JoiFoote1

As a mother if you don’t believe you would be able to care for a child with a serious inheritable disability, then that is sufficient reason to terminate a pregnancy.

• Under the UK abortion act, Section 1(1)(d) Ground E states that ‘A pregnancy may be terminated at any stage for foetal abnormality. It specifies that there is a substantial risk that if the child was born it would suffer from such physical and mental abnormalities as to be severely handicapped.’
• I think it is one thing to judge looking from an outside perspective. But to be in a position where there is a chance that your baby could be born with a serious disease, and you don’t know if you would be in a position to care for them can be quite daunting.
• This shouldn’t be a decision that is taken lightly. If you don’t believe you could provide your child with an adequate quality of life/ standard of living, then I believe termination outweighs this.
• I know there are alternative options for example adoption however some women may not be able to handle the thought of carrying a child to have to give them away.

The question I was responding to was it is okay to terminate a pregnancy. Obviously, when a child is born the same reasoning does not apply.

TL;DR If people cannot have children at no fault of their own why should our national health service not provide a reasonable means to attain this. By reasonable I mean not an unlimited number of times.

• For context here are some services that are currently a part of our free healthcare. Weight loss surgery which includes gastric band, gastric bypass or a sleeve gastrectomy. There are also some cases where cosmetic surgery like breast implants and ear correction surgery are offered as a part of our free healthcare. It would make sense for a healthcare service like the NHS to provide IVF given what we currently include under the national healthcare service.
• However, I do believe this should be up to an extent. Free healthcare services like the NHS are not an exhaustive means. It should not be the case where we offer an endless amount of IVF treatments for free. Just like with weight loss surgery there are conditions such as BMI that need to be met before one can be considered. So, with IVF a reasonable number of attempts should be provided by the NHS. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/weight-loss-surgery/
  https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cosmetic-procedures/cosmetic-procedures-on-the-nhs/

To say that most people use IVF out of 'sluggishness' as opposed to health issues is incorrect and rather quite an obtuse way of looking at this. Whilst there a probably a number of health conditions that affect women's infertility, I will just pick up on 2 to elaborate my point. Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome(PCOS) is a common cause of infertility affecting 1 in 10 women of childbearing age. Endometriosis has also been linked to difficulties in women becoming pregnant and this affects around 10% of reproductive age women and girls globally. To put that into figures approximately 190 million women. So it is not the case that the majority of women have simply 'waited too long to have a baby'
This comment also pushes the narrative that women have time constraints when it comes to starting a family, something that obviously does not get applied to men in the same way. Whilst it is true that the chances of women getting pregnant declines as she ages, this line of thinking is quite frankly outdated.

Whilst a person may be able to fall in love with a robot, it’s not possible to have a natural reciprocation of those feelings.

• Love is a human emotion. Just like anger and happiness to give an example. Robots are manmade objects and do not have the capacity to experience human emotions. Whilst humans can fall in love with inanimate objects, a concept labelled ‘Objectum-sexuality’. It is not possible for these feelings to be reciprocated. Even if love robots are programmed to give the impression of such. This would not be a natural human emotion.

What distinguishes eugenics and natural selection?

• The definition of Eugenics ‘is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce human suffering by “breeding out” disease, disabilities and so-called undesirable characteristics from the human population.’
  Whereas Natural selection ‘is a mechanism of evolution. Organisms that are more adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on the genes that aided their success. This process causes species to change and diverge over time.’
• Initially, it appears that the only thing that distinguishes the two is human intervention. We intentionally select desirable traits whilst breeding out apparent undesirable ones. Can we say that this alone is enough to give eugenics a bad name?
• That being said, with human intervention comes with it our value judgements and perceptions. What we deem to be desirable, and undesirable is subject to a human understanding. It differs because ‘natural selection in is an automatic process that is wholly indifferent to concepts such as good and bad, beautiful and ugly, strong and weak, noble or loathsome.’
• It is because of such value judgements that eugenics has been used immorally in the past. For example, Hitler used it in the second world war to keep the gene pool pure. He believed the Aryan race to be superior and ‘declared non-Aryan races such as Jews and gypsies as inferior.’
  It is without a doubt that Eugenics is seen as negative because of how it has been used in the past. However, can we really say this is unfair when it is human conceptions of what is desirable that is key to its practice?

Those born intersex should be raised gender neutral until they can choose which gender they identify with.

• When babies are born it is a legal requirement to declare the sex of the baby. Whilst doctors may assign this sex at birth for those who are intersex, this isn’t to say they will grow up identifying with this gender identity. Doctors may also undertake surgeries on intersex babies to conform them to either gender, this is of course at the parent's discretion.
• Some have argued that we need to determine whether a baby is either male or female in order to ‘eliminate psychological distress for both the patient and the parent.’ However, I can’t agree that this course of action, as opposed to letting them decide themselves is the best approach. Whilst I can imagine parents are attempting to do the best thing for their children, adopting this heteronormative approach to gender and their children’s bodies can be damaging in the long run. This could cause more psychological harm than good.
• As such intersex children should be raised gender neutral until they can decide for themselves. Would it not provide more psychological comfort to allow them to identify with a gender when they have a capacity to understand and choose?

The Kardashian/Jenner family have built a business empire through the family’s expansion into several business ventures.

• Often regarded as Americas most famous family the Kardashian/ Jenner family have dominated reality TV. Keeping up with the Kardashians ran for 20 seasons before it was announced in late 2020 that the show would come to an end.
• During this period, they have expanded their business portfolio into multiple ventures. Kim Kardashian West for example has her own make-up line, KKW beauty. She launched this in 2017 with her contour kit which sold out in ‘less than three hours.’
  Prior to this, although she did not invent contouring, she very much popularised the make-up technique She successfully drew on her influence of such and translated this into her business. One which continues to expand today.
• Likewise, her younger sister Kylie Jenner too started her own make-up line, Kylie cosmetics. Whilst the products now range from eyeshadows, foundations, and eyebrow products. She initially started off with one single product her lip kits. Following the media frenzy around her growing pout. She too capitalised on said popularity and her lip kits sold out in less than 10 minutes.
• The Kardashian empire does not stop there. Both Kim and Kylie have several other ventures alongside their other family members. Khloe Kardashian has her clothing line Good American. Their sister Kendall Jenner too recently started her own Tequila brand ‘818 Tequila’.
• They utilised their popularity from their reality TV show to create multiple businesses. It would be undeniable to say they are very business savvy individuals.

