Abortion

At last, abortion! Since abortion is a very modern issue, I will provide little elaboration as to what it is. However, for those who don’t know, abortion is the prevention of childbirth and the ending of pregnancy. This is done by removing an embryo/fetus (depending on how long the mother’s been pregnant) from the uterus.

With that out of the way, let’s get to the issue at hand. The question we ask ourselves is, “Is abortion right?” There are two general perspectives on this question, either “yes” (pro-choice) or “no” (pro-life). This article will discuss three main points on abortion. Let’s start!

Is abortion morally wrong?

From a pro-life perspective, abortion can be morally wrong for several reasons. Primarily, pro-lifers see abortion as a form of murder which deprives an unborn child of the right to life. This claim is reinforced by a religious perspective, and we all have the rights to our own religious beliefs. Furthermore, even if an embryo/fetus may not be a conscious human being, it still has a genetic and reproductive purpose as a member of the human race.

From a pro-choice perspective, how can abortion be morally wrong if we do not know what exactly an embryo/fetus behaves like? It is clearly unethical to kill other human beings, but can an embryo/fetus be considered a human being? According to Mary Ann Warren and her publication On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion (1973), a human being must be conscious, self-aware, reasonable, self-motivated, and able to communicate.

How many of these can an unborn child be? The issues of consciousness and perhaps self-awareness are understandable.

However, what of reasoning? One cannot be reasonable without prior experience, so how can a baby reason when it has not been born yet?

What of self-motivation? An unborn child cannot motivate itself to do something if it is neither able to motivate itself nor know what to motivate itself for.

Finally, there is the issue of communication. Although babies can communicate (rather primitively, however), unborn babies do not possess the ability to do so. After all, they have not developed yet.

Is abortion morally wrong? Should women be burdened by something they are unwilling to take on?

For the pro-life perspective, we can simply look at the above response. Remember that killing another human being is immoral/unethical. Thus, abortion of unborn children is unethical and a crime.

From a pro-choice perspective, women have the rights to their own body. Let’s consider the obvious instance of rape, for example. If the woman becomes impregnated during rape and does not want to have a child, why should she? Let us also discuss some elements of eugenics here. How can we know that the genes passed on to the child by the rapist are beneficial and positive? Even if they are, there is no way of telling and the task of child-rearing still remains.

Would we be denying the future of a child by aborting it?

Possibly. This is the neutral point of the debate. It is uncertain to say what kind of future it will have. It has just as much a chance of being a rich human who revolutionized their field as being a simpleton drug dealer in the slums. This relates to the genetic issue. Accidental impregnation from an intellectual contributes to genes just as much as forced impregnation during rape. Finally, take into consideration that, according to The Blank Slate (2002) by Stephen Pinker, behaviour is 40-50% influenced by genes and 50% influenced by society. The home environment with parents is only 0-10% influential. Would you thus risk a child’s future on behalf of genetic chance?

Because it’s a modern issue, abortion is quite serious. Yet, we still do not know if it’s right or wrong. Maybe those who are pro-life should never abort, while those who are pro-choice should abort when they need to. But when we go back to the points above, why should one person be ethical yet allow other people to be unethical? Is that not hypocrisy? And from the other side, why should someone be burdened with such a significant task when they do not want to/cannot take it on? Is that not suppression of freedom (of choice)?

I hope you enjoyed this post. If you have any comments/feedback/suggestions, e-mail me at voguefascin@live.com! I’ll try to respond to all the messages I get if I can.

P.S. In other news, the next poll is now up! The following article will be about one of five economic/political systems again. You are in control of the blog’s direction. Thanks for the support (i.e. votes, comments, & discussion) on the socialism article!

Socialism

At last, the first real article on VogueFascin. You voted for socialism, you got it!

Let’s begin with the basics. Socialism is an economic system. It was established as a response to capitalism, yet is generally confused with Communism. Let me clear this up briefly with one major point.

Socialism and Communism are very similar because socialism is like an underdeveloped Communism. It’s the bridge between capitalism and Communism. It aims to establish the cooperation amongst individuals and the necessary production which Communism requires.

