Cyberspying

Online surveillance
Government surveillance
Privacy vs greater good

To what extent should freedom of speech be a

guaranteed right?
Posted on 08/09/2012 by ZW

Adapted from: http://gpessays.com/society/to-what-extent-should-freedom-of-speech-bea-guaranteed-right

Basic rights, basic civil, human and political rights are the cornerstone of every
democracy, from America to India, Singapore to South Africa, as set out in their various
constitutions and in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For
examples, the right to live, the right to vote, the right to a life free from fear and the right
to freedom of speech, have all been clearly set out as intrinsic rights which are
inalienable and should be duly accorded to every human being. However, the right to
freedom of speech has long been the subject of much controversy as to the extent to
which this particular right should be guaranteed and to whom.
Freedom of speech, like all other rights, has intrinsic value. It, in particular, allows an
individual the liberty to express his thoughts without fear of reproach, regardless of what
he says. This has important implications for a country in the social and political arenas for
it is only when citizens are able to freely express support for or speak up against certain
ideas, be they political policies or even social norms, that progress can be achieved. For
example, in a totalitarian or dictatorial state, it is only when people are allowed to speak
freely and come up with their own political parties, that there can ever be political reform
and progress within a country. This is something that is widely accepted to be true and
this can be seen in the global communitys support of Burma s possible release of
opposition leader Aung Sung Su Kyi as a move steeped in foresight and with progress in
mind.
Similarly, in the social sphere, it is highly beneficial to accord people their right to free
speech because it not only breeds a more thinking, more creative societybu it also
reduces dissatisfaction and may bring about social reform. If people are not allowed to
speak their minds and can only meekly accept whatever comes their way, this is not only
detrimental in terms of the type of society being bred, it also gives cause for worry in that
citizens may feel deprived of their rights or suppressed, and this could breed latent
dissatisfaction in the country. This latent dissatisfaction may result in violence and anger,
disrupting stability within a nation. Conversely, if citizens are accorded the right to
freedom of speech, this latent dissatisfaction would then have a constructive outlet and
backlash would be more peaceful and less antagonistic in nature. This could lead to
peaceful social reform, in contrast to the extreme measures that people would otherwise
have to undertake in order to successfully put their point across. For example, Martin
Luther King, a champion of equal rights in America was allowed to speak up for the rights
of the minority, and this was pivotal in bringing about the paradigm shift away from white

supremacy to that of equal rights for all. Hence we see that free speech can indeed
improve society and enrich people.
However, despite its obvious benefits, we cannot be myopic or overly optimistic by failing
to recognize the propensity for such a right to be abused. As such, we see that rights are
not absolute and they cease to be rights as soon as the exercise of that right infringes
on the rights of another. Hence, we cannot assess individual freedom in a vacuum and
must put it into a real world context. Free speech, like any other freedom, has the
potential for abuse and such abuse results in a clash of interests between societal good
and individual liberty. An obvious illustration is extremism. Extremists, who hold views
widely divergent from those of mainstream, conventional thinkers, are famous for inciting
violence, resulting in social upheaval and hence disrupting law and order. This occurs
because certain individuals choose specifically to prey on simmering feelings of
resentment, which may exist beneath the surface. This could shake the fabric of society
and cause great confusion and possibly violence. This happened in Britain . In 1989, a
new political party quickly gained popularity in areas north of London such as
Birmingham and Westhampton. Being strongly nationalist, they managed to bring to the
surface racist sentiments which ultimately culminated in wide-spread racial violence, the
worst witnessed in England in twenty years. Hence we see that the abuse of freedom of
speech threatened the security of the country and this is something that cannot be
condoned, much less thinly veiled by the argument of it being a basic right. In such
instances, it is in the best interest of society to contain, to some extent, the right of the
individual for the good of society.
Thus, it is evident that while the intrinsic value accorded to rights is not entirely imagined,
it is sometimes over-hyped and exaggerated and therefore must be taken with a pinch of
salt. We cannot then blindly protect the right to free speech without properly taking stock
of the wider implications of the actions of the individual. So, while it is a great injustice to
deny people of their basic right to freedom of speech, it is justifiable to choose to curtail
the rights of some for the good of society, and to avoid the case of possibly bringing
about a breakdown of societal cohesion and a disruption of law and order and peace.

The Computer and Internet, while being useful,

can never replace the classroom and the
teacher. Discuss.
Posted on 29/06/2012 by ZW

Yes, I would agree with that view. While the computer and Internet provide a wealth of
information and a source of entertainment, it is not the ideal environment for teaching and
learning. The computer and the Internet are like our textbooks and encyclopedias.
However, all-encompassing they are, they are still not replacements for the classroom
and the teacher. One does not gain all the knowledge in life from the Internet or from
textbooks; rather, one gains knowledge through the process of reading and learning. The
experience of gaining knowledge is also as important, if not more important, than
knowledge itself. One must realise that while the computer and Internet provide the
necessary knowledge, it is the classroom and the teacher that provide the learning
environment and the inter-personal interactions.
Improvements in technology have given us the Internet, allowing us access to a whole
horde of information throughout the world, from science and technology to entertainment,
to movies, and so much more. This wealth of knowledge may seem frightening, because
such amounts of information would surely need regulation and supervision in order to
prevent abuse. That is why government agencies are given the task of screening out
unwanted or undesirable information like pornography. Students using the Internet are
given access to so much more information than they are usually accustomed to. But they
do not learn how to screen the information and take out those segments that are useful
and important. This is one skill that is not taught in the Internet but in classrooms by the
teachers.
In addition, students using the Internet do not get to interact much with people, except
through electronic chatting. However, this does not provide sufficient stimulus for
students to develop inter-personal skills between friends and with elders. Such skills are
essential to them when they are in society, starting to work and to interact more. These
skills are better developed in the classroom, where there will be constant interaction with
friends and teachers.
Despite the wealth of information provided by the Internet, information can become
outdated or erroneous. At our present rate of advancement in science and technology,
the information and facts we learn during our years of study can become obsolete and
irrelevant in five to ten years. Therefore, it is not the knowledge of information and facts
that is crucial to our learning; the knowledge of how to gain current information,
distinguishing between the right and wrong, the accurate and the inaccurate, is as
important. This skill of accessing information from various sources will keep us updated
about current events and be able to evaluate and analyse them. Getting to know all the