Whilst black people may be in an advantaged position to educate white people about racism, this does not translate to an inherent responsibility.

• My issue with this statement lies in the word ‘responsibility. This implies black people have an obligation to educate white people about racism. This I believe is not the case. Black people are in no way required to do so.
• However, this is not to say they do not occupy a better position in enlightening white people about racism. Although racism doesn’t solely affect those who are black, ‘Racism harms black people the most’ As such their experiences on this particular subject put black people in an advantaged position.
• This is something we can analyse in terms of standpoint theory. Standpoint theory has three main arguments.

1. That knowledge is socially situated.
2. Marginalized groups are socially situated in ways that make it more possible for them to be aware of things and ask questions than it is for the non-marginalized.
3. Research, particularly that focused on power relations, should begin with the lives of the marginalized.
   Black people occupy a privileged point of view, they are advantaged in terms of their experiences of racial oppression. However, as previously mentioned this does not come with it the responsibility to educate others on said point of view.

The stigma of mental health in the black community means it is not talked about nearly enough.

• Mental health often has negative connotations when it comes to the black community. Because of such mental health is not discussed or acknowledged as much as it should be. These negative associations can prevent people from seeking help, which in the long run can lead to many harmful consequences and worsening of an individual’s health.
• Popular TV show Empire articulates such stigmas with the character Andre, who suffers from bipolar. Some remarks the show picked up was that mental health was ‘white people issues’. His mental health issues were often pushed aside and hidden because of the negative stigma that came with it. Although opinions vary on whether the show portrayed mental health in a realistic light, showing the most extreme scenarios of someone with bipolar. I think the show very subtly, but effectively portrayed the stigma of mental health in the black community. How this is not spoken about enough.

Understanding and respecting the cultural significance of the bindi is important.

• The bindi originates from Hindu religious beliefs. From the idea that the centre between the eyebrows is where the sixth chakra is, a third inner eye. The bindi represents this third eye and serves as a constant reminder to keep God at the centre of one’s thoughts.
• However, whilst one may want to wear a bindi, there is also the risk of cultural appropriation. This is when a tradition, such as clothing or hairstyles, is taken from a culture and used in a different way without paying respect to the culture it was inspired from. Purchasing or wearing certain styles with cultural significance for a fashion statement without understanding the true meaning.
• This should not be confused with cultural appreciation. This is where one attempts to learn more about another culture. Doing so in a way that acknowledges the culture they are embracing whilst paying respect to it.
• If the wearing of the bindi is done in a respectful way that acknowledges the cultural significance, then I don’t see why not anyone can wear it.

Is the meaning of life even the same for all humans?

• What is the meaning of life? I perceive this to be quite a difficult question to answer. If we were to ask individuals what they perceived to be the meaning of life, I don’t think every answer would be the same.
• We can look that intuitively some things stand out.
• Financial stability/ attainment of wealth and success.
  Most people work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. We don’t do this because we want to. This allows one to be financially stable and comfortable. We go through many years of education, with some even going on to get degrees and masters with the hope of securing good, well-paid jobs. We could say this points to the meaning of life as reaching a level of financial stability and freedom. However, some people choose against this. For example, nuns and monks. The meaning of life for them is devoted to their religious beliefs. They find no pleasure in things of high monetary value.
• Along this line of reasoning, even those belonging to different religious groups may have different conceptions of the meaning of life. For someone who is Christian, this may involve abiding by the ten commandments and Gods law to be rewarded with heaven in the afterlife. The meaning of life for someone who is Buddhist may be to produce enough good Karma to get rewarded in reincarnation.
• Some have argued the meaning of life is for survival and continuation of the species. This is supported by the fact that it is through natural selection that we adapt to survive in our environments. We were made to survive.
• How can we say the meaning of life is the same for humans when it is for animals when not all humans have the same conception of the meaning of life?

Is society becoming increasingly sensitive and politically correct and do we need to see a joke for what it is, a joke?

• I think there is a key difference between a purposeful sexist remark and a sexist joke. The latter is with the intended purpose of humour and to make someone laugh. The best humour has a sense of truth in them and or relatable aspects, that’s what makes them funny. Shows like Family Guy and Little Britain would not be funny if they didn’t poke fun at and caricature relatable scenarios.
• However, all this being said can a joke sometimes go too far. I don’t think this discussion is exclusive to sexist jokes. Some jokes for example poke fun and play up to racial stereotypes. The key is working to find a middle ground between what is funny and what is offensive. This may also involve being aware of the context you make the joke. Being aware of how those around you may react.
• In an article by The Guardian. ‘Should Little Britain and The Simpsons change with the times?’ It makes a case that whilst being totally offensive, many of the jokes broadcast decades ago were applauded and seen as okay to air on television. However, they certainly would not be met with the same reaction aired today. What we are seeing in general within society is less tolerance towards such humour that may cause offence.

Is sex a spectrum?

• Anne Fausto-Sterling in her paper ‘The Five Sexes’ opposes a binary understanding of sex, instead she upholds the view that it is more like a spectrum. In society, we see varying anatomical features that do not fit in with binary conceptions of sex. However, what we do is render this abnormal and different. As such we force people to conform to this binary as opposed to making our conceptions of sex include them. As Fausto-Sterling points out ‘Western Culture is deeply committed to the idea that there are only two sexes’.
• She argues that ‘along the spectrum lie at least five sexes- and perhaps even more.’ These five sexes are male and female with the additional hermaphrodites (herms), male pseudohermaphrodites (merms) and female pseudohermaphrodites (ferms) Herms are otherwise known as true hermaphrodites. They are individuals who possess one ovary and one testis. Merms have testes with the XY chromosome pattern biologically attributed to males. They also have some aspects of female genitalia, but they possess no ovaries. Ferms on the contrary have ovaries with an XX chromosome pattern. They have some aspects of male genitalia with no testes. Fausto-Sterling makes the point that these sexes ‘deserve to be considered additional sexes in its own right’. While she doesn’t deny the possibility that there are more than the five she outlines, she believes this should replace the current two sex system and thus in direct opposition towards the current binary understanding of sex.
• ‘According to experts, around 1.7% of the population is born with intersex traits – comparable to the number of people born with red hair.’ This shows that it is not as uncommon as people may seem. Therefore, a binary understanding of sex as such is insufficient.

