Jameis Winston Rape Case

Back in 2012, a freshman at Florida State University, Erica Kinsman, was sexually assaulted by Jameis Winston, the star of the football team, but of course, there were no repercussions to Jameis’s actions. Even though Erica did everything she was supposed to do after she was raped including, reporting the rape, going to the hospital, and having a rape kit performed, Jameis was still not convicted for his actions.

Erica decided to break her silence of her story in the documentary The Hunting Ground and share with the world her point of view of what happened that night. The worst part about this story, is the fact that football and sports has become more important to the school, the town, and the entire country than the well-being of a young girl who was taken advantaged. Even when Erica tried to report her assault, the Tallahassee police officer Scott Angulo asked her to “think twice before filing a report”, saying “Tallahassee is a big football town” and Jameis was their “hero”. Even when Erica decided to report Jameis, the Tallahassee police did nothing for 10 months, even though all of the evidence was there.

The ethical issue that this specific story demonstrates, is one that many girls across the country face today. Why should young girls be blamed for having to go through something so horrific? When Erica’s story became public, she started to receive death threats and abusive messages, all because she was “hurting the reputation of the football star”.

The fact that Jameis was able to escape the ramifications of his actions, only serves to show us of our country’s true priorities. Just because he was the #1 draft for the NFL, the police allowed him to live his life without any ramifications, leaving other young girls at risk of being assaulted. The message that this story conveys is that it is okay to take advantage of girls if you have a high status because that way, there won’t be any ramifications. On what level is that statement ethical? How has sports and status become more important than safety for young women? This is not only an issue of our country’s ethics, but of the priorities we put on the safety for young women and the justice they deserve.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/02/19/erica-kinsman-who-accused-jameis-winston-of-rape-tells-her-story-in-new-documentary-the-hunting-ground/

The right to a happy life

Abortion is a huge controversy in the world. Belief, religion, and life circumstances play a huge roll in people's thoughts and viewpoints on abortion. I believe that abortion should be a person's choice. The decision on wether or not it is ethical is different in different circumstances. I think killing a human being, even a small one that is developing, is not a 'good' thing to do however it is ethical when the circumstances the child would be born into are bad. If the child was a result of a rape the child may be unhappy knowing this or live in a household unconducive to a happy childhood. If the child would be born into poverty or an unhealthy environment or a family that doesn't really want a kid, is it right to still have them? I think it is better to allow that parent to choose wether or not they want to have the kid. There are a lot of orphaned children which seems wrong when, in my opinion, the point of having a child is for you to keep the child. If the mother knows ahead of time that she will not be able to keep the child or give it a good life then it is her right to be able to choose wether or not to have the child, leaving her the option of abortion, which is ethical when thinking about the potential life of the child. When getting an abortion the kid is not formed completely or born yet so it is not killing a living human being. It's not right to have a child that will live a life of suffering and in that sense I believe that abortion is ethical.

What you need to pay to be a women

    Every year, about 3 million girls in Africa are at risk going through female circumcision. According to BBC ethics definition, it is the practice of cutting or removing clitoris, a sensitive part of female genitals. The cutting usually takes place when the girl is 3 to 10 years old. Female circumcision has long been a ritual in Africa, it is seen as a preparation for marriage and a prove for the women’s physical endurance. However, the circumcision is carried out in an unsterilized environment using blunt tools such as tin cans or fragment of class. As a result, many women can get infection or even die after the circumcision. Meanwhile, they will have a lifelong loss of sensation during sex. 

   As far as I am concerned, female circumcision is an inhuman way to treat women, which cruelly deprives women’s rights. Clearly, circumcision considers women to be men’s property, thus neglect their will of whether or not they want to be circumcised. Moreover, because women cannot feel pleasure during sexual intercourse, they are just “used” by their husbands as a means of reproduction. 

   Except the mental torment women suffer from circumcision, the badly treated wound also causes further pain in women’s physical body. It usually has a negative impact in women’s general health and their child bearing capabilities. Once they are circumcised, it is impossible for them to think that they are the same as other healthy women.  

   Female circumcision is a result of feudalism. After the circumcision, often times the wound is sewed up and will not be opened until the woman get married. This is a way to keep women’s virginity. Thus, uncircumcised women are thought to be “unclean”. On contrary to this false idea, the ethical attitude is to treat women equally as men. Women should be proud of their gender and enjoy a health life. 

Necessary Attacks Might Be Unnecessary

I believe in the ethics of a pre-emptive strike. I am kind of confusing myself as I write this, but when I thought about all of the possible causes for a pre-emptive strike, they made sense. In Traitor, we saw the effects of the pre-emptive strike. They were trying to hunt down the terrorist group before they were able to strike based on Samir’s tip. In that case, Samir had attacked the terrorists before the FBI was able to show up, but it is possible to save a lot of lives by using pre-emptive strikes. Just think, if the US government knew about 9-11 before hand (conspiracy theories aside), wouldn’t you hope that they would have stopped the attack? I know it’s wishful thinking, but it seems to me that if you have the reasonable proof and evidence of an attack, it makes sense to stop it. With the example of the atomic bomb, I understand why Truman allowed the attack. While any loss of life is terrible, when death is unavoidable, I can see this sense in striking before necessary. However, it can conflict with the doctrine of just war by making a move before war is really called for. In my opinion, pre-emptive strikes can be called for when there is an attack coming on civilians or it’s an act of terror, but other times it can be unnecessary and damaging to people and societies.