information in the Internet will not help in these areas. It is in the classroom, where
teachers guide students towards what they learn and how they learn, that the real
purpose of education is transmitted.
In education, besides skill, knowledge and development of relations, there must also be
the inculcation of moral values and the evaluation of ones abilities. Moral values vary
slightly from one culture to another, but there are essential similarities like caring for the
needy, providing for the poor, being humble and etc. These moral values cannot be
taught on the Internet. There is no textbook on morals anywhere where one can just gain
moral principles by reading it. Besides learning the basic moral principles, one must also
practise them often in order for them to be embedded in ones mind and behaviour. In the
classroom, where there are classmates and friends, one gets to practise moral behaviour
often helping fellow students, not being selfish, doing to others what one would want
others to do to oneself, etcand these cannot be practised or learnt in the computer and
Internet.
In education, one does not just become a sponge and absorb all the skills needed, the
information required and the wanted facts. One has to squeeze out some of the
knowledge and skills that one has learnt and be able to apply them. Examinations and
tests are the most obvious forms of evaluating ones abilities. These are done in the
classroom environment and not by staring into the computer screen. More importantly,
one views the world around him differently and knows what is going on, how certain
phenomena occur or how the society functions. If one does not gain knowledge or fails to
apply the knowledge to everyday situations, then one has not learnt anything useful.
However, despite the computer and Internet not being able to replace the classroom and
teacher, its does not mean that they cannot be used. In fact, they are invaluable additions
to the tools of learning and education. Global information can be found on them want to
find out about the Antarctica? Who was Americas first president? The history of
mankind? All this can be found in the Internet. The Internet also enhances the learning
process. Facts unavailable in textbooks can simply be found using search engines in the
Internet. The latest development in cancer research can also be found, for example.
Students are therefore not confined to the classroom and can roam the world using the
Internet without physically being there. There are practically no limits to the potential of
the Internet and students, by engaging in the Internet, get exposed to possibilities
previously unknown to them. This widens their horizons.
In conclusion, the computer and Internet are windows to places previously unexplored by
students and are invaluable to the learning process of students. It provides information,
entertainment and knowledge available globally, but the classroom is still the place where
the students learn their basic skills needed in life, guided by their teachers, which the
computer and Internet can never replace.

Assess the claim that an uncensored press

is dangerous.
Posted on 29/06/2012 by ZW

Adapted from: http://gpessays.com/mass-media/assess-the-claim-that-an-uncensoredpress-is-dangerous

A famous saying goes- The ability to do great good rarely comes without some power to
do harm, and the free press is no exception to this general rule. This definately holds
true in todays world. An uncensored press has made a lot of positive impacts in todays
society-it has given rise to pluralism, it has made people aware on various issues and it
has brought down totalitarian regimes. However, the media has also shown its negative
side by defaming public figures, by instigating violence and endangering the justice
system when left completely on its own. Thus, an uncensored press can be dangerous
as well as beneficial depending on various circumstances.
An uncensored press is more an advantage than a danger in democratic societies when
it acts as a human rights watchdog and a promoter of discussion. Firstly, it will expose
wrongdoings of people in power and make them accountable for the crimes they have
committed. For example, by exposing the war crimes committed by Sri Lankan forces
during their offensive against the Tamil Tigers, the media fuelled UNs attempt to bring
criminals to justice. Furthermore, the international media has also been able to publicize
corruption taking place in the Iraqi administration which compelled the government to
enforce strict laws regarding this national issue. Dictator Fernando Marcos of Philipines
was also ousted from power after medias revelation of his corrupt administration. An
uncensored press will also promote dialogue and discussion since it allows ideas to flow
freely without any restrictions. By publishing a variety of viewpoints, the media will
promote pluralism and permit citizens to express their discontent regarding the
government or any other issue. When this is done, much needed changes are made. The
medias coverage of discrimination of Dalits and women in rural areas has led many
human rights activists to campaign about these serious issues in an effort to change
peoples mentality towards women and Dalits.
By educating the public about various issues, an uncensored press will benefit the
society in various ways. Firstly, the press helps the citizens in keeping abreast with latest
news and also acts as a tool for the government to launch various public service
campaigns. In 2005, when many Nepalis died of epilepsy, the media played an integral
role in providing awareness about the disease through radio broadcasts and newspaper
publications. Similarly, the media can play an equally important role in disseminating
information on drug abuse and HIV/AIDS which still remain grave problems for our
nation. For example, the act of expelling three HIV infected children was given so much
public scrutiny that social activists launched campaigns in rural districts stressing that
touching or talking with each other will not transmit this disease. Furthermore, when a

press does not provide authentic information to its citizens, it will trigger false rumors,
depriving the public of the truth. Many countries such as Iran and other Middle East
countries deny that Holocaust took place. Moreover, developed countries like US also
allege that global warming is just a farce and suppress news relating to climate change.
As a result, when the public is not aware of the past mistakes committed like the
Holocaust and the Tianamen Square Massacre; there is a possibility that such mistakes
can be repeated again. In addition, when coverage of information relating to poverty,
global warming and hunger are restricted, it will not augur well for the entire community
since these issues will not be addressed.
However, an uncensored press is dangerous when it defames public figures and infringes
peoples right to privacy. An uncensored press tends to libel public figures thus violating
Article 15 of UNHRD which states that everyone has the right not to be defamed. When
public figures are libelled by the media, it will spoil peoples opinion of them, they will be
scorned by the public and in most cases, they will find their career being shattered by
false accusations. Such was the case when Richard Jewel was accused of
masterminding the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta which turned out to be a false
accusation. Furthermore, to charge somebody with an offense that they are not
responsible for is a totally unjustified. An uncensored press will also become a threat to
corporations since it is more likely to reveal confidential information. Firstly, when
clandestine information of a product regarding the ingredients and processes of
production is leaked through the media, the other firms will attempt to manufacture the
same product and sell it at a cheaper price. Coca Cola, Apple and other corporations
found themselves victims when media published their operational plans and crucial
product details. The press, if given too much of freedom will also tend to give
unnecessary attention to the private lives of celebrities. By sensationalizing information
on their affairs and relationships instead of their contribution to their respective
professions, it can ruin the life of a celebrity. Ashley Cole and Tiger Woods have become
the latest victims after the media published news articles on their alleged affairs with
various women. In fact, the level of attention given to such stories far outweighs the
importance they have for society.
An uncensored press can be disastrous when the so called hate speech provokes anger
and violence. Firstly, hate speech, in most cases, results in murder and genocide. The
horrific genocide that took place in Rwanda in the beginning of last decade resulted from
Simon Bikindis inflammatory Anti-Tutsi hate speech which heightened the already
volatile tensions between the ethnic groups. By publishing news articles demanding
Tutsis be exterminated, he encouraged thousands of native Hutus to go on a rampage
against Tutsis. However, it ought to also be noted that not all forms of hate speech
should be censored. After all, in a democratic society, everyone should have the right to
express their opinions without any impediment. For example, the assertion made by local