We can’t ignore the fact that biologically, men and women are different, but we can ignore arguments that link such biological differences to social differences between men and women.

• One biological difference is our sex chromosomes. Men typically have an XY chromosomal pattern, whereas women tend to have an XX chromosome pattern. This is a difference at the biological level.
• Another difference is in reference to reproductive hormones. These are produced in our reproductive organs. These are the testes for males and the ovaries in females. Typical reproductive hormones for females are oestrogen and progesterone. The typical reproductive hormone in males is testosterone, FSH and LH.
• Usually and typical are used here in that sometimes men and women are born with mixed reproductive organs, as such are born intersex. Some medical conditions like PCOS for example also cause increased levels of testosterone in women.
• I don’t think it is a useful contribution to the discussion to deny there are biological differences between males and females. This is obviously not the case. We should focus more on debunking the idea that it is such biological differences that mean men and women are different in more social aspects. They in no way shape how men and women can function and contribute to society.
• For example, it is often argued that testosterone means men are biologically stronger thus more suited to labour roles. This is not the case. It is when we use biological differences to justify this line of reasoning that there becomes an issue.

If you have the means to provide help to someone sleeping rough, whilst this is a great thing to do, giving money may not always be the best option.

• Giving money does not always equate to helping those in need. Sometimes help can be best given through providing resources. For example, food, hot drinks and clothing are all beneficial to those sleeping rough. As we have no prior knowledge of the circumstances that led to them becoming homeless, money may not be the best source of help. This point is picked up on in an article by the Independent which reads ‘providing cash can keep people trapped in the endless cycle of homelessness and rough sleeping, particularly for those who are also battling drugs and alcohol issues.’

I don’t believe the name you are given has any direct influence on the actions we as individuals take. It is just a label for our persons. However, a name may affect the way other people treat you, as such these external factors may influence who you become.

• In a study conducted by BBC, two identical CV’s were sent out to the same companies. The only thing that differed between the two were the names. One was for an applicant named ‘Adam’, a more traditionally English sounding name whereas the other had ‘Mohammed’, a traditional Muslim name. Despite the matching CV’s, Adam was offered 12 interviews whereas Mohammed was only offered 4.
• In light of this, it is possible to say that our name can influence who we become. In the study mentioned above, if this interview would mean the difference between one obtaining a stable income or not, this would have a knock effect for the following course of actions. Who knows what could have resulted from said interview and how it shaped who they become?

Smartphones nowadays come with a range of safety features and applications. They are not fundamentally dangerous but in fact quite the opposite and can be beneficial in many ways
One upside to smartphones is the range of safety features that come with them.

• Location and GPS services on many smartphones means one can keep track of past movements. Whilst this may be viewed as an invasion of privacy, there have been a number of kidnapped individuals saved through GPS location services on smartphones.
• 'Kidnapped' child tracked by mobile phone and Street View
• Georgia college student, 21, reveals how she used her iPhone's 'share my location' feature to escape the kidnapper who raped her at knife point.
• On an iPhone. Pressing the side button 5 times will allow you to contact emergency services discreetly and quickly.
• The same action. Will also allow you to view medical information, including emergency contact numbers. Such a tool could prove vital in a health emergency.
  https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208076
• Smartphones can also help you stay on top of your health.
  The number of applications that allow you to track your steps, what you’re eating and your daily water intake. You can also monitor your period and set up daily reminders for taking medication.
• Whilst this is not an exhaustive list it demonstrates that smartphones are not inherently dangerous. Rather they can be quite the opposite.

Organ donation of course saves many lives. However, this does not mean we should take away one’s personal choice in doing so.

• In 2017 it was recorded that over 50,000 people had been saved through organ donation and transplants. 4 years later I am guessing that number has continued to rise.
• However, despite the benefits, this does not take away the fact that they were a result of a personal choice from such individuals. As someone who personally opted in to be an organ donor, I don’t know how comfortable I would feel doing so if this was mandatory.
• Many people may choose not to do so as it contrasts with their personal/religious beliefs.
• I also don’t think matters like organ donation should have state interference, it should remain within the private domain. If this is to become mandatory what is there to stop them from regulating other stuff. Will blood donations to become something we have no choice in?

Are some individuals genetically dispositioned to be criminals?

• The nature vs nurture debate concerns whether behaviours are learned through one’s environment (nurture) or is behaviour biologically determined (nature).
• If we take it to be nature that determines behaviour, it would be a waste of time to try and rehabilitate criminals. The purpose of rehabilitation is to correct behaviours and allow one to live a law-abiding life. However, can we correct a behaviour that is genetic?
• For example. Jacobs XYY. This theory suggests there is a link between criminality and an abnormal chromosomal pattern. Those with the XYY chromosome have been studied to be more aggressive and inclined to violence. Studies also suggest that XYY men are overrepresented in the prison system with there being 15 sufferers per 1000 people in prison, in comparison with 1 sufferer per 1000 in the general population.
• Serial killers John Wayne Gacy and Arthur Shawcross both had the XYY chromosome pattern.
• On the opposite side of the debate, rehabilitation would be a useful method for criminals. If behaviours are learned then correcting such behaviours with an efficient rehabilitation plan would work.
• Under skinners operant conditioning. This theory upholds the view that behaviours can be modified through positive and negative reinforcement. Rewarding positive behaviour and punishing negative behaviour allows one to associate a particular course of action with the corresponding consequence.
• The Incentive and Earned Privileges System
  Rewards prisoners when they display positive behaviour and punishes negative behaviour. Such rewards include additional visits and TV privileges. Punishments however include reduced visits and loss of access to the canteen
• Depending on which stance you take on the debate may alter your position of whether rehabilitation is useful.

