Scam Artist? Final

Who are those people that beg for money in the median at the stoplight or outside of the coffee shop downtown? It is difficult to tell whether they are actually in need or just scam artists, pretending to be homeless as they earn their living making people feel sorry for them. Hard working citizens approach these people in different ways, usually based on past experiences, stereotypes or need for personal fulfillment. Some people give the underprivileged money and feel that they have done a good deed, others ignore the “beggars” every time without a second thought, and the remaining individuals are puzzled with what to make of the situation, much like Deborah Hefferon, author of the article, "A scam artist or person in need?"

When some people see a dingy, haggard, and presumably helpless person on the side of the highway holding a sign, they stop and give them their loose change sitting in their cup holders, believing that they are supplying the homeless individuals with funds that will be spent on necessary items such as food, water and shelter. In return, these giving people feel that they have done something inherently good and that they are making an effort to help out those less fortunate. It is important to have people like this in the world because if we didn’t, then charities and non-profit organizations that are established to help those in need would struggle to provide funds that aid in helping people.

However, others believe that the people begging at busy intersections and downtown areas are con artists. The reason for this skepticism is that some people believe that if they give a begging person the money they want, they will just turn around and spend it on booze, drugs, or cigarettes—none of which are necessary to survive. This in turn, would only add to crime and problems that take place on our nations streets, especially if the homeless are under the influence of drugs and alcohol. These skeptics who choose not to donate to the homeless, struggle to find justification in doing so because they are not guaranteed any certainty in where their hard earned dollar will end up. People with this point of view also don't want to fuel the homeless person's bad habit.

The remaining group of people in this scenario are confused. They want to help those that are less fortunate and actually do need help; however, it is the uncertainty that rests in the back of their mind that drives their decision to second guess sparing that loose change sitting in their ashtrays and cup holders. These people would have no hesitation in giving a homeless person their spare change if they were truly certain the person was homeless and was going to buy a necessary item with that money. Confused citizens find that something about these people is hard to trust. Whether it is because they don't know the homeless person or whether it is because the homeless individual doesn't have much to lose by scamming the charitable person. The confused citizens frequently ask them self, “What are they REALLY going to do with the money I give them?” “What if they turn around and buy drugs or alcohol with this money?”

This group of indecisive people who react on instinct happens to be the group that I belong to. I feel terrible about it, because I too want to do good things and help people who are less fortunate than me, but sometimes, I think that the folks sitting on the same street corners and busy intersections are pretending to be homeless because they know that people will give them money. I know there are shelters and organizations that can help the homeless get back on their feet. It is the lack of motivation and personal empowerment that sometimes plagues my mind with indecisiveness when it comes to donating my hard earned dime. Their are plenty of opportunities for these people but sometimes they just need someone to point them in the right direction.

Bloody Images is Freedom of Speech?

Imagine walking down the street with your little sister, who is five, and seeing a booth with pictures of dead fetuses covered in blood. Would you be okay with this as an approach to stop people from getting abortions? Some people take this as a great method to stopping abortions. Others think that it is offensive no matter what the conclusion is.

Some people would think that using the pictures and fetuses in jars would be effective. Reality is harsh sometimes, but they would argue that it is a method that works to make changes that need to be made. If someone feels strongly against abortion they will use anything that they feel will work. They have a freedom of speech by law in order to be allowed to do these things; this justifies in their minds that what they are doing is right. Also, showing these things in public helps reach all audiences to prevent others from having abortions in the future. One woman in particular took her 15-year-old daughter just to see the images so she would understand what happens when someone has an abortion. This shows that some people do agree with them using this form of prevention.

The second view is from people who feel like this is too harsh for everyone to see. It is not right to force this on all citizens to see instead of allowing the people to choose. It could also push people away because it is so graphic and would have an opposite effect than what they want. It is not always a good method to show things like this to stop something; it could possibly encourage them to do it even more. It is also not fair for them to force children who are too young to see bloody images. It is taken too far in some ways; one woman, who is pregnant and has two other children, said that she sat down to have a conversation with the people in charge of the protest. She said that when she went to grab lunch there were bloody images near the food. This is ridiculous that they are surrounding people who obviously agree with them by these harsh photos, what is the point. I feel they should take their energy and put it towards the people walking into the clinics instead of people going to the mall.