papers in Arizona calling illegal Mexican immigrants undocumented workers was not
intended to instigate the minority Mexicans. In fact, it was just an opinion made by
several Native Americans on Mexicans living illegally in their country. Thus, it is
necessary that a media draws a line between comments that are meant to incite violence
and those that seem relatively innocuous.
The news coverage given by an uncensored press during a period of natural disaster will
prove to be dangerous and misleading. When a free press sensationalizes information on
calamities such as the outbreak of a virulent disease, it will lead to devastating panic.
While covering information on epidemics such as the swine flu or bird flu, the media tend
to broadcast information by giving an exaggerated picture rather than an accurate one.
Media powerhouses in India like Aaj Tak and NDTV are blatant examples of such
practices. Similarly, the media also hyped their reporting on cyclone Aila causing
widespread panic among Bangladeshi citizens, causing many of them flee to the coastal
areas. In the end, the effect of the cyclone was very less in comparison to the attention
given by Medias of the approaching cyclone, warning the public that the effects of the
cyclone will be disastrous.
There are also other instances when an uncensored press can be dangerous.
Uncensored press can be a threat when information relating to national security is
concerned. Any leakage of intelligence information can be costly to the state. In 1971,
when New York Times published classified Pentagon Papers, many US officials feared
that it will give valuable information to Al-Qaeda and help them expand their terrorist base
in the United States. Moreover, the medias publication of photos showing naked children
running away from soldiers and photos of its offensive during the Vietnam War changed
American attitudes towards the war as the public appealed for an immediate cessation of
violence. Furthermore, free press will also endanger the justice system. The limelight
given to high profile criminal cases can sway the jurors before the legal arguments are
even heard. The medias attention to Kasabs role in the Mumbai massacre and the
public outrage that followed may have prejudiced the jurors against Kasab, fearing that if
Kasab is not proven guilty, then it will lead to a widespread furor. In addition, the Indian
judiciary is facing a lot of pressure and threats from the victims of Bhopal disaster who
want the initiators of the disaster to be given a death penalty and not be shown any
leniency. As a result of this, the defendants might lose their right to a fair trial.
Thus, from the ideas expressed above we can conclude that the media should have a
high degree of freedom to publish things they wish to publish. But having said that, there
should be some form of regulation to monitor the publication of information since any
libellous statement and any derogatory remark against a particular group of people may
spark a retaliatory action from those accused. To sum up, we can say that an uncensored
press can be dangerous when it invades peoples right to privacy, when it libels public
figures, when it endangers the judiciary and when hate speeches are broadcasted. On

the contrary, we can also assert that an uncensored press can be an advantage since it
educates the public and strengthens democracy by giving all citizens their right to opine.
Categories: Technology | Leave a comment

To what extent are the modern mass media

creating a truly informed world?
Posted on 29/06/2012 by ZW

Adapted from: http://gpessays.com/mass-media/to-what-extent-are-the-modern-massmedia-creating-a-truly-informed-world

The need for quick and easy communication coupled with technological advancements
and strong government support has seen the mass media evolve into the powerful
source of information it currently is. Does this powerful source help create a truly
informed world? My answer would be no.
What information is provided to us through magazines, books, newspapers, the Internet
or any other form of media is only as reliable as their authors and editors. It is this group
of people who actually decide what information is passed on to the general public.
Therefore the control of the mass media has been largely handed over to this group of
people. These results in some facts being over-emphasized and others distorted before
reaching the people of the world. This could lead to false information bring passed on,
thus keeping the public wrongly informed. An example of this would be a newspaper
article in the Straits Times which highlighted an author and an editor who had been
caught publishing false information in a magazine.
Another group of people who prohibit the passing of true information is the government of
the various countries. Any information that does not tally with the governments policies,
beliefs and ideologies is censored off local newspapers, television shows and radio
shows. This is currently happening in Malaysia where news channels like CNN are not
broadcast live and are delayed for two to three days which are used to censor news
which do not agree with Malaysian beliefs. This results in the general population
receiving outdated news and false information. This problem though has been reduced
since the arrival of the Internet, because it is not possible for a government to exercise
control on information accessible from anywhere in the world.
If we were to concentrate on a highly developed country such as America, then it is
possible to say that most of the people have access to the various forms of mass media,
resulting in their being quite well-informed. But what about those countries which are still
going through the development process? How informed would an African tribe be on the
war on Iraq or the SARS problem that many countries suffered? Obviously they will know
little about them. This is because the information is not accessible to these groups of
people. The modern mass media would succeed in creating a truly informed world only
when anyone who wishes to learn about something, is able to do it without any problem.

Although the media is inching towards this by increasing accessibility to the various forms
of the mass media, it has to go a long way more to create an informed population in rural
areas.
So much information without anyone to read it is as good as it not being there. This is the
situation in many parts of world where the wealth of information is not being fully utilized
by the people. Although it is important on the part of general public to learn to use the
vast information available, the mass media also have to create that interest in people that
will lead them to the information. A flower achieves its purpose using its nectar to attract
the bees. Likewise, the mass media have to come up with some nectar of their own to
make sure its information is utilized in creating a truly informed general population.
Although most of the television shows are aimed at achieving this, the information they
provide is minimal compared to books, newspapers and the Internet which unfortunately
do not attract many in the population.
Although the modern mass media have failed to achieve a fully-informed world, one
cannot believe the fact that over the years, the mass media have improved by leaps and
bounds to reach many more people with much more valid information. Although some of
the information is untrue, the number of sources available to retrieve that information has
made it easier for the population to compare sources and acquire the correct information.
Therefore it is also important that the public be selective and practice censorship to
maximally utilize the ocean of information that the modern mass media currently afford.
The mass media, therefore, have seen limited success in creating a truly informed world.
Currently the people working in the mass media see their job as more of a chance to
earn money and make a living rather than a way to pass on valuable information to the
public. This situation has to be rectified if more of true information is to be passed on. The
rural population also has to gain access and this can only be possible if the various forms
of mass media are prepared to work together with the governments of the developing
countries to help change the fortune of those poor people. These changes together with
the massive technical advancements in progress would mean that a truly informed world
is not very far away.
Categories: Technology | Leave a comment

