Daughter may give birth to mother's child?

I read a very interesting article this week titled "daughter may give birth to mother's child".
A girl aged seven has turner syndrome which makes her infertile when she matures. Out of motherly love, her thirty five year old Canadian mother had decided to freeze her eggs so that one day her daughter may become a mother herself.
This is the first time that a mother-to-daughter donation has been made, though there have been cases of sister donating to sister before. Donating eggs is nothing new, but there is a shortage of egg donors in Canada since legislation in 2004 prevented women from selling their eggs.
Some people are touched by the mother's act and agree with the donation. However, some strongly against this donation. Negativity has risen since this story was made public. The only negativity reaction had come from an ethics professor in Toronto who did not think that the interest of the unborn child had been taken into account. Experts who have spoken to the press have also expressed concern as to the psychological welfare of the yet unborn child.
I do not agree to such donation. I can feel the Canadian mother's love and concern towards her daughter but I am against to such donation.
If the daughter dives birth to a child using her mother's eggs, such a baby would be the sibling of the birth mother at the same time as the direct genetic offspring of the grandmother donor. we will be hearing more and more children suffering from identity problem. Giving birth to your own sister completely screws up the normal transition of life.
Furthermore, I feel that mother-to-daughter donation is not the only way to allow the daughter to experience motherhood. The daughter can get egg donation from people with no blood relation, this will solve the problem of identity.
Not only that, the daughter is only seven year old. By the time she reaches motherhood, technology may have been advanced enough to help her. This donation will not be necessary then.

Race and the race

The article that i read this week is "race and the race". This article is saying that Americans appear prepared to elect either a black or a female president. But experience trumps both factors—and in a two-way race, Hillary Clinton, a women leads Barack Obama, a Black by more than 20 points.
2008 will be the next election year for America. Could 2008 be the year that Americans put an end to an unbroken 21woman or an African-American candidate for the office, according to the latest NEWSWEEK Poll. But those numbers drop significantly when respondents are asked whether the country is ready to accept a black or a woman in the White House.
Although 92 percent of the NEWSWEEK Poll’s respondents claim they would vote for a black candidate, only 59 percent believe the country is actually ready for an African-American president. Similarly, 86 percent of voters say they would vote for a female commander in chief, but only 58 percent believe the country is ready for one.
To me, i feel that we should not consider one's race and gender when deciding to vote for a president. Instead, we should look at their ability to lead a country to further success and their experiences to govern a country.
It is good to hear that Americans are starting to accept Blacks and women as leaders after decades of racial and gender discrimination. Not many countries are able to do this yet.
However, there are still cases where women are voted to be leader. For example, Philippine first woman president Arroyo. America will be the first country to have a Black President if Barack Obama is elected.
I wouldn't mind voting for a woman president or prsident of other races as long they proved to be effective and are able to provide fair and uncorrupted government for the people.

A commentary on Weixian's blog

This week we are suppose to choose one of our friend's blog entry and comment on it, I have chosen Weixian's blog because he was one of the top 3 blogs our class have chosen.
The blog entry that i have chosen is the one on the use of torture. I chose this entry becuase both of us share the same idea on the use of torture. In his blog entry, he said that the use of torture is justified when directed at adamant inhumane criminals for non-political agendas and such actions are not justified when political agendas are present. The latter serves only to undermine humanity. I totally agree to this because i think that the authority should not resort to torture unnecessary.
There are many debates going on these decades on the use of torture. Human rights groups have always voice out their disagreement to the use of torture. However, human rights groups are being unrealistic by their outright objection against torture when it comes to garnering crucial information pertaining to where a psychopathic murderer might have buried his victim, still alive and waiting borrowed time to be rescued.
The use of torture may seems cruel to some but when it comes to dealing with terrorists and murderers, i think the use of torture is adsolutely justifiable.
On the other hand, torture is never justified if such means were meted out to the will of a political power with intentions for political use. Many political leaders, since centuries ago, have been using torture to control the people and to garner support. Some famous examples are Adolf Hitler and Stalin. They used torture to control the way the people think, act and speak. This kind of torture is totally unacceptable. This is an inhumane act as the people have not committed serious crimes and yet they are treated in this inhumane ways.
Both Weixian and I share this common views on the use of torture- The use of torture is justified when directed at adamant inhumane criminals for non-political agendas. Again, such actions are not justified when political agendas are present. The latter serves only to undermine humanity.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression

In the context of Singapore's multi racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, i freel that Szilagyi's view should be adopted.
Freedom of expression is essential to any democracy but social responsibility is more important.
According to Singer, freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else beliesves to be false, and even what many people find offensive. I do believe that freedom of speech is important in any democratis country include Singapore. However, i feel that freedom of speech will decrease the level of social responsibilty and people will be saying anything they want without thinking of the consequences. They will criticise parliament publicly and disttort racial harmony.
In a multi-racial society like singapore, this will bring about fatal consequences, people will start voicing out all their unhappiness and criticise one another reces. This is likely to cause another racial riots which everyone does not want.
Szilagyi raised the question that what is important for the democratic advancement of a society-to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens or to protect the collective interests of society. The former hails individual freedom while the latter places more emphasis on the media's responsibilty in leading an informed, high quality discussion, with the respect for minority rights.
Finally, i feel that media should practise social responsibilty. Media should not publish article or any resources that will provoke one or are not reliable. This will make our society more friendly to live in.

