crying. At public school, you fend for yourself and talk to a total of four people to be safe. The contrast is so different, but I feel that refreshment in change that you felt.
DeleteI think that education is a controversial topic. So many people have their own ideas on what students should learn as they go through school. All of these ideas are mandated by the government, especially the common core. They believe that children should know everything they put on these math and reading tests, and get around a 1400 to be consider proficient, and a 1600 to be advanced. But who are they to tell teachers exactly what they should be teaching students?They are not teachers, and how many of them are truly involved in their child's education? Oh, if their students don't get the above mentioned scores, they get fired. But, as Dr. Pam told us many times, a teacher can only lead students to the information, not force them to learn it. That, they have to do for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThoreau himself knows that men really aren't bad, but their is something about the government that changes them. I think that when one man has an idea, the other men in the government have to agree with it. So, if the secretary of education has an idea on how to standardize education, then the rest agree with it, even if they really don't. Some teachers are great, but they can't force children to learn. I'm sure Thoreau would agree with that statement, and know that is one business the government should keep their nose out of. If students are getting into universities and are successful, then what does it matter? After all, that is the goal of education, right? Or should I say used to be....
Olivia, the comparisons you made to education and government really relate to Thoreau as you mentioned. The people follow one's opinion rather than their own, where is their freedom to decide. Many people in this world are afraid to speak their voice because of the consequences that may occur as a result. But who is to say there will be consequences because their is more than likely someone else that feels they same, or does not think that the original opinion is wrong. There are many faults with in the education system, and many of the people are aware, but no one stands out to make the change.
DeleteOlivia, the government does not seem to understand that public education doesn't work. Consistently, private schools test scores rank better than public schools. Test scores don't tell the whole story though. There is knowledge beyond math, reading, and comprehension. There is common sense. I feel that people in private school have a lot more common sense than people in public.malthough this can be debated as I feel no one truly uses common sense. Also, I feel that private school is just so much safer than public school. Do we actually ever fear that a fight will break out? No...not really. There are some inconsiderate jerks who I absolutely despise, but I feel that everybody is safe. But education is a very touchy subject that will be debated for a long time to come.
DeleteHow often do we, as teenagers, go onto social media and see an image of war or someone that is starving and think that this world is absolutely awful. This is an example of how the media plays mind games that end up changing our perspective, not only on one topic, but on life itself. An example can be found with the recent situation in Ferguson, Missouri where a black teenager was shot and killed by a white police officer. I can remember for days seeing images of riots and police officers beating people coming across my Twitter feed. I was so disappointed in the world and the idea that people could be so cruel. However, I watch the news every morning and I saw that the people of Ferguson had started a a hashtag on Twitter, or a tag, called 'Why We Loved Ferguson' and it contained images pertaining to what the kids of the town did in school, people cleaning up streets after riots, and so on. Also, I was able to see images of Police officers helping people cross the streets, buying formula for struggling mothers, and giving out gifts on Christmas. That day I learned something: a whole town cannot be summarized in a few rioters and a whole organization can not be summarized by a few officers.
ReplyDeleteNow, if you sided with one idea over the other in that situation, do not feel bad. For you are only a victim of what the media has displayed to you and you most likely did not know any better. Social media is not always correct, the news is not always correct, there is always going to be something that we do not know. However, it is up to us, as the American society, to make the change and open our eyes to all the possibilities, rather than to what is just displayed to us.
Jenna, I agree with you, the media truely does alter your vision on the topic at hand. When ever I see something on the news, I look for many of the other sources that are covering the topic as well in order to see the differences and similarities between them. Sometimes I see many stories that are the same while others are completely differnt. I just think it is horrible when someone has a view on a topic when they do not know the actual story that took place. This puts me on edge becuase they really don't know what truely is happening. The media just plays a huge role in topics when it is not needed.
DeleteJenna, I agree with you on social media. Social media has away that alters events in a sense that these events being shown are most likely not true. The example you chose shows that even though a horrific event occurred, people helped and assisted those effected. But, it seems as if these moments of good deed are not shown as often as they should. The media feels a need to focus on tragic events to grab the viewers. They believe that people want to see the areas of struggle rather than areas of success and prosperity. Now I am not saying that they should not show events such as this, but I believe that they should also show events to enlighten the people.