Recent scientific and technological innovations

have enhanced the quality of life. Do you agree?
Posted on 29/06/2012 by ZW

Adapted from: http://gpessays.com/science/%E2%80%9Crecent-scientific-andtechnological-innovations-have-enhanced-the-quality-of-life-%E2%80%9D-do-you-agree

The quality of life is normally taken to mean the general well being of people and the
environment in which they live in. it is undeniable that recent scientific and technological
innovations have enhanced the quality of life for many. However, the developments of

today that promise us a better quality of life are also the ones that can worsen the quality
of life. Science and technology give their creators and inventors ever-greater supremacy
and control, for good or otherwise, over the physical universe. Indeed, the possible dire
consequences and impact of misused and misapplied innovations can affect the quality
of life drastically.
Technological innovations have resulted in an improved and well-established system of
telecommunications and satellites. This leads to ease in access of communication
system globally. International calls can now be made so readily that two people at
separate ends of the world can now stay instantly in contact with a touch of the dial. But,
with the onslaught of the worldwide web and wireless communication devices,
technology has in fact, drawn people away from each other. The presence of electronic
email and short-text messages, gave busy people of this high-tech society yet another
excuse to dismiss the need for face-to-face meetings and interactions. Humans have
become overly dependent upon such gadgets and devices to carry out the basic task
such as to communicate. What will result from the above phenomenon is that the
generations to come will be lacking in inter-personal and interactive skills.
Medical scientific and technological innovations have been largely beneficial. Death
rates, infant mortality rates as well as diseases of the past that used to lead to alarming
numbers of deaths, have been eradicated greatly. Modern drugs and vaccines have
eased much physically suffering. But, the discovery of Euthanasia and Genetic
Engineering have sparked off a series of moral questioning concerning the supposed
death with dignity as well as issues that include abortion as the latter opens up
possibilities of misuse. It is true that abortion practices enable pregnant women who are
at health risk to remove the baby in the course of pregnancy but many have taken
advantage of this procedure to rid themselves of the product of irresponsible actions on
their part. Also, Euthanasia, despite being said to be death in dignity, nevertheless,
opposes many religious and conservative views.
Advanced military technological innovations have provided a higher degree of security for
citizens in countries. This does actually contribute to enhancing the quality of life as cyber
warfare, biological warfare and nuclear warfare help to create a new form of defence
mechanism to protect the people. Conversely, advance military technological innovations
have also empowered modern armies a great level of destructive potential and selective
aiming targets. This results in civilians and innocent people ending up as the greater
victims in wars. In addition, the use of chemical and biological weapons has diffused
effects that make the clear-cut drawing of battle lines more complex and difficult. Hence,
instead of enhancing the quality of life, humans vulnerability increases and security
decreases in times of war.

Another political and legal aspect in which scientific and technological innovations have
helped to improve the quality of life for humans is the availability of knowledge. Indeed,
the access to information enhances democracy that provides citizens with a more liberal
political system. However, it should be noted that technology, though allowing easy
access to the supply of knowledge, actually devalues the worth of information and
knowledge. Today, knowledge can easily turn obsolete as focus is placed on the survival
of the most info and techno-savvy society. Also, what is accessible from the wide pool of
resources on the worldwide web does not always provide the correct and morally upright
information. For instance, the wide pool of pornography corrupts ones mind and worsens
the quality of life as it presents an improper, inaccurate and unrealistic view towards sex.
Next, computers and high-tech machinery have aided in improving many economies,
especially those of the developing countries. For example, South Korea went from being
a developing country to becoming a newly industrialized country because they have
become more capital-intensive and technologically oriented in their industries. Areas
ranging from manufacturing processes to the service sector have been made easy by the
use of both the computer and machinery. Nevertheless, such gadgets have become such
an indispensable and essential tool in modern life that the need for labour-intensive
employment has greatly declined. This puts lowly educated and lowly skilled workers out
of jobs. Such an over reliance branches into almost every type of human activity and the
importance of human resources will eventually be lost with time. How can quality of life
be enhanced when the technology is deemed more valuable and useful than human
resource?
Another area to ponder about is the environmental aspect of life. Pollution and
deforestation have both worsened the quality of life in todays society. Health problems
have resulted from air, water, soil and hazardous waste pollution. Governments of less
developed nations, in their eagerness to improve their economies by employing
technology in their commerce, are willing to forsake the importance of the environment in
maintaining the quality of life of their people. Poor air quality in twenty megacities in the
world, with population of more than ten million results in an increase in lung, heart and
brain cancer. This is the effect of traffic fumes; industrial processes, new sewage systems
and even open refuse burning. Water quality is greatly diminished by the pollution caused
by petrochemical complex, pesticide and factories. The issue of deforestation is also
linked to the worsening of the quality of life as basic needs of recreation, culture and
leisure are greatly affected. Thus, it is evident that though busy industries can be an
indication of a healthy economy that can increase the monetary aspect of standard of
living, actually denies humans their basic right to drink clean water and breathe clean,
uncontaminated air.
In conclusion, the issues of the quality of life that are affected by scientific and
technological innovations are urgent and require much reconsideration. The nuclear

power that promised virtually limitless, cheap and non-polluting energy for future
generations proved otherwise in the disastrous accidents such as those that took place at
Three Mile Island and Chernoblyl. Furthermore, the down sides to the supposed
enhancement of the quality of life as depicted by the double-edged sword qualities of
science and technology like those presented in this argument have clearly shown that
recent scientific and technological innovations can increase the quality of life as well as
degenerate it.
Categories: Technology | Leave a comment