I don’t agree with using this method of prevention in public. They do have the freedom of speech, but at the same time they need to understand there are children who have to witness the images that are too young. I think that it should be something people going to get an abortion could see before they go in to the clinic that way it reaches people that are actually considering doing it. It is something that needs to be taken more seriously than writing it off as freedom of speech. It also pushes into the issue of would a newspaper be able to publish these images, probably not. This to me means it should not be forced upon for all citizens to see.

Mukhtaran Mai

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how this article found its way to the "Ethics question of the week" website. Mukhtaran Mai is a young woman who was raped as punishment for a crime she did not commit. She was raped because her brother had offended the neighboring tribe. She was raped, and nobody did anything about it, not even her own family members. Usually the problem with a question of ethics is that is is questionable who is in the wrong and who is in the right, but this is not the case--Mai is in the right, obviously.

Mai did not even commit a crime, as she was punished for some actions that her brother had done. For some crazy reason, the tribe felt that she deserved to be raped and defiled by the other clan members which her brother had offended. Look, I understand more traditional societies where women are expected to stay at home with children. But I don't understand a society where women are outright abused and treated like animals and whores rather than human beings. By what logic can these self-governing clans make themselves in the right by placing the blame on an innocent woman? I know what they think: make our girl look like a whore, we'll make your girl look like a whore. But, wait, the other girl from the clan was seen merely walking with Mai's brother. Shouldn't the punishment then be to, uh, make Mai walk with another boy?! Wouldn't that truly make sense? No, she must be raped in front of the entire village. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Okay, so this family and this society have been operating under these rules for a while. They don't know any better. They are ignorant fools. That's the only argument I got for them.

If we are really capable of being loving and empathetic human beings rather than brute animals, how is it that Mai's family can sit back and see her so traumatized and not support her because of fear of being "dishonored?" Especially her mother, who no doubt has suffered her own tribulations as a woman in that kind of society. I know fear rules people; this is how Hitler and Stalin and many other dictators have influenced people to act in evil ways. But I just feel like there must be something in their hearts that tells them: "Hey, you! This is wrong!"

I can do nothing but applaud Mai. Not only is she standing up against the world she was brought up in, she is also not fleeing from it because she wants to make it better. This is such a brave choice, because she would easily be supported in a place like the U.S. or in France. Even countries like ours, things are still not perfect and the scoreboard with women and men is still not equal, but it is far advanced than the village Mai is from. She is trying to make Pakistan a better place, which will be so hard and trying for her. But if anyone can do it, she is the woman that can. Hopefully the next generations won't have to fight so hard for what should be a natural right as a human being, and that is to be protected by your government whether you are male or female.

People helping other people

There used to be a time in my life when I can remember people helping other people. One instance remains vivid in my mind like it was yesterday—three stranded teenage boys took comfort in my garage, complete with sodas and snacks, while they waited for help to arrive. That was 15 years ago.Are there still people willing to offer that kind of generosity to strangers?

Today, instead of people helping other people, they’re harming them—be it financially, physically, or mentally. People these days need help more than they ever have, but unfortunately a few ungrateful people are ruining it for those truly in need.

Almost daily I see a homeless man on the same street corner. I don’t want to meet eyes with him because I don’t want to feel guilty about not doing something; I certainly don’t have any work he can do for money, and the groceries in my trunk have to last me all month. Waiting for the light to change so I can drive off in my 2001 Honda (that’s got a full tank of gas) is probably the longest three minutes of my life. I am a person who, in the eyes of this man, has the life of luxury and not because I’ve worked hard for it but because I am fortunate enough to have generous parents. However, this man is humbly standing at a busy intersection where hundreds of judgmental people pass by and he’s asking for anything to help provide himself a hot meal. Admitting you have absolutely nothing takes a lot of courage, and begging could be his last resort.

Every time I see him I’m always faced with the same decision: do I give him money or not? Sometimes it’s all I can do to feed myself if work is slow, and I just don’t have it to give. Instead of buying myself a super-sized meal at McDonald’s should I give him the extra buck and a half? Then there’s the ever-present question: “If I do give him money, how do I know it will be spent wisely?” I don’t expect him to buy a new three-piece suit with the money he’s being given, but if I was sure he was using it for food or some other essential, I would be quicker to give what I can spare.