Any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified. Do you agree?

The topic that I'm going to talk about today is on "Any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified. Do you agree?"
After watching the video in class last week, i realised that different countries have different way of punishing the criminals. Some of the ways seem ridiculous to me but they are effective for their country. I always thought that all the countries have the same form of punishments-which is fine, jail and serving community service. the video proves me wrong!
For example, in the rural town in Africa shown in the video clip, the villagers there practice "oil test" to determine whether the criminals are guilty. They believe that the boiling oil is able to scald the hand of the guilty one. Both the accused and the defendant are required to put their hand inside a pot of boiling oil. The one who is lying will get his hand burnt. I do not know why the people there will believe such "tricks" but somehow the practice has been there for decades and it seems effective in helping the village to maintain peace.
Another way of punishment seems more ridiculous to me. Criminals are required to carry a signboard indicating their crimes along the street. For example, a guy who ran over someone will have to carry a signboard stating "I ran over someone while i was drunk." The criminal will have to carry the signboard until they have finish serving their sentence. This form of punishment is known as public shaming. According to one of the prestigious judge there, this public shaming is effective in combating the crime rate which has plunged greatly after the introduction of public shaming.
The most ridiculous form of punishment is the one where the victim's families members are allowed to take revenge on the murderer by killing them. I totally disagree to this form of punishment as the vicious cycle will continue. No one would dare to step out of the house as they are constantly living in fear, fear of losing their lives.
I do not agree that any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified to a certain extent. Different country has different ways in dealing with their criminals, the punishment may be effective for their country but not to the other country. For example, if we introduce fine and jail in Africa, it may not work there as the villagers are superstitious. This is why the "oil test" is so effective for them. They believe that the god will help them to track down the criminals. Thus, we cannot say that any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is not justified. However, in the case of "revenge killing", it is definitely not justifiable no matter how effective it is. This form of punishment will only bring about more crimes.
Thus, it depends on what type of punishment a country practises before we draw a conclusion whether the punishment is justifiable.

Does America need a bigger military?

The article that i read this week is "Does America need a bigger military?"
This article summarizes the problem and causes of small military in America.
The longer a soldier stays in Iraq, the more combat he or she sees, the greater the stress, the higher the psychological toll. A quarter of the U.S. soldiers and Marines enduring a second tour in Iraq showed signs of mental illness (versus 17 percent of those on their first deployment), according to the latest survey by the Army’s Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT). A disturbingly high 10% admitted mistreating Iraqi civilians or wantonly damaging their property are soldiers who screened positive for mental-health problems. They were twice as likely to admit to abusing Iraqis.
Why is there such problem? one reason is because the soldiers are not having more time at home between deployments. The MHAT recommends that ideally soldiers should deploy for six months, then spend 18 to 36 months at home. But that is impossible. The Army is so undermanned that soldiers are going to Iraq for a year, coming home for a year and heading right back to combat. This is because the U.S. military is too small to meet current needs or expected contingencies.
In 1990, the regular Army numbered 750,000, but it’s shrunk almost 40 percent since then. Congress has recently voted to increase Army strength by 65,000, up to 547,000 troops, but that’s probably not enough. Since 9/11, the Army has been using the Reserve and National Guard to bolster its force.
However, the root of the problem is the money issue. The government does not have enough funds to support the military size that it needs. The Army is spending millions just to maintain its all-volunteer force. Specialists are paid tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses and the baseline cost of national defense that is, excluding the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has gone up by a third since 1998 and will reach close to 50 percent by 2009.
Not only that, medical cost has been rising. Another reason why the American Army is unable to increase its numbers is that it needs money to replace equipment and buy new technology. Just repairing and replacing equipment chewed in Iraq will cost the army $13 billion.
Measured as a percentage of GDP, today America spends on its military less than half of what it spent during Vietnam (4.2 percent this year, against 8.9 percent in 1968). President Bush has not hesitated to ask for sacrifice from the soldiers he sends into combat. Now may be the time to ask for some sacrifice from the rest of America.

HAPPY MOTHERS' DAY