Losing the ability to think in the Digital Age

Posted on 22/06/2012 by ZW

As parents invest in the latest academic software and teachers consider how to weave
the Internet into lesson plans, it is a good moment for us to reflect upon the changing
world in which youths are being educated. It is digital with computer notebooks displacing
spiralled notebooks and blogs, articles, and email messages that shape how we read and
communicate. Our brains are slowly becoming endangered the unforeseen
consequences of the transition from a conventional age to a digital epoch that is affecting
every aspect of our lives, including the intellectual development of each new reader.
The worry is this: Will kids or even the future generations to come become so
accustomed to immediate access to escalating on-screen information that they will fail to
probe beyond the information given to the deeper layers of insight, imagination and
knowledge that have led us to this stage of human thought? Will the new demands of
information technologies to multi-task, integrate and prioritize vast amounts of information
help to develop valuable skills?
We are currently exposed to an unprecedented amount of information, which allows us to
search for exact wording in just a click away. We do not know which are more important
than other, due to the vast amount of data online, hence we might just try to infuse
everything into our minds without processing them.
In this revolution of information delivery, what is happening? In short, the reader is
turning to the Internet, which itself is becoming more accessible. The availability of highspeed Internet access is a priority for many Western governments. Several countries
already have high penetration rates. Many cellphones now provide access to the Internet,
such as receiving a breaking news story. Since the advent of the Internet, it has turned
the tables on whos the info-searcher and whos the info-provider. It may still seem that
humans are constantly searching for information that is found online, but the truth is the
otherwise. We are being chased by information and we often place all of them into our
endless minds, which may have diminished our ability to think critically.

E-books digital distractions

Posted on 22/06/2012 by ZW

Reading books is always a favourite past-time for many people. Books nowadays come
in both print and non-print versions. The newly designed Kindle, which is like a tablet but
its main purpose is to store books, well of course, in non-print version. We call this an ebook, and people who read this form of books are realizing that while a book in print or
on a Kindle is straightforward and immersive, a tablet offers a menu of distractions that
can fragment the reading experience, or stop in its tracks.
For example, emails lurk behind the e-book, tantalizing within reach. We are often
distracted by these petty things around us, such as checking SMSes or ones progress in
Mousehunt. All these have made our once-enjoyable reading experience into a
nightmare. It is harder than ever to sit down and focus on reading.
As seen over the years, especially these 2-3 years, publishers have turned to using
social network or technology to advertise information in the form of an editable document.
Many have used different kinds of media such as television and most importantly the
Internet, to pass on information. Books , once the general medium for sharing
information, are now forgotten as public demand has shifted from prints to non-prints
(especially online). Readers nowadays are gradually drifting away from books, letting
movies and the Internet occupy their leisure time, which previously was made use
purposefully through a good read.
Humans are fascinated with technology, and continuous advancements dont make it
easy to lay off the gadgets. The New York Times reports that individuals who multitask
emails, phone calls and social-networking sites have more trouble paying attention and
focusing on important information. This is attributed to the fact that daily tasks not
involving electronics do not provide the instant stimulation that electronic gadgets do.
Nora Volkow, director of The National Institute of Drug Abuse, compares addiction to
technological stimulation to addiction to food and sex. Try to limit television viewing to two
hours or less a day and use your other devices such as your computer and cell phone for
planning and keeping time. If you need entertainment, try writing, painting or exercising.

Web Anonymity
Posted on 21/06/2012 by ZW

Since the advent of the Internet, people are getting much of the info from online sites
such as BBC news or Wikipedia. Social networking sites are also created to make the
world a closer and bonded community. The rising popularity of such online sites is often
associated with web anonymity, which is to prevent other users from knowing your real
identity when surfing the net. People are free to interact online anonymously or at the
very least, use pseudonyms to protect your true identity. However, this policy is now
under attack from social networking companies such as Facebook and Google (who
created Google+). They have made several attempts to crack down on people trying to
use pseudonyms rather than their full identities.
This act has led to many arguments on social networking sites and microblogging sites
such as Twitter. Many online users are debating over this issue, whether it is right to
curtail Web anonymity or not. The opposition argues that the right to Web anonymity
when voicing opinions help prevent victimization which is a good thing. People who
released their full identities are often mocked at because of their naive comments, and
in some cases, it can become homicidal in the sense that the derided user commits
suicide. As such, anonymity can be a shield from the tyranny of the majority. Also, if
everyone of us not only had to be identified, but could be traced using IP addresses or
other security services, freedom of speech and expression would suffer. The curtailment
of Web anonymity can be a sign of opposing the growing democratic world.
Proposition of the argument states that governments and law-enforcement agencies
have other methods and mechanisms to track down criminals, whether they are inciting
riots on social networks such as the Arab Spring in Middle East region (early 2011),
sending pornography and spam emails that contain viruses, hacking or infringement of
privacy or stealing/scamming money over online transactions. There is no need for
everyone to hold an identity card online. They also argue that that anonymity increases
the incentives for any online user to behave badly, despite the efforts of the government
and law-enforcement agencies to curb these. Anonymity also makes it harder to know
about other peoples conflicts of interest and how seriously their views should be taken.

Should scientific research be restricted in

any way?
Posted on 29/06/2012 by ZW

Adapted from: http://gpessays.com/science/should-scientific-research-be-restricted-inany-way

Science is the study and knowledge of the physical world and its behaviour that is based
on proven facts. It has existed since a long time ago, in every part of the world. Not only
has it increased our standard of living tremendously, it has also continuously improved
the efficiency and quality of work done. Scientific research has come up with innovative
ways that have helped us solve many problems; such as poverty, through improvements
in economy, and found cures to diseases through the invention of medicines. However,
some would claim that scientific research should be restricted due to the harm that
science brings about. Inventions due to scientific research such as cars have brought
about detrimental effects such as air pollutions, deleterious weapons invented from
science research such as bombs have caused destruction and research on human life
have disrupted the normal way of life. Should scientific research be restricted in any
way? I would say that it should not be restricted as it have benefited us greatly and
although it has also brought about unwanted problems, new solutions have been found to
solve them.
Firstly, scientific research is the solution to palliate poverty. Science is the golden path to
alleviating poverty and brings success to many of the developing countries in our world
today. Through scientific research, new and more effective ways of doing things are
being uncovered. For an economy, new and improved ways minimize the cost of
production, maximize the output with improved technology and thus, increasing revenue.
The economy of a country is brought to a greater height and more profits can be earned.
For example, in the 1960s, Singapore faced an economy downfall due to great
competition from stronger powers. Many people lost their jobs and were trapped in
poverty. Due to scientific research, new technology in 1970s brought about more effective
ways of producing goods. The economy thus improved and Singapore became a more
developed country. Some may disagree that scientific research can mitigate poverty as
other factors such as corrupted and venal government can use the money for personal
gains. Money would not be properly channeled to the poor and poverty will still be
present. However, I still stand firm to my stand, that through close monitoring, I believe
this is achievable and poverty can be alleviated in the long run.