Does obesity satisfy the definition of a disease?
There are a number of varying accounts for what we classify as a disease. Under some accounts, it seems that obesity satisfies the conditions and under others, it does not.

• Jerome Wakefield defined a disease as a harmful dysfunction. Bringing together both the naturalistic (factual component) and normativist (value component) notions of disease accounts. Under his definition, a disease is a biological dysfunction of a naturally selected trait that causes harm. Harm in this sense broadly covering all negative conditions.
• We can see that obesity satisfies that first condition in that it is harmful. Obesity has many negative outcomes. For example: type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and even premature death.
• However, is it a dysfunction of a naturally selected trait? I don’t believe obesity satisfies this second criterion There may be an underlying disease that satisfies the dysfunction element, in which obesity is a consequence (e.g: PCOS). However, I don’t know if we can call obesity itself a dysfunction.

Height bias is something especially prevalent when it comes to dating preferences.
There is a bias for many things when it comes to dating preferences, for example: weight and race. Height is just another one of those things.
However, for some reason, we are much more comfortable in saying we don’t find someone attractive due to their height than we would do if we applied this same reasoning regarding someone’s weight. The outrage that would be sparked if someone was to take to social media and say they would not date an individual if there were over a certain weight. Whilst both are completely wrong, we tend not to pay much attention to height bias. This is something an individual cannot control, and this could potentially lead to one feeling insecure.

Although I don’t believe they are at liberty to disclose any work they have chosen to do on their bodies, they should not lie.

• Whether one chooses to undergo cosmetic procedures is completely their choice. I don’t believe they should have to announce to anyone any work they have had done, especially considering many cosmetic procedures are down to personal insecurities. However, being a celebrity comes with it being in the public eye. As such any noticeable differences are likely to get caught up in a media story. Lying about cosmetic procedures is not the way to avoid this as all it does is set unattainable beauty standards.
• We can see this with the example of Kylie Jenner. When Kylie Jenner was pictured with notably larger lips the media speculated that she had undergone lip filler. However, she continuously refuted such rumours saying it was down to make up.
• 2015 then saw the craze that was the Kylie Jenner Lip Challenge. It would see people put things like shot glasses and cups to suction them off. Increased blood flow would then result in the lips swelling up and increase in size. With this trend came with it some unexpected and sometimes dangerous results.
• Although she eventually revealed to getting lip fillers it didn’t prevent the countless impressionable people who went to such lengths to achieve the same look.

Studies have shown that climate change affects the most vulnerable in society, this often being the poorer members in society as such climate change is a social justice issue.

• As Costello et al puts it 'The inequity of climate change—with the rich causing most of the problem and the poor initially suffering most of the consequences—will prove to be a source of historical shame to our generation if nothing is done to address it.'
• This is further supported by Dale Jamieson who articulates that its: 'Even more troubling than the fact that poor countries suffer more from climate-related impacts than rich countries is the fact that poor people suffer more from such impacts than rich people, wherever they live.’
• For example: Bangladesh is a country very susceptible to climate change, however, the rich people in Bangladesh won’t suffer much of the consequences because they have the money to adapt. Poor people in the UK might also suffer the effects of climate change for example sleeping rough in the middle of heavy rain. As such we can see that poor and marginalised groups are much more vulnerable to the harsh effects of climate change.
• Because of such climate change is a social justice issue as it disproportionately affects those in a disadvantaged position.

On the 23rd of June 2016, the UK, with a 52% majority voted to leave the European Union. After years of negotiations, the UK formally left the EU on the 31st of January 2020.

• With a very marginal majority, it is understandable that there was and still is division in opinions regarding whether it was in Britain’s best interests to leave the EU. Here are some of the key arguments on both sides of the debate.
  Remain arguments.
• The benefits of being a member of the European Single Market far outweigh the costs of EU membership. Whereas we contribute an average of £340 per household, our membership generates a return investment of £3,000 per household.
• The EU is the UK’s number one trading partner. Leaving the EU poses huge risks, as trade barriers will be introduced, and tariffs implemented. We also benefit from the EU trade deal which deals with 50+ countries around the world.
• The UK alone will have less influence than as a member of the EU. The country will have less influence over transnational decision-making, on issues such as combatting terrorism, boosting trade and protecting the environment.
  Leave arguments.
• Money spent on our EU membership can be put into other resources. such as health, education and scientific research.
• In terms of immigration, EU membership means that the UK cannot retain full control over immigration. Brexit will give the UK full control over borders again.
• A reduction in migrant numbers will create job opportunities for British workers and ease pressure on public services.
• EU regulation hinders British businesses more than it helps them. The UK will do better alone.
• Trade with EU countries will of course continue. The UK can negotiate a free trade deal with the EU without itself being bound by EU laws. Will in fact be in a better position as the UK can negotiate their own trade agreements with other countries.

Does the storming of the Capitol satisfy the conditions that define a coup?’

• On the 6th January 2021 a mass of Trump supporters stormed The United States Capitol. This was in response to his defeat in the 2020 presidential election in which Trump lost to Joe Biden and the democratic party.
• The definition of a coup, more formally known as a Coup d'état is ‘the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group.’ Opinions however vary on whether this was a credible coup attempt.
• ‘The Coup D’etat Project at the University of Illinois’ Cline Center for Democracy has determined that the storming of the U.S. Capitol qualifies as an attempted coup.’
  After first claiming the events on the 6th January did not satisfy what they deemed to be a coup. A team of 6 researchers came together to overturn that decision in that the storming of the capitol included three broad characteristics of a coup. Such characteristics are as follows:
  ‘one or more persons posed a credible threat to the power of the legislative branch to determine national policy’.
  'Second, the attackers were trying to change who controls the government.'
  'And third, the assault on the Capitol included at least some elements of advance organization'.
• Other opinions however contend that whilst what we saw was vioent and shocking, it was not a coup.
  The reason for this being that it does not meet the criteria to what defines a coup. They provide an alternative criterion for what they deem to be a coup, these criteria being:

1. Are the perpetrator's agents of the state, such as military officials or rogue governmental officials?
2. Is the target of the insurrection the chief executive of the government?
3. Do the plotters use illegal and unconstitutional methods to seize executive power?
   The reason why they believe this was not a coup is that it does not satisfy all the first conditions. In that those involved in the storming of the capital were civilians as opposed to military and governmental officials.