DeleteJenna, I agree. The media plays tricks and bends news until it is a borderline lie. Well lie is not a good word...just unhelpful. The world would be a lot better if we could see all the good in the world. The news about war, death, and Kim kardashian make money though. Happy stories do not. So the media will continue to twist what we hear and filter out things they find unimportant. And also, who runs the media. The democrats control most of the media. So if you just listen to the news, you will always get a democratic picture of what they want you to hear. This seems unfair, people should be able to hear things from both parties. I digress. My political mantra will have to wait for another time. But people should just be careful what they hear. It may not always be what it seems. Just pull back the veil.
DeleteJenna, I do agree with you. Many times we are so focused on the headlining news, that we forget to look at more stories or beyond what is currently in front of us. What happened in Ferguson was downright atrocious with many people getting their cars and buildings burned, objects thrown at them, and their businesses looted. In the midst of their civil disobedience, they forgot they needed to not forsake other members of the community. They caused damage to each other which weakened their cause. This media portrayal of negative events cause people to buy into an idea that the world is bad, but in reality there is much good left. Sure, there are people endangering children, shooting up, and killing people, but there are also people buying homeless people meals, donating to charities, helping animals, and even doing small things like helping an old lady across the street.
DeleteEuthanasia is common among other countries, but now it has landed its issues in the United State of America. Forty-five out of fifty states have legalized this assisted suicide. Before we know it this immoral concern will spread and influence other states. Euthanasia is assisted suicide and is believe to help end suffering in those who have health concerns such as cancer, aids, or have been involved in a severe accident. This type of suicide involves injections and prescriptions to peacefully end the life of those who are suffering. Suicide, none the less, is wrong and immoral, so why is it right to assist in this unjust action? These acts should not be followed through and deep down those who preform, fund, and support this procedure no this as well. Jack Kevorkian, euthanasia activist was one of the first people use civil disobedience to preform assisted suicide. He committed dozens of euthanasia procedures and was jailed for nine years. His civil disobedience was in fact for a purpose and slowly broke the governments opinion on Euthanasia, as of now five states are legalized.
ReplyDeleteThoreau discusses in his writing that government will continue to rule and persuade the people unless we make a stand. The people have the power to make a change, but many do not because they fear the consequences. The examples used in Thoreau's writing are generally changes for the better and have influenced many later reforms and people such as Martin Luther King Jr. However, as the Kevorkian shows as an example for Thoreau's writing, the cause of his change is not for the better, in the eyes of most people. People will say that the only way to understand is to be in the situation. Just as in the issue of abortion, even though it seems to be the only option or the event that has to be done, it is wrong and it is homicide. People make a stand against the issue of euthanasia, but they are following the idea of government and the people. Thoreau also discusses that each individual state has their rights and if the people to try to change another state of the country as a whole they have to start small. I believe that we the people with the right to civil disobedience should approach these five states with this mentality. Start small with each individual state and then bring the issue on a larger playing field, the government as a whole. This is how the country can effectively end the horrors of euthanasia.
As you said, Sydney, people are afraid to stand up for what they believe. Obviously some people believe euthanasia is okay because it is legal, but we have to remember that there are many others who do not agree with assisting others in their suicide missions. These people have not stood strong enough in their argument to persuade the government but there is no reason to back down in fear. We need courageous people to start the movement. Not only in this level of civil disobedience, but in the local and personal levels do we see this fear. In class, we wrote thesis statements to make Dr. Pam happy all of the time when in reality, we did not believe what we were writing. Also, I know I am guilty of writing on the opposing side of the argument because I knew I could write a better paper and get a better grade. All of these aspects in life are obstacles that we have to be strong enough to let go of and do what is correct.
DeleteIt is truly remarkable that issues such as this are still being permitted to be carried out. Euthanasia, as you mentioned, is a crime very similar to murder. It degrades the very value of human life, and therefore, is quite obviously an injustice. Why then, do some individuals make absurd claims supporting such a horrific act? It really makes you wonder what is going through the minds of those who permit actions such as this to take place. Euthanasia is murder, and I agree that it is an issue well worth protesting.
