Criticial Thinking & Analysis

Same sex marriage

1. Does same-sex marriage pose a threat to society or to heterosexuals?
2. If gay members of society aren’t allowed to marry can they be considered equal citizens with their heterosexual counterparts?
3. Is there an ethical basis for opposing same-sex marriage?
   
   Answer

1) Same sex marriage does not pose a threat to a society. It is simply just loving the same gender and there is no threat about love. If people just went about their own business instead of caring who loves who, people wouldn't think of same sex marriage as a threat.

2) Unfortunately, same sex aren't allowed to marry but they should still be equal to straight people. Some people argue that this is "unconstitutional" but the truth is America is looked at being free. Even though there are laws and this country is not 100 precent free, loving the same gender should be allowed and it isn't a big deal as people make it out to be.

3) When it comes down to same sex marriage, I don't think there should be an ethical basis. I don't think loving the same gender has to do with ethics. It's just love and should be treated as that. People take it to another extent where they say their ethics on two genders being with each other, but the fact of the matter is it's just love.


Abortion

1. Should abortion continue to be legal as stipulated by Roe v. Wade? Why or why not?
 
2. What are the medical implications of the U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act?
3. Are there any situations in which abortions should be declared illegal or be severely restricted?
4. Which side in the debate has been more successful in making their case on the issue of abortion and why?
5. Answers
   1) Abortion should definitely continue to be legal because a woman should make the decision about what to do with her body. The article states "They fear that if abortions were illegal, women would try to induce them on their own or resort to back-alley procedures, putting their lives at risk." Abortion is a safe option if the woman is dealing with a risk.
   2) They supreme court voted to uphold the partial abortion act because when a woman goes for late term abortion the baby is already grown and it can survive outside the uterus. Also, it can hurt the mother as well. Even though it can hurt the mother, people still think that's the mother's choice.
   
   3) I think abortion should be restricted for certain situation. If a woman knows she's pregnant at an early stage and a certain situation is keeping her from caring for this baby then that should be ok. However, if a woman wants to get a late term abortion, it shouldn't be done because at the time the baby is grown so killing the baby would be murder.
   
   4) Those in favor of abortion is more successful in this case. They believe that a woman should be in charge of her body. Regardless if the woman wants a late term abortion which will make the mother be in danger as well, or if she wants an early abortion, it's her body and even if it will be dangerous for the mother as well it's her choice to make.
   
   5) I believe both sides can make a compromise. Abortion should be legal only if it's early, however if it's late term abortion it shouldn't be allowed because then the baby will be grown and you're killing a living being inside of you.
   
   
   Abused women
   
   1) What rules do you think sports organizations should establish for its players regarding domestic violence? Explain.
   2) Do you think a player accused of domestic violence should be suspended from the team until this or her case is resolved through the court system? Why or why not?
6. 3) Do you think the violent nature of some sports contributes to the violent behavior of some players outside the playing arena? Explain.
7. 4) How can sports organizations provide more education services to its players to prevent domestic violence?
   
   Answers
   1) I think sports organization should establish for its players regarding domestic violence because just because they're professional players doesn't mean they shouldn't be aware of abuse. I think that they should be told that there will be severe consequences if the players are contributing to such abuse. 
8. 2) I think the player shouldn't be suspended from the team if they're only accused. If players were getting suspended out of assumptions and it so happens that they weren't violent towards anybody then that's not going to help either. It would be the best if the court found evidence and then find their punishment out of the court's evidence. 
9. I don't think it's the concept of sports that contributes to the violence of behavior. It depends on the person itself and how they act at home vs how they act on the field. It's the player's responsibilities to know how they act on the field shouldn't be the way they act through out  their day. 
10. 4) I think sports orginizations should teach their players the consquences that can happen if they get involved in this violence behavior. Not only the consequences that can happen but also teach them that it's morally wrong. I don't think players are often taught about this because of the fact that they are players but it shouldn't matter what they do. They should still get educated about this issue because it would be benfical to them. They can be taught how much damage it brings to that person and how it unfortunately occurs every day.

              Child Abuse: 

1. What are the most effective ways to prevent child abuse?
2. Are children safer because of the tracking of sex offenders? Explain your answer.
3. Should convicted child sex offenders who have served their punishment be able to live where they want to? Why or why not?

Answers

1) Child abuse can be prevented if the state got more involved to protect children. The should be security cameras in the house so the abuser can be known. 

2) Children are not safe just because of the tracking sex offender. The sex offender can still still track the child. Also, sex offenders can still have access to children. 

3) No, convicted child sex offenders who have served their punishment shouldn't be able to live where they want to. Just because they served their time doesn't mean they won't hurt another child. Authority should still monitor where they are and where they live just to make sure. 

      
Child sexual abuse: 

1. Are schools doing enough to protect students from sexual abuse? Why or why not?
2. Why is it often so difficult to detect cases of abuse between teacher and student?
3. Are more laws needed to prevent accused child sexual abusers from simply taking a teaching job in another district or state? Explain.

Answers: 

1) I don't think schools are doing enough the prevent and protect student from sexual abuse because it is still happening today. There also have been issues where the teacher was sexually abusing their student. I believe teachers can try a little harder to make this a safer environment for students. 

2) It's hard to detect cases of abuse between teacher and student because students are usually submissive and will listen to their teachers. 

3) Yes, more laws are needed to prevent accused child sexual abusers from taking a job in another district. They should be given background checks and psychology tests before hiring.This is to make sure they know in fact who they're hiring and to keep children safe in the mean time.