People have used a lot worse to get ahead in life.
This isn’t to say that I advocate for the use of sex to get ahead in life, but people have done a lot worse to do so. Who are we to say one should not engage in sex to advantage themselves? As long as the sex is consensual from both parties, I can’t think of any laws that are being broken.

I think it depends on one’s reasoning for being vegan.

• If you are vegan because you don’t agree with the killing of animals for human consumption, then it might seem plausible from an ethical standpoint to eat an animal that has died of natural causes.
• However, there are many other reasons that one chooses to become a vegan. Such reasons are, but not limited to, wanting to live a healthier lifestyle and the ethical issues regarding inhumane conditions of animals. Under such reasons, I don’t think one would care whether the animal died of natural causes and as such would still not choose to eat it.
• Also for many veganism isn’t just a dietary preference but a lifestyle choice. By this, I mean that they don’t just avoid consuming meat products but avoid using any products derived from animals. As the Vegan society articulates veganism is ‘“a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.” This would mean that the natural death of the animal would not alter whether one would consume the meat.

The destruction of monuments serve as signs that we recognise wrongdoings in the history of our predecessors. As such they are justified in that we refuse to continue celebrating their life achievements

• Statues and monuments are used to celebrate the life achievements of an individual. However, why do we continue to still celebrate those who were heavily involved in the slave trade? The destruction of monuments is justified in that we refuse to continue to celebrate those individuals and their actions.
• Edward Colston was heavily involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade. During a Black Lives Matter protest in June of 2020, protestors removed the statue commemorating Colston before throwing it into the Bristol Harbour. One article described this as an ‘act of living history’ The Mayor of Bristol himself even said that this was ‘an iconic moment for the city.’
• The protest movement ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ is a campaign that originally started in the University of Cape Town, South Africa in March of 2015. This movement was in protest of a statue in memory of Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes was a British Imperialist ‘who played a dominant role in southern Africa in the late 19th Century’ This protest also signalled a move to decolonise the curriculum of the university which reflected a ‘Eurocentric Heritage.’
  What once started as a campaign to remove one statue gained global attraction.
  Students within the University of Oxford stood in solidarity with the Rhodes Must Fall movement, calling for the removal of a statue within the institution that too commemorated the memory of Rhodes.
• People who argue against this line of reasoning and the justification of the destruction of monuments, would say that we are destroying history. I don’t think we can destroy history. However, I do think we can choose to acknowledge the wrongdoings of our history. The slave trade will never be forgotten but we don’t need to continue to have monuments and statues that glorify these people.
• You will find no statues of Hitler or remains of monuments from the Nazi period. As this article articulates ‘Germany Doesn’t Have Statues Of Hitler, So Why Do We Have Confederate Monuments’. It is in fact illegal to display any Nazi imagery in Germany. I don’t know anyone who would have argued in favour of keeping up such monuments. As such we should approach the destruction of monuments that celebrate the lives of those involved with the slave trade with the same attitude.

Maybe it’s because in the UK tipping isn’t as custom as it is in the US, but I have never understood the idea that you should ALWAYS tip your waiter

• Yes, if I have received great service from a waiter or anyone in general, I would tip them. However, this is completely my choice and I am under no obligation to do so.
• If employers are not paying workers sufficient wages, it is not the responsibility of the customer to make up for this. What this instead highlights, is a change that is needed in the hospitality industry. Change in respect to a workforce that should be paid a sufficient living wage.
• Having worked in the hospitality industry myself, I have too received tips. However, this is not something I expect. I don’t believe any customer holds an obligation to tip me for a service that is in my job description.
• Please feel free to argue against because again, I feel that in the UK tipping is not as customary and maybe a differing perspective may help in understanding opposing sides.

Whilst the bible frequently uses male pronouns ‘He’ and ‘Him’ to refer to God, God is believed to transcend human conceptions of sex and thus is neither male nor female.

• In the words of Anselm God is the ‘greatest conceivable being.’ The greatest thing you can imagine, God is greater than that. What this signposts is that God is beyond human characteristics. To say that God is male or any gender comes with it, an assumption that God is like us. That God possesses human characteristics when in fact he does not.
• Back to the fact the Bible often uses male pronouns. On the face of it, it might seem plausible to assume God is male or any sex classification at all. However, as explained quite well here. ‘It’s hard to mention god without giving him a gender.’ To avoid using pronouns makes for awkward talking when it comes to God. If we look at the passages of the bible, if they avoided using pronouns, we could imagine how it could make for some clunky and awkward reading.
• So yes, whilst I agree that If God exists, he isn’t male, but that is because he has no gender.

The design arguments, argue in favour of the belief that God created the universe. This is because our experience of the world around us points to an intelligent designer as opposed to the world coming around by chance.
There are many strands of the design argument. I will discuss two different variations of this argument.

• William Paley’s design argument.
  His argument comes in the form of an analogy, often referred to as the Watchmaker analogy. If someone was to come across a watch in a field, they would notice how well the watch worked and conclude that all the complex parts were fitted together for the purpose of telling the time. This couldn’t have come into existence by chance. This is similar to looking at the world. It’s so intricate and all works together that it couldn’t have come together by chance. Was the result of an intelligent designer.
• Aquinas too put forward his own design argument also known as his 5th way to prove the existence of God.
  Nature seems to have been very carefully designed to support the development of human life. It rains so we have enough to drink and the seasons change so we can grow food and have enough to eat. Also, non-intelligent materials like plants and trees act in a way to support human life. They cannot choose to do this but rather needs an intelligent being to bring this about.

The act of prayer, whilst fundamentally rooted in a belief in god and talking to a higher power, also provides additional benefits outside of a Christian context.