DeleteIt is hard to understand the actions some people take. They seem to act without considering facts, consequences, or responsibilities. They feel that because they have certain freedoms, they can use them in any way that they want. Jack Kevorkian seems to be one of these people. He abused his ability of civil disobedience, standing up for an issue that was morally wrong. Thoreau does not describe civil disobedience as merely changing the law, he describes it as changing the law for the better. Euthanasia is the process of helping someone end their own life. Two people decide to end someone's life. Murder conspiracy is when two people decide to end someone's life. These two actions seem remarkably similar. However, one is legal and the other is not. How can this be? It is illogical to allow these different kinds of murder to have different legalities. Assisting someone's attempt to end their life is not a morally acceptable act, and cannot be condoned by attributing it to civil disobedience.
DeleteSydney, I want you to think about this; lets just say that you only have two months to live, you are going to be in excruciating pain for the remainder of your life, and your family and friends are going to have to watch you suffer tremendously until your death. Are you saying that it is wrong for me to give you the opportunity to end it now?
DeleteI understand where you are coming from, but does anyone have the right to prevent you from doing what you believe. If the government allows abortion, which is the killing of an unborn child, why should they not allow someone who is in excruciating pain the opportunity to end their own suffering? If the government says that you can already kill a baby, then why should you not be able to end your own life?
Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Susan B. Anthony. Emmeline Pankhurst. Each of these historical women, plus many many more, are famous for being involved in the early days of the feminist movement. And yes, I say the early days because this battle has not yet been won. Years and years after the remarkable actions of these strong-willed women, modern women have yet to be granted rights equal to men.
ReplyDeleteAs a woman, refusing to identify as a feminist simply does not make sense. Women from around the world are speaking out against the inequality that is evidently seen between men and women. Protests, rallies, and movements are being held daily, in hopes that every individual will someday come to understand the injustices against women taking place each and every day.
One of the arguments that feminists put forth is the standards that women are expected to meet in order to be considered a "women." Skinny legs, perfect cheekbones, and long silky hair are only a few physical elements that women are evidently supposed to encompass in order to be pleasing to society. Of course, this is obviously to be ridiculed, for no two women are the same, and expecting millions of women to conform to a certain standard is ludicrous. Women everywhere are speaking out against these impossible expectations, giving life to the feminist movement as it attempts once again to leave the ground.
Another pressing argument among feminists is the fact that in many places, men and women are not being paid equal amounts for the same work. It has been many years since women have fought for equal pay, and those inspiring individuals have been noted and studied many times over. But how is it that our world has yet to impose these rights in some areas of the world? How is it that in some places, women are paid a significant amount less than men, and this matter has yet to be corrected?
A final and very controversial matter proposed by feminists is rape. It is very evident in our world that rape is a crime, and is in no way justifiable. However, there are indeed individuals who dare to justify rape by claiming that the woman was "asking for it" because of the "provocative" way in which she was dressed. This absurdly pigheaded remark is being combatted by feminists with full opposition. One of the main arguments proposed by feminists deals with rape, and the fact that women who are raped are the victim, and in no way are to blame for this cruel and unjust act.
But I have come to realize the real reason that some men and women are refusing to get involved in such an ambitious movement is due to the fact that they believe the movement is "anti-men." The very definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men" (Google). In no part of that definition is it stated that feminism attempts to undermine men, to consider them inferior, or to overtake them. Rather, feminists work to achieve equality for both men and women. For this reason, men should be welcomed and encouraged to join the feminist movement just as much as women. It is not simply a problem for women. Indeed, women should be allowed to have a body that is strong and muscly without feeling as though they've abandoned the small, dainty physique that in some twisted way "defines a woman." But likewise, men should be allowed to express their emotions without feeling as though each teardrop signifies another piece of their "manhood" gone. It is time that issues such as these are confronted full on, in order that men and women feel comforted knowing that they are accepted in this world not for who they should be, but for who they truly are.
And so, it is with full support that I present to you the protests held by the highly ambitious feminists. In some cases, choosing to speak out against injustice is commended. Feminism, I am happy to concur, is one of them.
Vaccinations are important medical procedures that can help save lives. Many children receive vaccines before they enter school in order to protect them from common diseases. However, some members of society feel that vaccinations are an unimportant or even dangerous process that would be better left unperformed. Their feels stem from exaggerated rumors, and lead them to take adverse actions that can affect many people.
ReplyDeleteNatural immunity is one of the major reasons vaccinations are held in contempt. Opponents of vaccinations say that the immune systems of children provide them with better protection than a shot. Children's immune systems do provide them with an amazing degree of protection from disease, but some diseases are strong enough to surpass this system. Giving children vaccines strengthens their own immune system for the times when it must fight off one of these diseases.