Socialism’s ideology is, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds.” Distribution is done according to quality and quantity of work. As a bridge to Communism, socialism aims to produce as much as possible and promote as much cooperation as possible in order to meet “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Further comparison will come in an article after I write about Communism. Let’s return to socialism.

As I mentioned earlier, socialism is where society controls the production. This is the first benefit of socialism – you have an impact on the direction of the economy. The economy can go in the direction the people want, not the government. This democratic concept sounds appealing, but an issue with democracy is that everyone has voting power, even those who are unfit to do so. In socialism, the direction is reached by a consensus. What if those who are deciding are unfit to make a decision? Depending on in which direction the economy would tend towards, the socialist society would either improve or worsen. How would we be able to ensure the progression of the economy in the right direction?

The first benefit connects to the second benefit; all production is done in favour of the common good of society, and not for individual gain. This means that society tends to improve overall when there is production. However, all distribution of wealth is supposed to be equal, so wouldn’t worker incentive be reduced? There would be no competition because the idea is that everyone has equality in terms of wealth and commodities. No competition means a lack of development of technology. How can we equalize incomes and resources while preserving competition for development?

An exception to this, however, is that socialists strive to advance economical technology (or in other words, creating a more diverse/effective economical framework/structure). This is a good benefit, but again, the issue is that there is little balance – too much focus is being placed into economics and not in other areas.

Moving on to the third point: total equality. Everyone has access to an equal portion of resources; everyone has an equal amount of income; etc. This is good, because it eliminates poverty as well as the different classes in society (everyone is treated equally; again, democracy), yet it also eliminates the higher incomes of the former high-class citizens and large industries. This brings the national gross domestic product (GDP) down. We can use some examples for this, mostly Communist ones. That’s fine, since the two economical systems share this same idea anyways.

On average, Communist countries have a low GDP. These statistics were taken from the CIA World Factbook (2008). 

> Cuba: $55,180,000,000.00 USD (#70)

> Laos: $5,187,000,000.00 USD (#140)

> Moldova: $6,197,000,000.00 USD (#138)

> Nepal: $12,640,000,000.00 USD (#121)

> North Korea: $26,200,000,000.00 USD (#89)

> People’s Republic of China: $4,222,000,000,000.00 (#3)

> Vietnam: $90,880,000,000.00 (#61)

Graph 1. A visual representation of the listed figures.

Let’s focus on China – it’s an outlier since it has the third largest GDP in the world. Interestingly enough, China is also a socialist republic, and is only referred to as a Communist state because it is led by the Communist Party of China. It is unmistakeable that China is the world’s largest manufacturer of items – almost everything you buy will have a “Made in China” sticker on it. So it seems that the Chinese have properly managed to apply socialism to their society. Apart from poor living conditions, could China be the prime example of successful socialism?

Returning to the GDP issue, a low GDP impedes a country’s ability to interact with other countries, mostly in terms of commerce, since we are averaging all incomes and production. Now, this creates a sort of paradox. How can we eliminate poverty and promote equality while maintaining a decent GDP?

One a final note, socialism and Communism are usually regarded as the right idea for a prosperous society, but impossible for mankind to master. It is our human nature that prevents the complete, correct execution of socialism. Do you agree with this, or is there something else preventing us from living in a fully economic and equal society?

Although the questions I’ve listed seem impossible to answer, think about answering them. They are meant to stimulate discussion. Feel free and do not hesitate to comment and initiate debates! But remember, no flaming. I will be moderating the discussion.

I hope you enjoyed this post. If you have any comments/feedback/suggestions, e-mail me at voguefascin@live.com! I’ll try to respond to all the messages I get if I can. If there isn't much discussion in the comments or votes in the poll, I will extend the time to two weeks.

P.S. In other news, the next poll is now up! The following article will be about one of five political ideas/issues. Again, you are in control of the blog’s direction. Thanks for all the support (i.e. votes and comments) on the welcoming post. ^^

P.P.S. Because there was no actual logo for socialism, and I wanted to save the Soviet logo for the Communism article, I created my own. I hope you found it somewhat appropriate. If you would like an icon/wallpaper with this logo, e-mail me the resolution you want it in and I’ll send it back.