Secondly, scientific research can be used to solve problems like lack of necessities such
as water. Through scientific research, such necessities can be created through the
inventions of innovative ideas to produce them. For countries such as Singapore that
does not have its own water supply, dearth of water is a very drastic as water is an
important source for human survival. However, through scientific research, such problem
can be solved. In the past, we used to purchase water from Malaysia for Singapore was
not equipped with the modern technology to have its own supply of water. However,
today due to scientific advancement, Singapore is able to create its own water supply
the NEWater and in any case where Malaysia refuses to sell water to us, we still have our
own supply of water. Although some economists might say that such scientific research is
too costly and the money used on such research can be used for other beneficial areas
such as improving healthcare or education, I stand strong to my point as such necessity
is imperative for survival. In addition, we should ensure that such necessity would always
be present.
Thirdly, cures for disease can be found through scientific research to protect humanity.
New afflictions arise in our everyday life. Only through scientific research, remedy and
treatment for such new diseases can be found to save lives. If no cure were to be found,
such disease can cause death or can be passed down to the next generation and will
never be eradicated. For example, during the Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)
period, SARS affected many people and thousands of innocent lives were taken. If no
cure was found, people would still be suffering in pain with this disease which leads to
death. People might claim that although, such cures can be found, many people,
especially the poor would not be able to afford them as scientific research is too costly.
However, saving lives is more important and in the long run, subsidies from the
government can be provided for people and all would then be able to receive such cures.
On the other hand, some people claim that scientific research is harmful to humanity.
Firstly, the improvement of our life in terms of efficiency of work done have brought about
negative side effects to humans as well. Through scientific research, inventions such as
cars have improved our ease of transport eminently. The time taken for us to travel is
reduced tremendously and our standard of living has increased exceedingly. But some
feels that the ruinous side effects such as global warming, air pollution and acid rain due
to harmful gases like carbon dioxide emitted from cars have affected our health also.
However, I strongly feel that science has also provided solution to such damaging effects.
Through scientific research, environmentally friendly cars such as solar-powered cars
and lead-free petrol have been invented to ensure such harmful environment effects do
not affect the health of people. Thus, scientific research should not be restricted as it can
and have constantly improving our lives.

Secondly, science can cause destruction to mankind. Due to scientific research, some
people feel that more destructive and harmful weapons are invented and in this way,
human lives are threatened. In the past wars involved the usage of only simple weapons
such as rifles. Presently, the extent of wars has escalated as massive destruction
weapons such as bombs and nuclear weapons are readily used. For example, during
World War II, the bombs Little boy and Fat man, the first nuclear weapons were
invented and dropped in Hiroshima, Japan. 70,000 to 130,000 people were killed
instantly. Thus, some feel that scientific research should be restricted as it is harmful to
human lives. However, scientific research should not be restricted as such invention of
weapons is a form of protection of a country from any deterrence to potential attackers.
Thirdly, some people would feel that scientific research affects the normal way of life.
Scientific research on human lives through experiments such as cloning is deemed as
immoral and unethical. They believe that God had created each human being unique and
there is no such need for experiments such as cloning to be conducted as it would seems
to be defying God. However, scientific research on human would allow us to understand
more about ourselves and facts that have yet to be discovered to as to increase our
knowledge on ourselves and educate the next generation about human beings.
The benefits brought by scientific have improved the standard of living of people
tremendously. The foremost problems in society such as poverty, lack of necessities,
diseases that could not be solved in the past can now be alleviated using the new ways
found by scientific research. Although negative side effects are present due to scientific
progress and human lives are being threatened, scientific research has also came up
with solutions for such harmful effects. Thus, scientific research should not be restricted
so as to allow mankind to continue to benefit from it.
Categories: Science and Ethics | Leave a comment

Euthanasia: a Horrible Thing or the Solution to

Torture? What is your stand on this?
Posted on 29/06/2012 by ZW

Adapted from:
A gravely ill man lies in bed awaiting death. He exerts all his energy upon every breath he
takes. One of lifes agonies is waiting for it all to be over. Euthanasia, a remedy for this
mans unfortunate situation, could be his solution to happiness. It has been a long
disputed act in the United States and Europe. Euthanasia is the practice of painlessly
ending the lives of people who have incurable, painful, or distressing diseases or

handicaps. Euthanasia is sometimes called mercy killing. To begin, one aspect of

euthanasias benefits is the fact that the quality of life when a person is chronically ill
tends to be very bad. Euthanasia can end an uncomfortable and painful life. Secondly,
euthanasia can save families money on medical bills. The cost of keeping a person alive
with an unfortunate fate would be higher than a person who chooses to pass away.
Lastly, a person, legally, should have the right to end their life.
Firstly, the issue of quality of life plays a large role in the support of euthanasia. Lying in
bed all day can be a form of torture within itself. Bed sores and boredom result from
staying in bed, wasting away. Also, illness such as cancerous diseases and other
sicknesses decline the quality of life. Of course, pain plays a role in this matter. Its very
difficult to function in everyday life when pain is a constant companion. To most people
with any of these problems, in their point of view, value of existence can be low.
Continuing along on this issue, the cost of medical bills and like billing can cost families a
lot of money. Health insurance covers an average of 80 percent of medical billing. These
insurance companies only provide a certain amount of money for care and then leave it
to the immediate family of the person within medical care. When the savings of the
patient run out, the money planned to be passed on to spouses and loved ones. Wouldnt
it be less expensive and more practical to take the euthanasia approach to the matter? In
my opinion, yes, it would. The cost of flying a person to Europe for euthanasia would be
less expensive. But why must they go to Europe
As a final point, legally, people should be able to make the decision to kill themselves.
The United States prohibits the act of suicide and euthanasia. Europe allows it, and the
actually have professional organizations such as DIGNITAS who professionally assist
people in doctor assisted suicide. In the United States, abortion is permitted. The phrase
used is my body, my decision. Shouldnt that apply to mercy killing also? Everyone has
their own opinion, and I have mine.
When an ill person gets ill, should thy have to lie in bed and await death? Should people
grasp onto life for as long as possible? The quality of life begins to get worse with pain
and suffering, and it costs a lot of money to keep a person alive. The legal aspect of
euthanasia is unfair, with abortion being completely legal, and mercy killing forbidden. All
I can say is if a person is holding on to a terrible life of pain and discomfort, why should
the have to wait and wait to have the torture end

The first duty of a doctor has always been to preserve life. Should this principle still be
maintained?