Another reason people forgo vaccinations is their belief that vaccines contain toxins that can cause deadly side effects. Vaccines do include ingredients that would be harmful in large amounts, but do not contain these substances in such quantities. Vaccines can have side effects such as anaphylaxis, a deadly allergic reaction, but these only have a one in a million chance of occurring according to the CDC. In addition, vaccines do not cause illnesses such as autism, diabetes, or asthma.
Many people who are against vaccinations say that the diseases they ward off have been "eradicated." This belief would contend that these diseases no longer existed, which sadly is not true. Many fatal illnesses such as polio, measles, and diphtheria are simply prevented due to vaccinations. However, these diseases still exist and can be found in underdeveloped countries. The grain of truth from which this false belief stems is smallpox. Smallpox has been truly eradicated by vaccines, and no longer exists anywhere in the world. Because of this, the vaccine for this disease is no longer given. The vaccines given today counter diseases that do exist, and provide people with an unparalleled protection.
The effects of forgoing vaccination can be seen in the California measles outbreak. Due to the highly contagious nature of the measles virus, those who were not vaccinated were easy targets for the disease. According the California Department of Public Health, there have been one hundred three confirmed cases of measles. The fever, cough, pink eye, and rash are highly preventable through the use of vaccines.
When people make uninformed decisions about actions that have the power to affect their lives, they abuse their right to civil disobedience. Thoreau remarks in "Civil Disobedience," that he "came into this world, ... to live in it, be it good or bad." Living in the world gives everyone a responsibility to themselves and others who live with them. While they have the right to make their own decisions, endangering their health and that of their fellow citizens is an extremely dangerous action.
I know of the problem of which you speak. I have seen the news about the new law that is being considered about making parents get their children vaccinated. My question to you, Ashley, would be; “does the government really have a right to create a law that requires parents to have their children vaccinated?” There are many pros and cons to a law that would require children to be vaccinated in order to leave the premises of their home, but does the government have a constitutional right to physically make parents vaccinate their children? I believe the issue should be not to force the parents to get the child vaccinated but to educate people to the point that they understand that it is better to get their child vaccinated. People are not educated enough so this is why they are not really getting their children vaccinated, hence the outbreak of measles in the U.S.
DeleteOther than that, is the problem that we don’t make it easy enough to get vaccinated? Should it be easier for the parents to get their child vaccinated? Schools take time out of the day to take pictures, go to pep rallies, go to church, so why don’t schools take time out of the day to get the children vaccinated? Should the new law be instead of having parents required to get their children vaccinated that the school provide the vaccination for them?
I have already asked whether it should be against the government’s constitutional right to pass this law, but is it also their right to keep a child from being educated if the child is not vaccinated. So another question is “Is it against my constitutional right to have my child vaccinated, and if so then is it also against my constitutional rights to have my child excluded from the educational system because they are not vaccinated?”
I don’t believe that the government should get to the point where they have to force people to get their children vaccinated; instead they should be educating them so they know vaccinating them is the right choice to make.
P.S. I apologize for the random incoherentness of this reply... my dad just would not shut up and he made me type a bunch of random points... so thanks.
DeleteAshley, I have experienced with issue firsthand. I get all of my vaccines that are required for school and that prevent extreme diseases. However, when I was younger I would receive my flu shot regularly but it seemed like I would get the flu to an extreme degree even though I was getting the vaccine. One year we decided to forego the vaccine and none of my family members got sick. Since then we have not gotten our flu shot. Another experience with this is the Gardasil vaccine. My mother refused to have me vaccinated with this and it seemed like the doctor was forcing us to get it. I do not think that the government has a right to tell us what we have to put in our bodies as long as we are not directly endangering other people. I think that vaccines for mumps, measles, and diseases of that sort should be mandatory but others should be up to the decision of the individual.
DeleteI agree, Ashley, there seems to be a huge discrepancy on the health benefits of vaccinations. I am employed as a nutritional aide at Pinecrest Manor. Since I am working in a long term health facility, I am required to get a flu shot annually, although I opt for the mist to be shot up my nose because shots hurt. Recently when I was getting acrylic nails, the lady doing my manicure was telling me how she does not believe in flu shots and how they are a trick by the government to kill people. I was pretty shocked at her theory. It seems since the contents of vaccinations are beyond the knowledge or the average human being, no one really knows how it benefits. I personally will stop getting flu vaccinations when I terminate my employment at Pinecrest just because I find it frivolous to have fluid shots up my nose. I do not like the taste it leaves, and I refuse to have needles because I have very sensitive skin, but I so believe deadly and more serious illnesses need vaccinations.