Escaping Abuse

Whether or not a parent is abusive is debated in many circles. For instance, some parents may claim that they are just “strict” and completely deny their unacceptable behavior. This supposed strictness can be a form of emotional abuse- controlling behavior, manipulation- a cornucopia of poisonous behavior. By being “tough” the abusive parent sometimes fully believe that they are doing their children a favor- making them stronger for the outside world. Is hardening your children really beneficial? Making them numb to their own pain, unable to feel or relate to others in a healthy manner? Sure. Totally helps your kids.  At eight years old a girl who doesn’t cry may seem strong; later, there no tears when they crash a bicycle and need stitches at the age of thirteen, but also are unable to properly process pain or sadness, instead prone to emotional outbursts, displaying anger and frustration at inappropriate moments. 

These outbursts can cause further issues- misdiagnosis for ADHD, for example, which makes children more controllable and easier to manipulate, effectively taking the fight out of them. In fact, in a recent study it was shown that nearly one million children living in a abusive or at-risk households are misdiagnosed with ADHD every year

Another problem is that abusive parents are often not held accountable- by their own children and by law officials. The reason for this is that manipulation plays a huge factor in their abuse- convincing their children that they are the “good guys” while harming them, and pitting their children against other trusted adults that could take them out of a detrimental environment.

The “good guys” in this situation are anyone the abuser sees as a threat- perhaps school counselors, teachers, relatives or even other parents. The good guys are often not so good. 

Child Protective Services, whose aim is to remove children from at-risk households, does an incredibly poor job at doing so. When a school counselor called CPS, the social workers had my abusive parent drive me to CPS- along the way, the parent threatened me and my other parent, ensuring that I wouldn’t “say anything stupid”. I was so afraid that I could not speak up to help myself- social workers didn’t do much to protect me. Instead, I had to take my own father to court at the age of fourteen to procure a restraining order. 

The judge just barely granted it, barely believing me, and dismissing the case as “a child stuck between two parents.”

Abuse, from the perspective of any but the abuser, is bad; and furthermore, the institutions put in place to prevent it are insufficient.

Do be rid of pain or not?

        I chose the topic of Euthanasia because it is a topic that is sometimes discussed in my family as I have a very sick family member. As a result, I do not have a clear stance on what I believe to be “right” or “wrong” on deciding to inject this into a person. However, I will try to state the advantages and disadvantages that I see in taking Euthanasia. 

        Euthanasia is the option of terminating a person’s life so that they are relieved of any suffering they’re enduring. Usually, it’s carried out if a person is terminally ill and the suffering has been prolonged for an extended period of time. Sometimes it is injected by the person’s request and other times the decision is made by a family member. This is where I find a fault in the process. I lean towards the religious view of, who are we to decide whether it is a person’s time to die or not? The bigger part of me believes that the decision should only be made by the person whom is ill. Hopefully, they would include it in their will, but the reality is, do we stop and think that we’ll end up with a grave sickness not allowing us to make the decision for ourselves? As I witness the decline of my godfather it is a constant ethical dilemma that all of my family members struggle with. If the person themselves cannot speak on their own behalf, as a loved one would you be able to continuously subject them to stay suffering in deep pain? Could one let them die in pain when there’s the option of having them pass away without it? Some patients decide to take the injection after the realization and fear of how they are going to worsen, others start feeling like a burden to their families. Euthanasia allows some people to die with dignity and still have the knowledge of who they are. Though there still exists the grand question of whether or not there is a moral difference between letting a person die and killing them. For it can be viewed as murder and illegal in places like the UK. A few people argue that in the future it can be abused and it’s giving too much power to the doctors. Personally, I am still in a sort of in-between on what is “best” in certain circumstances. But it is difficult and saddening to have a loved one be in deep pain when there could be another option. 

Animal Testing- an ethical atrocity

Living in the liberal-centric Marin my entire life, those around me have uniformly told me that animal experimentation is wrong. Period. However, what I was not exposed to is the fact that animal testing, although commonly used in the context of cosmetic testing, is very common in medical and pharmaceutical testing and has likely saved the lives of millions of people. For many people, this is reason enough to hop on board. However, despite my newfound knowledge of the benefits of animal testing,  I believe this practice is an ethical atrocity. Here's why:
For one, animal testing is grounded on the ideal that a human life is worth more than an animal life. Animal testing has persevered all these years because of the idea that “great benefits for humanity” morally rationalize harming animals (BBC). However, there is no true evidence that humans are worth more than any type of animal. Even though animal testing has saved millions of lives, the practice can't possibly be considered morally acceptable if those lives have been saved at the cost of other lives. 1 human life does not equal 4 rabbit lives. Everything on this planet is here for equally important reasons and therefore should be valued equally.
Although death is considered to be the ultimate injustice that these animals suffer, the reality is that their lives are even more horrendous. Although experimenting parties are told by law to try to minimize suffering, the lives that these animals live are horrendous and essentially the equivalent of torture. Not only is animal testing based on the ideal that animal lives are worth less, it also assumes that their emotions are worth less. How can this practice possibly be justified when it disregards the very thing that we humans pride ourselves on- emotional capacity?
         Looking deeper into the ethical dilemma that is animal experimentation, I came across a article from the Wall Street Journal about the medical benefits of animal testing. The author, clearly in favor of the practice,  mentioned how new studies in research labs around the country have led to potentially amazing developments in the world of medicine.  For her, I just have one question. Just what makes us better than them? Animal testing, as a whole, demonstrates human's disconnect with nature and our innate ego-centricity. Saving lives is saving lives. But killing in order to save lives is not saving lives, it's just killing.