He could very well have me fooled and not be homeless, just a very good actor who needs a few extra bucks to upgrade his iPod. Unfortunately, intuition is the probably the only way to decide if someone is homeless or not. There is only a few seconds for thought and the only information I have to base my decision on is what I see. Normally, I don’t throw money out of my car window and I don’t want to give money to someone who is just as capable of working as I am. After years of being told “money doesn’t grow on trees,” I’ve finally realized the truth in that statement and I work hard making sure bills don’t go unpaid. I work to keep myself fed, housed, and clothed, but I don’t want to work for anyone with an imagination and some free time to have an easy life.

The level of uncertainty is the reason I keep my windows up and the music loud when I see the man holding his sign on the corner. It isn’t because I don’t care or feel sorry for him, but because it’s almost impossible to trust strangers. It saddens me that people are too scared to help out someone they don’t know for fear of being taken advantage of. It wasn’t always like this, -- people used to help other people.

A Prescription For Morality?

Since its invention, the pill has come under much scrutiny. Controversies surrounding oral contraception have been in the public eye for years. Some oppose its use for personal or religious reasons, but a disturbing trend is popping up in pharmacies and emergency rooms across the nation. Should healthcare officials reserve the right to refuse birth control and emergency contraceptive to women who have obtained a prescription from their physician?

Ninety-five percent of American women will have used some form of contraception during their lifetimes, and fifty percent use prescribed birth control. Oral contraception alters hormone balances to prevent fertilization. It does not induce menstruation to prevent pregnancy- a misconception that some pharmacists are using to categorize the pill as an abortion method.

Reports of refusal have been documented since the early nineties. Some pharmacists refuse to fill these prescriptions claiming they are sinful and immoral. Conservative opinions like these are offensive but not uncommon.

Pharmacists are an important part of today’s health care industry. They are a service to the public in the distribution and education of medications we are prescribed. Pharmacists make sure our health is not at risk due to drug interactions. They are well educated professionals- but some are allowing moral obligations to come before professional obligations.

Currently, forty-six states have refusal clauses written into state legislation that allows health care professionals refuse contraceptive methods, and similar laws are being considered in Washington.

Oral contraception is not always used to prevent pregnancy. It is also used to regulate hormonal imbalances and relieve symptoms of reproductive disorders. Refusing to fill a prescription for a medical condition borders on neglect.

Refusing birth control on a professional level seems, well, unprofessional. The existence of women’s rights is something relatively new in America. We have come a long way to obtain voting, legal, and reproductive rights. Title IX was a stepping stone in a quest for equality in society. Each woman has the ability to make a personal choice regarding birth control. This decision should not be affected by others, especially those we go to for medical care.

Situations like birth control refusal seem to be taking a back seat to ‘larger’ political and social issues today. But what can be more important than the welfare of millions of Americans? The implementation of refusal clauses seems like a backtrack for women’s rights.

Works Cited
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/refusal-clauses-6544.htm

A Woman's Right To... What? Social Justice

Internationally women’s rights and freedoms are either very restricted, open, or somewhere in between. In most Western countries women have an unlimited amount of freedoms. In America when it comes to very broad issues women have the same rights as men. For example women have the right to vote, the right to choose, and they cannot be discriminated upon on the basis of sex in the workplace. In many Eastern countries women do not share similar freedoms and rights. In the Middle-East and Southern Asia women are sometimes viewed as objects and have very little freedoms and rights. There are also continents like Africa where the amount of freedom a woman has depends on the country in which she resides.

In the case of Mukhtaran Mai, a Pakistani victim of rape; she faced possibly the toughest decision in her life when she decided to become a “Susan B. Anthony” for the women of her country. In Pakistan before Mai decided to speak out for women’s rights it was perfectly legal for a woman to be raped and ostracized from her community. Being ostracized from your community means that she would have no means of visiting her family and it would lessen her chances of finding a suitable husband because being raped in Pakistan youare seen as a suspect and not the victim. Many of the women in her countryassume that it was her fault for being raped. She was raped by a gang of men because of a grudge that those men had against her brother. In countries like America where theft may be the second most committed crime; In Pakistan rape could be seen as equivalent to theft in America. In a place like Pakistan, some people will commend Mai for her bravery and courage; but then there will be many who believe that her courage is a disgrace to her family and tradition. The belief of disgrace to your family is based on age old tradition in their culture of women having no rights as to what happens to them.

Many countries around the world have commended the Pakistani government for making a partial step towards a new social justice in Southern Asia. I believe that women in Southern Asia have a long and hard fight ahead of them to change what has been tradition for many centuries. In Mai’s case she prayed and hoped that everyone would receive equal punishment. Even though only one man was convicted I believe that the little victory will motivate Mai and many other women like her to continue to fight and protest for women’s rights in her country.