• Retired paediatrician Peter Boelens used prayer to cure people suffering from depression and anxiety. After a six-week study with 27 men and women, the participants who once satisfied the DSM criteria for depression had reported that their depression and anxiety had reduced. No medication or therapy was used in the study, simply instances of collective prayer. This evidently shows the positive effect of prayer.
• Prayer has often been linked to meditation in that they share similar benefits. Some of the physical and mental benefits are as follows:
  The activity of your brain moves from the right frontal cortex (where stress lives) to the calm left frontal cortex.
  Greater creativity
  Improved learning and memory,
  Increased happiness and emotional stability.
  Spending some time in personal reflection means you’ll gain greater wisdom of your mission in this life.
  Greater appreciation of all that you’ve been given, both good and bad.
  Helps banish those negative thoughts that threaten your peace of mind.
  Anti-ageing
  Decreased blood pressure
  Higher skin resistance
  Easier breathing.
• From a religious perspective, prayer and an underlying belief in God provides one with a sense of comfort. Comfort in the belief there is a higher power who is listening and answering your prayers. When an individual is going through especially troubling and turbulent times, resulting in acts prayer may prove helpful. We are all contingent beings who lack the power to change or fix momentous things. Directly talking to someone we believe can do this, therefore, brings a positive effect.

The only reason I am against this argument. is because of the wording of the statement.
To say that Tiger Woods is the greatest ever golfer, we would have to accept that no other golfer will reach the same great achievements that Tiger Woods has achieved. This is not saying that Woods is not an exceptional golfer, being currently tied at first place for the number of PGA tours wins with Sam Snead. He also has the lowest average scoring average of 68.17. This is however just to say that it is epistemically impossible to contend this statement is correct. Epistemically impossible meaning that it is beyond our current knowledge of the world for it to be true. A more appropriate statement would be that he is one of the greatest players.

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki show the devastating effects of nuclear weapons, how can we justifiably say the world is a safer place when such weapons exist.

• August 2020 marked the 75 year anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. This took the lives of approximately 140,000 people. Just three days later this was followed by another bomb in the city of Nagasaki. Which is estimated to have taken the lives of another 74,000 people.
• However, to those who survived the blast. Many went on to feel the effects of the bombs throughout the rest of their lives. ‘In the years that followed, many of the survivors would face leukaemia, cancer, or other terrible side effects from the radiation.’ The rates of miscarriages also went up in women who were pregnant at the time of the bombings.
• If we were to experience an atomic bomb today there would be no way that we could assist or aid the victims. Not only would those caught up in the bomb be doctors’ nurses and first responders but there would be an unimaginable number of victims that it would simply be too overwhelming. Entering the area itself would be life-threatening due to the high levels of radiation. As the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) point out ‘There is no way to really help victims of a nuclear attack’ following up with ‘These weapons should never be used’
  This was the very case with the Hiroshima bombing. Around 90% of physicians and nurses were killed or injured and 42 out of the 45 hospitals in the city were affected by the blast. This meant they only had two hospitals they could efficiently use at their disposal to cater for the mass injuries.
• I don’t know how one can justifiably argue that one deserves this fate, nor do I know how the use of such weapons could ever be morally acceptable. The effects are just too overwhelmingly devastating. As Antonio Guterres the UN Secretary General stated "The only way to totally eliminate nuclear risk is to totally eliminate nuclear weapons.”

TL;DR Just because we don’t publicly segregate black people in today’s society does not mean to say racism is no longer a matter of concern.
Although we have laws in place against discrimination because of one's race, racism still remains a big issue in our society, something we can see through a number of figures and case studies.
figures and case studies.

• The murder of George Floyd at the hands of officer Derick Chauvin is just one instance of racism. Chauvin held his knee on Floyd's neck for over nine minutes until he stopped breathing, with his force in this case deemed as excessive. At his memorial, shortly after his death Lawyer Benjamin Crump was quoted saying it was “The pandemic of racism and discrimination." that killed him. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. We are seeing many cases of black people being murdered and in other cases subsequently no receiving justice.
• This is what we have witnessed with the case of Breonna Taylor. She was killed in her own home after officers stormed in on a drug raid. The officer in question was charged with “wanton endangerment”. This was in regard to the shots fired into the neighbour’s apartment. In that, he was only charged for the shots that missed Breonna, not the ones that hit her.
• Another point is that the incarceration rate for people of ethnic backgrounds is disproportionally higher than white people. They are also more likely to receive harsher sentences.
• The Prison Reform Trust produced a number of statistics for 2021 regarding incarnation rates and race for England and Wales. Such statistics include:
  If our prison population reflected the make-up of England and Wales, we would have over 9,000 fewer people in prison.
  Analysis conducted for the Lammy Review found a clear direct association between ethnic groups and the odds of receiving a custodial sentence.
  Black men are 26% more likely than white men to be remanded in custody.
• The same can be said of the US as senior researcher and analyst Ashley Nellis outlines in some key findings:
  African Americans are incarcerated in state prisons at a rate that is 5.1 times the imprisonment of whites.
  In eleven states, at least 1 in 20 adult black males is in prison.
• What is the reason for these statists? Finding that fail to correspond when the demographic of both countries on a whole. Quite ignorant to say they commit more crimes. What this is, is proof of institutional racism. There still exists inequality
• This is not limited to crime and the legal system but extends into our healthcare system. ‘Black women in the UK [are] four times more likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth.' The racial disparities in pregnant women aren’t due to any genetic variation but simply because of disproportionate treatment in our healthcare system.
• When we look at the statistics it is clear to see that racism is still a big problem in our society today. The list I have provided here is not exhaustive. But what this works to show is that racism is still a big problem in our society.
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52928304
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54273317
  http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/vw/1/ItemID/999
  https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jan/15/black-women-in-the-uk-four-times-more-likely-to-die-in-pregnancy-or-childbirth
  https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/

Following on from the Euro finals I thought it would be beneficial to contribute to this opinion.
After England's defeat against Italy in the Euro Finals 2021, it was disgusting to see many take to social media, targetting and racially attacking players: Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho. Despite the fact, this was the first time England had reached the finals in 55 years it was overshadowed along with the hard work and effort of the players in getting there. The hashtag #racistengland was trending in response to the trolling that was taking place online. This is just testimony to the fact that racism is still a BIG problem in our society today.