Keywords:

first most important

duty something which you have to do because it is morally and legally right to do so

always an absolute word which suggests that in all circumstances, a doctors most
important task is to preserve life

preserve life to keep a person alive; to prevent a life from being destroyed

maintained to continue to keep to something or do something

should justify that something is the best particular policy, practice or principle because
it is morally right, fair etc. In other words, you are expected to provide sound reasons for
taking your stand

Possible stands:
Yes, the principle of preserving life should always be maintained
No, the principle of preserving life should never be maintained
When it should be maintained depends on several factors and the circumstances in which
the doctor is required to make the decision.

Some questions to ask yourself before taking a stand:

What are the implications of maintaining the principle? Would always making it a point to
preserve life improve or worsen the situation we are considering?
Is the principle workable / morally sound?
Is always making it a point to preserve life the best thing to do?

If you agree with the proposition:

Examine the implications of maintaining the principle by considering various factor and
covering a range of different contexts. Show that the principle improves or brings about
positive outcomes rather than worsen the existing situation or bring about negative
outcomes.
Show that the principle is morally sound / practical
Show that the principle is the best available

If you disagree with the proposition:

Show that maintaining the principle will always worsen the existing situation or bring
about negative outcomes.
Show that the principle is not workable / morally sound
Show that the principle is not the best available by discussing the following:
(a) it needs to be modified for it to be workable or morally sound
(b) there are better principles available

OR

Whether preserving life should be the first duty is dependent on certain factors
State that there are no clear cut answers because the issue is highly controversial and
views are divergent.
Do a CAF (consider all factors) & CAL (consider all levels) to determine the circumstances
when the principle should be maintained
Examine also the circumstances which render the given proposition ineffective

Suggested thesis:
While we cannot deny that the primary duty of a doctor is to save lives, in todays society,
it is not practical for a doctor to insist on doing so due to divergent personal, moral and
religious views. The range of possible social consequences also makes it difficult for a
doctor to consistently maintain that he wants to preserve life.

Possible points of discussion

(1) From a secular view, the given principle should be maintained because in a world of
moral uncertainty and flux, we need a clear set of principles to anchor ourselves. We need
to hold on to the principle that there is sanctity to life. There is a universal legal prohibition
against taking another life (moral absolutism). Thou shall not kill is also a cornerstone of
secular civilized society.

Euthanasia

It cannot be permitted because it involves deliberately killing a person, an act which

violates the sanctity of life.

Patients fulfill a greater good when they are pro-life. They gain dignity upholding the
sanctity of life and become inspirational role models who do not bow to suffering.

What is euthanasia / mercy killing?

It refers to the killing of a person to stop him from suffering, typically one who is very ill.

The person who is killed is generally a kin, friend or medical patient of the killer.

Physician assisted suicide or voluntary passive euthanasia (using large doses of drugs
which have the effect of relieving pain and hastening death) is forbidden in most countries.
There are a few exceptions to the rule though. For instance, euthanasia has been
commonplace in the Netherlands / Holland for more than 25 years. It can be performed
under very tightly controlled conditions. In 2001, the Dutch Upper House passed the
Euthanasia Bill, named Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review
Procedures) Act. Briefly, doctors will not be prosecuted for euthanasia if
a) the patient is in intolerable pain and the clinical outlook of his condition is hopeless
b) the patient has repeatedly and lucidly asked to die
c) relatives have been consulted
d) the death is reported

Besides Holland, Belgium, Switzerland & the state of Oregon have laws permitting
euthanasia & assisted suicide.

Singapore and some American states recognize Advance Medical Directives (AMD).
The National Medical Ethics Committee in Singapore felt that a doctor has a duty to sustain
life. But he has no duty legal, moral or ethical to prolong the distress of a dying patient.
Hence, there is a need to allow patients to make advance medical directives to instruct
their doctors to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment when they are terminally
and incurably ill. The AMD allows the patient to continue to exercise autonomy when they
are unable to express their wish. It is a formal and legal document which states the
patients wish to die naturally and with dignity.

active euthanasia is tantamount to murder and is forbidden by all countries.

Abortion

A doctor should not perform an abortion because life begins at conception. Any process
that terminates a pregnancy after a sperm has fertilized an egg is arguably murder.
Therefore, abortion at any stage kills a human child and fails to observe the sanctity of life.

-Note that varied perspectives on when life begins further complicate the ethical issues
concerning abortion. Scientists have more solid information on the development of the
foetus than those in the past. Yet, they still cannot come to definite conclusions. Their

thinking is based on a combination of their knowledge, what they have seen, and what
they personally believe in.

Their varied views:

1) Human life begins at conception. The fertilized egg is a product of 2 human beings and
therefore must be human too.
2) Human life begins a week or so after conception when the fertilized egg has implanted
itself in the wall of the uterus.
3) Life does not begin until the embryos heart begins to beat in the 4th week
4) It begins at week 8 when the foetus develops into a foetus hands, arms, legs, internal
organs taking shape
5) It only begins when the foetus becomes viable and is able to live outside the mothers
body. This usually takes place between the 24th to 28th week.

Stem Cell Research / In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF)

IVF involves putting together sperm and egg in a Petri dish and allowing fertilisation to
take place outside the womans body. The strong embryos are implanted in the womans
uterus while the weak ones are thrown out. Doctors freeze the extra strong embryos in
case the woman does not get pregnant on the first try. Since many contend that embryos
are living human beings, such a practice poses moral problems. The same issues arise here
as in the abortion debate. The doctor should not dispose or freeze embryos as this violates
the sanctity of life.

Stem cells have the potential to mitigate or treat diseases and conditions (eg spinal cord
injury, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons disease, diabetes) and to generate replacement
tissues for dysfunctioning cells or organs (eg brain, pancreas). There are three widely
recognised categories of stem cells, one of which is embryonic stem cells which originate
from early human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for assisted reproduction or
fertility treatment. In order to derive or extract the stem cells found within the embryo, the
embryo is destroyed in the removal process. Some researchers even claim that the best
stem cells come from fresh embryos as freezing may affect the usefulness of the embryo.
Doctors thus cannot be allowed to experiment with embryonic stem cells as the process
involves killing of a human being.