DeleteRape and sexual assault are arguably the most demoralizing, heinous crimes that can be committed. Not only do these crimes rob victims of the respect they deserve, it deteriorates their mental health and sense of safety. Many citizens fail to realize how detrimental it is to mental health and just how common this horrific crime happens. Victims are three times more likely to suffer from depression, six times more likely to be diagnosed with PTSD, thirteen times more likely to abuse alcohol, twenty-six times more likely to abuse drugs, and four times more likely to contemplate suicide. These statistics show the long term effects victims of sexual assault face. The chances of a woman in college being raped is one in four, while the chances of a woman not in college being raped are one in five. Ninety-seven percent of males guilty of raping women will be left free without incarceration.
ReplyDeleteAlthough physical injuries are common in rape cases, many people fail to realize how harmful it is due to the fact the predominant scars are on the inside where nobody can see them. The lack of visuals causes many people to overlook how harmful rape is for other crimes where there are more visible wounds. The media and many people have began to shame victims and assign them the blame. Perhaps they do not realize the immensity of the situation. Perhaps they do not realize how rape murders the victims emotionally or perhaps it is easier to disregard the occurrence of these crimes instead of challenging the way rape culture has evolved in society and working to make a change, but luckily there are citizens who have decided to put in the effort to raise awareness of the deleterious effects of sexual assault and urge society to prevent the cases of sexual assault from continuing to rise.
Rape is the most common crime to go unreported. Fifty-four percent of incidents will go unreported. A student from Columbia University has taken huge steps to draw attention to the anti-rape movement. Emma Sulkowicz is visibly carrying the weight from her sexual assault by carrying a mattress around campus. Although she reported her case of rape, he was not expelled, so she has taken it upon herself to raise awareness to the situation and pressure Columbia University to remove the student.
The Vanderbilt football team has been under scrutiny recently for a truly horrific sexual assault case. In court the defense team tried to blame the actions on the sexual nature and underage drinking on the campus, but excusing sexual assault and rape because alcohol is involved is like excusing a drunk driver from getting in an accident and killing an innocent driver. Drunk drivers getting charged for murders show that people are responsible for their actions while drunk, that is why being drunk is not an excuse to rape, and the victim being drunk is not an excuse to be raped. The alcohol content in the human does not make them any less of a human.
Perhaps one of the most controversial movies to be released this year is Fifty Shades of Grey. There is a hashtag going around "#FiftyDollarsNotFiftyDollars" to urge people to boycott the film and instead spend the money they would be spending on tickets, beverages, popcorn, and candy and donate it to an organization which supports victims of sexual violence. This movie along with porn contribute to the warped sexual vision society has become accustomed to. Women are not sexual objects and should not be portrayed as them.
Let me just start out by saying that abortion is the stupidest thing that anyone could ever come up with. I mean really people. Who has the right to take a life other than God? People somehow think that if it is unborn, then it is not a life. Well I can personally say that this is not true. Children in the womb have a heartbeat. They begin to develop body parts soon after they are conceived. So how, can someone please tell me how this unborn baby is considered to be not loving. If we're going by this logic, then everyone at one point was considered to be not living. The person reading this would not be reading this today if their mothers were not pro life. Honestly, how can one think that something that is living is not. It is like looking at a piece of white paper and saying that it is purple.
ReplyDeleteNot only is it terrible that people are aborting babies, but it's even worse that they are forcing doctors against their wills to abort them. Thanks to Obama and his lovely health care plan, it is now required that any doctor, if so asked, has to preform an abortion. Even if the doctor does not wish to perform an abortion, they still have to do it. The only other option for them would be to quit their job.
Even though abortion is in no way okay to do, there has been some justice put towards it. People are realizing how terrible it is and have begun protesting against it. There has also been corporations who refuse to have anything to do with abortion. For example, the Hobby Lobby has stated that they will not cover, in their insurance plans, any form of abortion.
Abortion is not right and personally, I think that the government should abort abortion. God should be the only one who is able to call humans to heaven. Murder is illegal, so why is abortion not?