Whilst that is true, the abuse is something they never should have received in the first place. Why was it the initial reaction of many to immediately target them for the colour of their skin? Just because there was a lot of defence for these players doesn't mean to say racism is no longer an issue.

Racism isn't that big of an issue? I think you are very much misinformed and overlooking many of the statistics I mentioned in my argument. The racial abuse received by footballers is just one example that supports my argument that racism is still a big issue. Racism is not contained within football and I think you should read up on some of the following topics before claiming that it's 'just not that big an issue'.
-Mortality rates of Black pregnant women compared to other ethnicity groups.
-The banning of the hijab if working in a face to face environment.
-Incarceration rates of ethnic minorities compared to white people.
-Stop and search rates by race.
-Media treatment of Meghan Markle.
-Systematic racism in UK schools.

Does giving women a longer amount of paid parental leave assume they should be primary childcarers?

-Men are entitled to 1 to 2 weeks of paid paternity leave whereas women are entitled up to 52 weeks of maternity leave. However, only 39 of these weeks are paid. There is also the option for Shared Parental Leave and Pay Where the 50 weeks of leave and 37 weeks of pay can be shared between both the mother and father.
-Maternity leave obviously provides a period of rest and recovery for women, having carried a child for up to 40 weeks and then going through the experience of labour. However, as highlighted here ‘The purpose of maternity leave is to enable an employee to care for and bond with a newborn.’ Does giving women a considerably longer period of paid parental leave presuppose that they will be the primary child careers. I think giving men more parental leave allows fathers to too bond with children and take on more equal roles when it comes to childcare responsibilities.
-However, if it was the case that extended paid paternity leave would affect how much paid leave women receive I think that may pose an issue. In order to supplement the additional wages for paternity leave, it may be the case the reduce the entitlement currently available for women. 39 weeks total to just under 8 months. These months of which some of the most important in a newborn’s development. It is also recommended that women continue breastfeeding for ‘up to 12 months’
-So reduced maternity leave for women would undermine the strengths in increasing paternity leave.

Justice is very important in society, but can we say that it is THE MOST important requirement for society.

• ‘the most’ means that it requires us to contend that is the greatest and most important quality and moral value we can have in society above all others. Whilst I believe it is a fundamental requirement for society, I can’t argue that it to be the case that it is the most important.
• There are many other things in society that are important, this is shown for one through the arguments under the ethics of care.
• The general underpinning theme of care ethics is a move from a focus on justice to a focus on care. ‘Both charged traditional moral approaches with male bias and asserted the “voice of care” as a legitimate alternative to the “justice perspective” of liberal human rights theory.’
• The ethics of care can be primarily traced back to the work of Carol Gilligan. Initially, her work was a reaction and critique to Lawrence Kohlberg and his stages of moral development where he concluded boys tended to have a higher moral development than girls. He set out some abstract ethical rules based of an ethics of justice reasoning.
  -‘ justice reasoning seeks a universally applicable solution that can be applied to all similar cases, whereas care reasoning represents a particularistic mode of moral thinking that is based on the full description of the case at hand.
  This is not to deny the importance of justice but to say it is the most important undermines other moral values that are important, as exemplified through care ethicists.

Men are in a privileged position in society compared to women. Not only am I against the statement that men suffer from sexism just as much as women, but I believe they cannot suffer from sexism at all. This is because it requires prejudice and power.

The definition of sexism (like racism) not only requires a notion of prejudice and stereotyping based on one’s sex, but it also includes power. Oppression from the dominant group, which in this case is men. If we apply a similar way of thinking to racism; where one can be prejudiced towards a white person because of the colour of the skin. You cannot be racist towards them because of the second requirement of power. Whilst we can say that men are stereotyped and prejudiced against on the basis of their gender. It is different from saying we can be sexist towards men as only those who exist within the dominant sex (males) can be sexist. This is not only limited to racism and sexism but with ableism and classism just to name a few. The following handout briefly elaborates on some key definitions surrounding this.

Sexism is also often at the advantage of men. They are in a privileged position because of the fact we still live in a patriarchal society. As articulated by Craig Lockard ‘Today, as in the past, men generally hold political, economic, and religious power in most societies thanks to patriarchy, a system whereby men largely control women and children, shape ideas about appropriate gender behaviour, and generally dominate society.’

What do we even mean by ‘women’s fiction’?
Although an initial google search proved difficult in locating a concrete definition, Agentquery.com defines women’s fiction as ‘fiction about women’s issues for a female readership. However, it is not the same as chick lit or romance. While utilizing literary prose, women’s fiction is very commercial in its appeal. Its characters are often women attempting to overcome both personal and external adversity. Although women’s fiction often incorporates grave situations such as abuse, poverty, divorce, familial breakdown, and other social struggles, it can also explore positive aspects within women’s lives. Romantic love stories are also part of women’s fiction, and although love stories are found in chick lit and romance, the mature depth and tone of their development within women’s fiction set them apart from other genre classifications.'
Why is it that we don’t have a distinct category for ‘men’s fiction’. This reinforces the notion that women’s writing is seen as a subcategory. Would fiction about men’s issues for a male readership be too considered as ‘mens fiction’? Exploration of romantic love from a male perspective. It is quite unnecessary to continue to uphold the notion of women’s writing as its own distinct genre.

We can look at The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male as a valid reason for mistrust in healthcare.
The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male was an unethical study in which black men were used as human test subjects to observe the effects of untreated syphilis. It was under the guise that they would receive free healthcare with a number of additional benefits. As this report outlines There is no evidence that informed consent was gained from the human participants in this study.
This study only came to an end in 1972 so it is no wonder why one would be hesitant to put their trust in the healthcare system and subsequently receiving the vaccine. This fear in relation to the covid vaccine has been picked up in a number of articles.
History Drives Distrust in Covid- 19 Vaccines for Black Americans in Tuskegee.
New York Times article Did Infamous Tuskegee Study Cause Lasting Mistrust of Doctors Among Blacks? We can hardly call one's fear irresponsible.
This is not to say I am personally against receiving the vaccine but I believe it is important to acknowledge opposing viewpoints.

TL;DR Is honesty really the best policy if the consequence of the lie outweighs the consequence of the truth.