I understand the government’s decision in deciding not to punish all the men on the basis of insufficient evidence; but I believe that if they truly want women to be socially equal to men (within their religious beliefs) they will need the assistance of some western countries in order to make the right changes in their laws. In the government’s decision they say there was insufficient evidence but are they considering evidence as solely physical evidence like DNA or is evidence based on witnesses, hearsay and council memberships. I believe that in a very religiously traditional country like Pakistan evidence is probably more solely based on witnesses and things of that sort.

The case was tough for me to argue because it was hard for me pick out exactly where the government stood on their decision. It seemed as if the President was on Mai’s side but the rest of the government felt differently which was showed in their decision not to convict all twelve men. At first, I thought that the government’s decision would be largely influenced by the President’s feelings but apparently it was not. I hope that in future women’s issues decisions the Pakistani government reflect on Mai’s case and work towards laws that would help them to make better decisions when it comes to women’s rights.

Helping the Homeless?

I always wonder what happened when I see that person standing there with their cardboard sign, messy hair and dirty clothes. Like others, I wonder where my money goes when contributing to a person on the street or to a charitable organization.

Many people give money to the homeless they run into on the subways and streets. They don't ask questions. You drop that dollar in the man or woman's hand, hat, cup, or guitar case and continue where you're going never thinking about it again. But I do.

If there were a way of knowing those who truly needed that dollar, this wouldn't be an issue. In my case, I'm a college student that struggles too sometimes, but luckily with a roof over my head and food to eat. This is part of the reason why I question the giving of money to those who claim to be homeless. If that homeless person is just doing this to make money and really does have a home, he doesn't deserve my money that I work hard for. It is very unfortunate for those who truly do need the help that others imitate them as an easy way to make money and continuing to sleep in their nice, warm, comfy bed at night.

There are also the cases that I have seen here in Wilmington on a night out with friends. A man in dirty clothes stops us and says, "I am going to be honest with you, I really just want a beer. Can you give me couple of dollars and help me out?" My fiance thinks that because this man was honest he should give him a five dollar bill. I do not quite feel the same way. If that man's only concern is money for a beer, he obviously has food and a warm place to sleep. Don't ask me for money for something that is not going to help you out at all.

I think that if someone wants to help the homeless they should give money to organizations that are set up to help the homeless. If the homeless that stand on the street corner asking for money really need the help, they can go to the homeless shelters and other places designed to assist them in getting their lives back on track. One of the things that really gets me is when you see a "homeless" person with the sign saying, "Homeless. Will work for food," when they are standing in front of a Wendy's or Burger King. Fast food is always hiring. Stop being lazy and put forth the effort to make your life better.

I like to help the unfortunate whenever possible, just like others do. It's just hard to give money to people who instead of trying to do something for themselves, sit or stand around waiting for a handout. There are places everywhere that can help and that have the money the homeless are asking for to help.

Anonymity

Conception. The most natural process in the world. What some think is the very reason we’re put on this earth—to create life. But how much are we responsible for the lives we create after their conception? This is the question facing many sperm donors today.

It’s hard to believe something as natural and simple as conception could be so complicated. But it’s gotten to that point. The word “conception” brings to mind things like birth control, the morning after pill, abortion, adoption, invitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and sperm donation. The last one is an especially hot topic today, because donors are beginning to lose their right to anonymity.

Laws are currently in the works to protect the rights of the children being born from sperm donations instead of protecting the donors as they have in the past. This law would ensure that donors from this point forward are required to sign over their right to anonymity—ensuring that the children are able to find their biological parent when they’re ready to do so.

Should someone donating sperm have more rights than the child that is conceived as a result of that donation? You might argue yes. These men donated sperm because they wanted couples that were unable to have children together to at least be able to go through the child-bearing process together. They wanted single mother’s to have the same joys of creating life as any other woman. They deserve their privacy if they want it. Maybe you’d argue that the mother—or parents—knew when they chose a donor, that there would be no contact, and they made the decision anyway.

Or maybe you think that the child has every right in the world to know who their father is, regardless of anonymity rights. Those children had no choice in the way they were conceived—it was a decision made without their consent, and at the age of eighteen they have the right to know their complete parentage. Besides, those men didn’t exactly make the charitable donation that’s painted in the title “sperm donor.” They were paid. If they can accept money for something that easily, then they ought to be prepared for the consequences down the road.

