"By generations of civil, religious and de facto recognition, we know that society can and does regulate the institution of marriage. Sticking with the civil side of things, by what right does the government have authority to regulate such unions? And if they do have the right, why, and how far does their authority extend? If they do not, why."
The problem with this question is that it seems to approach the issue by assuming marriage is rightfully the business of religious institutions. Unfortunately, marriage is as old as dirt, which makes its original function difficult to ascertain. It is entirely possible marriage was either hijacked by religious institutions or the right to officiate them was essentially outsourced to the religious institutions by whatever primitive government was in effect. Therefore, I think it is a legitimate question to ask by what right does religion have authority to regulate unions?
Originally, I was going to make an appeal towards the Social Contract in order to answer the question of why government should have a role in marriage, but the more I think about it, the more apathetic I become to the role of both church and state in this debate. Neither of them have any legitimate authority to lay claim upon the institution of marriage. Sure, Jews and Christians, and I suppose most major world religions, are obligated to believe marriage is rightfully theirs, but they can only appeal to tradition for so long until things start to become sketchy.
What is a traditional marriage, anyway? Is it the ultimate means for a loving couple to show their devotion to eachother? Is it an arrangement made between two households for their children to get married because we certainly cannot allow them to make their own ill-conceived decisions on the matter? Is it a means of acquiring greater wealth and power for a family? Is it a contract meant to garnish exclusive breeding rights? Is it between a man and a woman, or a man and a woman...and a woman...and a woman...and so on and so forth depending on the culture and time period?
You see, if anything has a claim over the institution of marriage it would be culture, and right now we are in the midst of a paradigm shift in regard to the Western attitude towards the aforementioned institution. Those "Definition Purists," unless they can figure out a clever way to reverse the trend, are wasting their time and money fighting a battle they are inevitably going to lose. Our culture is beginning to accept the legitimacy of homosexual relationships and sympathize with their desire to demonstrate their love and devotion to eachother.
This change in public opinion will eventually alter the stance of the government, and religion will figure out a way to cope - either by figuring out some sort of "divine loophole," or by claiming their marriages are more legit.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The Ethics of Vaccination
There's a slowly growing trend in the United States for parents to forgo immunizing their kids. This is due to an unfounded concern that something in the vaccines can cause autism.
What I want to know is if these parents should be held responsible for child endangerment and/or neglect?
Historically, vaccinations have followed a certain trend in countries all over the world:
1) A vaccine is created and administered.
2) The disease ceases to be a threat to the general population.
3) A generation of people grow up unaware of just how horrible the disease they were immunized against really is.
4) This generation starts to focus more on the supposed negative effects of vaccinations instead of the benefits.
5)A large percentage of parents opt to not vaccinate their children, which leads to an epidemic of the preventable disease.
6) People start to immunize their kids again.
7)The supposed negative effects of vaccines are proven to be false.
And here we go again! Same bullshit, different day. Naturally, people are unaware that this debate has been going on since the conception of the first vaccine. And its always ended the same way: Two stupid parents watching their child die from a preventable disease!
It makes me angry to know there are people out there who would rather listen to Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy (two figureheads of the "vaccinations cause autism" movement) instead of their doctors. Though Carrey and McCarthy may not be totally against the practice of immunization, their fear-mongering has and will continue to dissuade parents from vaccinating their children at all.
The American habit of believing in things for faulty reasons is going to far this time. Not only are parents putting the health of their own children at risk, but their putting the health of other children at risk as well.
Infants who are too young to receive all of their vaccinations benefit greatly from public immunity. Needless to say, if an epidemic of a preventable disease breaks out, the infant population is at a high level of risk for catching this disease.
Now, if an infant suffers or dies from a preventable disease, and if the disease could be traced back to another child who was not immunized by his parents, then is it not fair to hold the parents responsible?
Note: Since such a large percentage of children are immunized, we really can't know for certain if vaccinations can cause autism or not. Undertaking a study on the issue would require researchers to deny vaccinations to the children they are studying, which would be unethical. As such, we would have to wait until a large percentage of parents start to forgo vaccinations in order to see what happens to the rate of autism. As such, neither side of the debate has the data necessary to fully back up their claim (though from a historical perspective, the pro-vaccination side has always been right. Furthermore, even if 1 out of 100 kids develop autism due to vaccinations, the benefits to the general public still outweigh the risks).
What I want to know is if these parents should be held responsible for child endangerment and/or neglect?
Historically, vaccinations have followed a certain trend in countries all over the world:
1) A vaccine is created and administered.
2) The disease ceases to be a threat to the general population.
3) A generation of people grow up unaware of just how horrible the disease they were immunized against really is.
4) This generation starts to focus more on the supposed negative effects of vaccinations instead of the benefits.
5)A large percentage of parents opt to not vaccinate their children, which leads to an epidemic of the preventable disease.
6) People start to immunize their kids again.
7)The supposed negative effects of vaccines are proven to be false.
And here we go again! Same bullshit, different day. Naturally, people are unaware that this debate has been going on since the conception of the first vaccine. And its always ended the same way: Two stupid parents watching their child die from a preventable disease!