• This is a consequentialist approach, one favoured by utilitarian’s who look at the outcome of one’s actions as opposed to the action itself. What consequences would my instance of lying have not only on myself but the people around me?
• Imagine a scenario where you are confronted by a serial killer who is looking for a mother and her child. You happen to know the exact location of the two. In this instance, however, I don’t know who would say that lying in this situation would be wrong.
• Ultimately lying should be assessed on a situational basis. Whilst we maintain a general consensus that the truth should predominately be adopted. Lying can’t really be wrong especially when it comes to situations similar to the one mentioned above.

TLDR: To make the case that a mother's first duty is to be a homemaker perpetuates the stereotype that a woman’s primary domain is within the household.

• Why is this case that a mother's first duty is to be homemakers, and this is not the same for fathers. I don’t think this should apply exclusively to women. Men too have a primary duty of the running and upkeep of their households.
• This maintains gender roles that we have fought so hard to push against. The role that a women’s place is in the household and a mans is in the workplace

TL;DR Whilst statistics show domestic violence affects women more than it does so men, failing to acknowledge that males can too suffer from domestic silences their struggle.

• For context here are some statistics on male domestic violence from Mankind. Statistics are true as of April 2021.
  The Office for National Statistics figures show every year that one in the three victims of domestic abuse are male equating to 757,000 men.
  Of domestic abuse crimes recorded by the police, 26% were committed against men. This equates to c155,000 offences per year.
  Half of male victims (49%) fail to tell anyone they are a victim of domestic abuse and are two and a half times less likely to tell anyone than female victims (19%).
• I think it is important to not treat domestic violence as solely something that affects women. Whilst remaining cautious of the ‘it happens to men too’ narrative. We don’t want to discredit female victims of domestic violence and we don’t want to silence male victims. Although instances of this occurring are rarer, it happens and it is important to create a safe space for all regardless of gender.
• Also, we have to consider the extent to which we see fewer cases of domestic abuse against males because they are reported less.
  https://www.mankind.org.uk/statistics/statistics-on-male-victims-of-domestic-abuse/

TL;DR: Is it okay to take away someone’s right to have children because of something they cannot control?

• On one hand, it would not be fair in terms of the quality of life of the child. If such an inheritable disability would cause the child lifelong pain and difficulties, I think the expected quality of life of the child outweighs one’s desire to reproduce.
• For context:
  1.5% of abortions (3,083) in 2020 we carried out under Ground E for grounds for abortion. ‘That there is substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
  In 2019 this accounted for 2% of abortions (3,183)
  What these statistics show is that when faced with the possibility that a child will be born with serve disabilities; they would rather terminate than proceed with the pregnancy.
• However, who are we to play God and say who has the right to have children? China was widely criticised for their one-child policy. The scheme that was said to have officially started in 1980 came into effect to stabilise the country’s ever-growing population. This might not be exactly the same situation but what we see is governmental influence and interference on having children, something that arguably should not be in the domain of the state. It is said China forced women to undergo sterilisations, abortions and forced them to use contraception.
• Where is the bridge between this and eugenics? Where we attempt to improve the human race by selecting desirable traits to reproduce, weeding out seemingly negative traits.
  https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020
  https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy

Feminism is the political ideology that calls for the advancement of women’s rights so that there exists equality between the sexes.
-Feminists are working in spaces to give females equality. However, these advancements have not always been for ALL women, predominately serving white women’s interests.
-This is something abolitionist and women’s rights activist Sojourner Truth pointed out in that white feminism at the time didn’t speak to the interests of people like her.
-This isn’t to say feminism is racist, but it is to say that those working in feminist spaces often neglected the black female perspective.

• Black feminist theory so rightly points out that black women are positioned completely different within structures of power compared to white women.
  -This is the same for Asian feminists, LGBTQ feminists and so on. Drawing on feminist standpoint theory in that not all women will have the same experiences and epistemic standpoints.

The Black Lives Matter Movement is a political movement in response to police brutality and the racially motivated violence and killing towards black people.

• What the All Lives Matter rhetoric does is fail to recognise that it is black lives that are currently being unfairly targeted and subsequently not receiving justice. It is an ignorant statement to say in the face of what is going on in the world right now.
• No one is denying the fact that all life is valuable or claiming that black lives are more important. However, what we are seeing is a persistent targeting of black people from George Floyd, Tamir Rice and Breonna Taylor.
• To say all lives matter in the face of Black Lives Matter disvalues the lives of those lost simply because of the colour of their skin.

TL;DR Yes, we should aim to save as many lives as possible but is it still permissible when it is my deliberate action that will bring about that death?
The Trolley Problem is the ethical dilemma regarding a runaway trolley that is heading towards a group of five people tied to the tracks. In this dilemma you happen to be by the lever which will switch the trolley to a different track, this track however has one single person on it. You are faced with two options: You can either pull the lever so that it switches tracks and kills the single person or allow it to kill the five individuals. Furthermore, you would not be able to stop the trolley in time to avoid hitting either parties involved. What is the best course of action to proceed with?
-On face value it might appear that the best course of action would be to push the lever. Sacrificing one life would be better than allowing the loss of five. In the words of Jeremy Bentham, it is the action that will cause the greatest amount of happiness.
-However, what this dilemma draws out is the distinction between an act and an omission. In pulling the lever you are acting in a way that brings about the death of another. Allowing the trolley to follow its course is an omission. An absence of involvement. This however depends on how you view an omission; some people would see not acting as worthy of blame but under UK law, only if you’re under a duty of care e.g: a doctor or a lifeguard, would you be guilty of failing to act.
-Ultimately, there are relevant points on both sides of the argument. We can recognise the value of life and wanting to save as many people as possible. However, this involves having to act in a way that will result in the death of another individual.

While on face value this appears to be a plausible statement, I think this fails to recognise the difference between equity and equality. The former recognises that individuals are subject to many different circumstances, which means that equality does not always produce a fair result. If we treat everyone the same that would be giving two individuals the same resources without taking into account said circumstances. Instead, we need to treat people in regard to their situation. An individual coming from a lower socio-economic background would have less access to resources than another from a higher socio-economic background. As such it would be unfair to treat them equally in light of this.