I would have to agree with the latter group of people. I don’t think all sperm donors are that admirable. Granted, some of the men donating are probably genuinely trying to help people who can’t get pregnant without a donor. But let’s face it, money talks in today’s society.

And the parents that participate in conceiving a child in this manner have choices. If they never tell their child how they were conceived, anonymity of the donor will never be an issue. But if the parents do tell their child about the sperm donor, then at the age of eighteen, what rights do they have to stop that child from finding out about their biological father?

I really believe that a child, eighteen or even younger, has the right to know their biological history—especially when the only thing stopping them from knowing that information is a grown man who casually signed over some bodily fluid for spending money. At the age of eighteen, there is no chance of financial obligations, so the donors have nothing to lose. If the donors are that concerned with secrecy, maybe donating wasn’t something they should have done in the first place.

I think it should be required that every donor, male or female, allow their identities to be released when the child turns eighteen. Maybe putting a requirement like this into the process will weed out people that are only looking to make a few dollars—because like it or not, donating sperm and eggs is a little different than making a donation to the Salvation Army. It should be taken a lot more seriously than it is, and the children that are conceived as a result of the donations should be given more than their biological parents’ eye color.

Conception. Not as easy as it seems when there’s a third party involved.

Infant mercy killings

Peter Singer published an article in the Los Angeles Times entitled Pulling Back the Curtain on the Mercy Killing of Newborns. The article addressed whether mercy killings should be extended to newborns whose quality of life or life expectancy is extremely low. The idea of whether mercy killings should be extended to newborns whose quality of life or life expectancy is extremely low.

I'm not sure how to react to this situation. It's not that I'm naive and don't know that situations like these arise; it's just that I have never thought of it before.

How awful it must be for the parents of a newborn child to sit by a hospital bed daily and watch them suffer. How terrible it must be for a doctor to tell these same parents that the only way to ease their child's suffering is to let it die. I couldn't imagine the turmoil these parents go through in an attempt to make a decision such as this.

The three groups that the doctor's of the Netherlands place these children in are interesting. I think it says that this is a well thought out process in which the doctors do not lump all terminally ill babies into a single category.

I'm not sure that as a parent I could agree to a mercy killing for my child if they were part of group one: infants who would die soon after birth even if all existing medical resources were employed to prolong their lives. If the child is in no pain, then there is a chance, no matter how small, that a miracle will occur. As a parent I believe I would wait for that miracle. If it didn't occur, then both parents and doctors would know they had done everything possible for that child.

Group two infants have an extremely low quality of life expectancy and will spend the remainder of life hooked up to machines. Speaking from experience, if this were an adult, I don't think there would be much discussion. My family has had to make the unfortunate decision to remove three family members from life support during the past fourteen years. All of these were elderly relatives who had experience brain damage and for all purposes were dead, except for the machine breathing for them. How, as a parent, could you expect a child to spend their entire existence lying on a bed and breathing by machine? Children in this group had suffered severe brain damage, and hope of recovery was nonexistent. I believe that ending this child's suffering would be the most humane thing a parent could do.

Children in group three pose a greater problem. These children are obviously in severe pain but could survive on their own without the help of intensive care. I'm not sure what the right course of action is in this case. I think that since these children are in unbearable pain it is unfair to expect them to live. On the other hand it doesn't seem fair to terminate life if the child can live without the help of machinery. I'm not sure that parents can be expected to commit their child to a lifetime of suffering and pain.

I believe that precautions should be taken to insure the death of the child is in the child's best interest and not an easy way out for parents who do not want the responsibility of a medically dependant child. I remember reading another article on this subject concerning the practices of infant euthanasia in Holland. In order for a mercy killing to occur a team of doctor's in addition to the parents and a doctor (not associated with the parents or situation) must agree this is the best course of action.

The decision is ultimately dependant upon the parents and their beliefs. People who don't believe in modern medicine, and prefer to rely on home remedies or prayer, would probably agree death is a better alternative. Some parents would consider this practice a form of murder and would disagree with its effectiveness or necessity. I think it is important to treat each situation as unique and make the best decision to alleviate the minds of grieving parents, satisfy doctors that they are not being cruel to a patient, and is ultimately in the best interest of the child. That being said, I hope I am never forced to make a decision as painful as this.