(2) Not maintaining the principle promotes immorality and creates more problems for
society.

Euthanasia

 It creates the potential for the misuse & abuse of euthanasia.

(1) The patient may simply take the convenient way out without exploring other options
(2) The patients kin may deliberately choose euthanasia because they stand to gain
financially or save on medical expenses. Death protects their vested interests.
(3) Unscrupulous or incompetent medical caretakers may arbitrarily sentence their patients
to an early death, claiming that they are doing their patients & society a favour.

It devalues life, making it readily disposable. If we shift our values and start to regard
human life as dispensable and cheap, then civilized moral values are in great danger. For
instance, would it lead to involuntary euthanasia by the state for the old, sick & infirm so as
not to drain the countrys resources?

Abortion

Adults and young people will become sexually promiscuous if they know that there is an
easy and legal way to get an abortion should the woman become pregnant. For example, in
1980, over a million teenagers became pregnant and 38% of them had abortions.

Stem Cell Research

There are also concerns that embryonic stem cell research may set an unwelcome
precedent, leading the way for future moral compromises. To prevent this from happening,
doctors and researchers thus should make it their first duty to preserve life.

Singapores Bioethics Advisory Committees take on stem cell research

a human embryo has a special status as a potential human being, but it is not of the
same
status as a living child or adult. Embryos must be less than 14 days and be originally
created for IVF.
research is supported only when there is great scientific merit and potential medical
benefit

(3) From a religious perspective, killing is wrong and the pious should not commit this sin

Euthanasia

Life is the gift of God and thus can only be taken by God. God decides life and death. Man
has no right playing God.

-How one lives and dies determine ones afterlife / reincarnation.

Abortion

In order not to violate religious teachings, the principle has to be maintained when
conception takes place or when a pregnancy reaches a certain stage. When this stage is
depends on ones religion. There are different views on the morality of abortion and the
circumstances under which it may or may not be permitted.

Roman Catholic Church Life begins at conception. The foetus is a human being with
human rights. Interference with the human reproductive process is sinful. However, it does
not oppose indirect killing, that is, the coincidental death of the foetus brought by
medication or medical help given to the mother to save her life. Such situations are seen as
tragic incidents, not sins.
Anglicans & Methodists Life does not begin until the baby has a chance to survive
independently from the mother.
In Islam, the soul enters the foetus 120 days after conception and abortion is murder if it
takes place after 120 days. It is tolerant of abortion before this time.
Buddhism prohibits the taking of life. However, it is usually left to the individual to decide
what should be done.

Stem Cell Research / IVF

Refer to the arguments for abortion

(4) From a medical perspective, a doctor has to honour the Hippocratic oath and restore his
patient to health, not kill him:

I shall give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel

Yet, it is also the role of a doctor to relieve the patients pain. What happens then if pain
relief implies euthanasia? Can euthanasia be seen as an extension of the present principle
of alleviating a patients pain?

(5) Preserving life need not be the top priority if not doing so brings about more desirable
social, moral and emotional consequences than doing so.

Euthanasia

 People do not want to expend exorbitant amounts on a lost cause. If there are no
known cure, they are just postponing death

People believe they deserve immediate release from their misery. How would denying
them merciful means of ending their misery benefit them?

People also believe in valuing quality of life. They do not believe in living out their days
drugged or comatose. Of what use is quantity of life then?

People want to spare their loved ones the agony of watching them die in pain. Death from
a lethal injection is often deemed less traumatic.

Euthanasia may be more humane than the torment of illnesses. Compassion justifies a
case-by-case consideration for their use.

People may resort to euthanasia secretly if it is not legally permitted. Anecdotal evidence
shows euthanasia is provided secretly. Why not legally control the situation to reduce errors
and abuse?

Saving money, time & effort via euthanasia would mean that more resources could be
channeled to other needy patients. They may get more medical subsidies or receive the
much needed organ transplants.

Abortion

Given proposition implies that abortion should be made illegal. However, to gain social
and economic equality with men, feminists, together with abortion rights supporters, insist
that a womans right to privacy and bodily control must prevail over a foetuss right to life.
Hence, a doctor should not preserve the life of a foetus if the woman prefers otherwise.

Even if abortion is illegal, women will resort to unsafe back-alley abortions to end their
pregnancies and endanger their own lives, especially when
they become pregnant as a result of pre-marital sex, rape or incest
tests conducted show that the child suffers from grave mental or physical defects and
they are not financially and emotionally ready to take on this responsibility

Making abortion illegal would also result in global population pressures and would
exacerbate problems such as starvation, overcrowding and environmental degradation

 An increase of unwanted children born in single or/and impoverished families could result
in an increase in social ills, such as an increase in crime, an increase in the number of
people living below the poverty line and the ballooning of the state welfare rolls.

Stem Cell Research / IVF

If cures to currently debilitating diseases could be found via embryonic stem cell
research, millions of people worldwide wide would benefit. Suffering and pain would be
greatly reduced. Hence, in this aspect, it is not necessary to make preserving life the top
priority of doctors.

IVF has enabled couples who are unable to conceive naturally to have children who are
biologically related to them. If a couple wants desperately to have a child of their own and
has pinned all their hopes on IVF and is not disturbed by the disposal of unwanted
embryos, why should a doctor deprive them of the opportunity simply because he has to
preserve life? Advocates of IVF would argue that the happiness and emotional satisfaction
of a couple override the given principle.

(6) Maintaining the principle undermines an individuals right to choose & freedom

Euthanasia

People believe that it is their right and choice to decide to die. Democracy gives them the
liberty & freedom to act according to their beliefs.

A state that professes to uphold the rights and freedom of its people has to respect the
views of its citizens. The individual should have the freedom of choice to live and die on his
own terms. If a representative number calls for euthanasia, it should be condoned.

Some people do not want to be shackled by social and religious expectations. Since they
do not subscribe to these codes of behaviour, they do not want to live by them.

Abortion

Pro-abortionists believe that a womans rights supercede those of a foetus, because the
foetus is a mass of cells and not yet a human being. Therefore, it does not have the same
rights as a human being. Maintaining the principle thus violates the woman right to choose.

 Advocates of abortion also argue that a woman has the right to control what happens to
her body. They stress that a womans decision to control her reproduction is a private and
personal issue that does not concern the government. Maintaining that a doctors first duty
is to preserve life would then make it impossible for a woman to choose abortion.