It makes me angry to know there are people out there who would rather listen to Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy (two figureheads of the "vaccinations cause autism" movement) instead of their doctors. Though Carrey and McCarthy may not be totally against the practice of immunization, their fear-mongering has and will continue to dissuade parents from vaccinating their children at all.
The American habit of believing in things for faulty reasons is going to far this time. Not only are parents putting the health of their own children at risk, but their putting the health of other children at risk as well.
Infants who are too young to receive all of their vaccinations benefit greatly from public immunity. Needless to say, if an epidemic of a preventable disease breaks out, the infant population is at a high level of risk for catching this disease.
Now, if an infant suffers or dies from a preventable disease, and if the disease could be traced back to another child who was not immunized by his parents, then is it not fair to hold the parents responsible?
Note: Since such a large percentage of children are immunized, we really can't know for certain if vaccinations can cause autism or not. Undertaking a study on the issue would require researchers to deny vaccinations to the children they are studying, which would be unethical. As such, we would have to wait until a large percentage of parents start to forgo vaccinations in order to see what happens to the rate of autism. As such, neither side of the debate has the data necessary to fully back up their claim (though from a historical perspective, the pro-vaccination side has always been right. Furthermore, even if 1 out of 100 kids develop autism due to vaccinations, the benefits to the general public still outweigh the risks).
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Bullying
Lyndsey sometimes likes to watch the Anderson Cooper Show. Yeah, most of the crap on that show is exactly that - crap, but the topic of discussion on Monday was bullying.
There seems to be an epidemic of young people killing themselves due to negative attention from peers. Or rather, more realistically, the media and legal system have decided to concentrate on this issue with greater interest. Why, just a few weeks ago there was a story in the news about a young, carrot-top boy who took his life thanks to bullying. It's now becoming quite common for alleged bullies to face criminal charges for their actions.
Personally, I feel split on this issue. The number of bullied children who commit suicide is hardly representative of the total number of children who are the victims of bullying. This seems to demonstrate (and this is merely my own assumption) that there were deeper psychological issues with these children. Therefore, I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate to lay all of the blame on the bullies.
On the other hand, bullies are wretched people who deserve to be punished. One of my favorite scenes in Chuck Palahniuk's Pigmy (spoiler alert) is when the titular character is being harassed by a larger schoolmate in a store bathroom. Pigmy, being a highly trained terrorist, uses martial arts to incapacitate the bully, and proceeds to rape him in the anus to teach the dumb kid a lesson.
Yeah! Let's see this happen in real life! Perhaps not the raping part, but I do believe just deserts are in order.
On the other hand, what do you do when the entire class (entire school, perhaps) is singling out a select few to ostracize and torment? Bullying can, to some degree, be both a bonding experience and a means of raising self-esteem for the people who are not the victims. As such, even an otherwise decent kid can feel compelled to say and do hurtful things in order to feel accepted into a larger group. The stereotypical bullies, while they do exist, are not an accurate representation of the big picture. So what do we do here? Do we subject the whole class to criminal charges? Is anyone who has made a snide remark towards little Timmy, the weird, four-eyed nose-picker, responsible for his suicide?
On the other hand, is it not our responsibility to try to shape the behavior of our children to be more positive? Is it not possible for us to teach kids to be more tolerant?
On the other hand, meh...I'm done.
There seems to be an epidemic of young people killing themselves due to negative attention from peers. Or rather, more realistically, the media and legal system have decided to concentrate on this issue with greater interest. Why, just a few weeks ago there was a story in the news about a young, carrot-top boy who took his life thanks to bullying. It's now becoming quite common for alleged bullies to face criminal charges for their actions.
Personally, I feel split on this issue. The number of bullied children who commit suicide is hardly representative of the total number of children who are the victims of bullying. This seems to demonstrate (and this is merely my own assumption) that there were deeper psychological issues with these children. Therefore, I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate to lay all of the blame on the bullies.
On the other hand, bullies are wretched people who deserve to be punished. One of my favorite scenes in Chuck Palahniuk's Pigmy (spoiler alert) is when the titular character is being harassed by a larger schoolmate in a store bathroom. Pigmy, being a highly trained terrorist, uses martial arts to incapacitate the bully, and proceeds to rape him in the anus to teach the dumb kid a lesson.
Yeah! Let's see this happen in real life! Perhaps not the raping part, but I do believe just deserts are in order.
On the other hand, what do you do when the entire class (entire school, perhaps) is singling out a select few to ostracize and torment? Bullying can, to some degree, be both a bonding experience and a means of raising self-esteem for the people who are not the victims. As such, even an otherwise decent kid can feel compelled to say and do hurtful things in order to feel accepted into a larger group. The stereotypical bullies, while they do exist, are not an accurate representation of the big picture. So what do we do here? Do we subject the whole class to criminal charges? Is anyone who has made a snide remark towards little Timmy, the weird, four-eyed nose-picker, responsible for his suicide?
On the other hand, is it not our responsibility to try to shape the behavior of our children to be more positive? Is it not possible for us to teach kids to be more tolerant?
On the other hand, meh...I'm done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)