#aequalitatem

Many people have criticised Lena Dunham for not having cultural diversity on the cast for her show Girls. Dunham is a feminist and has been slammed as a ‘hypocrite’ as she does not show women from other ethnicities on her show. Although I agree it would be great for her to show and include the struggles of black and Asian women on her show and them finding themselves in the adult world, but her show is semi-autobiographical. She is showing the struggles of what she knows, and Dunham stated in an interview that she was going to expand and try and tackle this issue as she did not want to isolate any voices or people which is great as she is not dismissing further improvements on changing popular culture on television.

My main issue is that people expect feminists who are on a platform, to include everyone and think of everything. Every feminist is individual and has a different agenda due to what they have been through. Together like a team of feminists, with different hopes and dreams to be equal to men, we are all trying to work together to eradicate sexism. Caitlin Moran makes the statement that ‘Feminism is a patchwork quilt, it’s a communal effort’ and that we ‘all need to take a little square and contribute a small bit in making things better for women’. We all need to contribute, and that little bit of sharing leads to further change and becomes a positive domino effect of helping to change this sexist world.

Also when I say I do not like a woman that I know, who can be in my class or a mutual friend; I have been accused before that this contradicts my belief in feminism. NO. When I do not like a woman for whatever the reason is, it is not due to her gender, the same as if I do not like a male that I have been acquainted with. Just because I do not like him, people would not go around and say that I am a man hater. Just because I am a feminist, does not mean I will love and get along with every single woman I have come across, that is absurd. I’m a feminist, not Jesus.

The Muslim couple who killed 14 people in San Bernardino were going to be reported by a neighbour who was suspicious of them but didn’t because she did not want to racially stereotype them and be seen as an ‘Islamaphobe’.  It is extremely unfortunate that they did not get reported sooner, as in this case the couple were extremist Muslims who carried out terrorist attacks. However, I do not believe it was the neighbour’s fault of trying to see the best in humanity and keeping an open mind. I do not think in a liberal society that you have to judge and be weary of every single Muslim and jump to the conclusion that they may be a terrorist or extremist, nor being weary of every single German being a Neo-Nazi. ISIL or ‘Daesh’ and other extremist groups like Boko Haram make up such a minority of the Muslim community. Is it really justifiable to blame or accuse someone who looks racially Muslim or dresses in Muslim clothing of being a terrorist? It was stated by Mehdi Hasan ‘that Islam allows warfare, violence and military action under certain conditions in specific contexts and of course minority extremist groups take it out of context, but is it religious?’ He also goes on to emphasise that ‘here we are dealing with a 1,400-year-old global religion (Islam) followed by 1.6 billion people, a quarter of humanity’ and some people generalise all these followers as terrorists or fundamentalist extremists? He also states ‘if Islam is such a religion of war, hate and violence, then let me ask you this question? Why aren’t the rest of us doing it? Why is it such a tiny minority of Muslims? Let us assume there are 16,000 suicide bombers in the world, which there’s not, but for the sake of argument, say there are, that makes up 0.001% of the Muslim population globally. What about the other 99.999% of the Muslims that are not? The reality is that not the rest of us are blowing ourselves up tonight.’  

When Dylann Roof shot nine black people in a church earlier this year in Charleston, there was no description of him as a terrorist or a racist white man. THAT WAS AN ACT OF TERRORISM. The definition of terrorism is ‘the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims’. Dylann Roof was found with his own written material of white supremacy in his home and a follower of Neo-Nazism and attacked those black people in a political pursuit. That is terrorism. What people often mistake is that terrorism doesn’t always have to be associated with religion, it is terrorising people for political purposes. Yes, ISIS fit the definition of being a terrorist organisation as they act on their extremist views as a pursuit for Sharia Law. The same as Dylann Roof’s aim for white supremacy and his reasoning for shooting the nine black people. However, of course the media will not use the words ‘terrorist white American man shoots nine black people for white supremacy’. The Christian Crusaders were terrorists, those Christians who bombed abortion clinics are terrorists; therefore, a terrorist does not have to be part of the Islamic faith. Islamophobia is on the rise, and I am an ex-Muslim, but never did I believe Christianity was a religion of violence because of the Crusades or what the LRA does in Uganda. It isn’t about religion, it isn’t about killing people in the name of God, it’s about terrorising people for political purposes.

On the 15th of October last year (2014), I had the pleasure of listening to Dr Carolyn Johnston as she gave a lecture about the topical issues in medical ethics as law. It felt less like a lecture and more like a mass discussion, as per usual in lectures concerning ethics, one which I left feeling much more informed and less opinionated. Many issues and dilemmas were debated upon by the hundred or so students in the hall, such as myself. Subject matters were situational, and what was ethically right was based purely on individual contexts. The situations presented to us ranged from ‘Is it right to amputate a perfectly good leg, so that the owner can become a paralympian?’ to ‘Should those below the age of consent be allowed any say in their medical treatment?’. However, the question that provoked the most emotion and disagreement when its discussion took place was ‘Should it be legal for foetuses to be artificially designed by parents via the use of medical technology?’ Of course there is no right or wrong answer to this question, which is sure to display features of moral and ethical correctness, therefore only informed opinions are capable of resulting in the closest paradigm to a true solution to this question.

Those who were alive before the 90s would agree that one of the greatest achievements of the 21st century is the rate at which the growth and development of technology has been increasing. It has been exponential, and that’s not an exaggeration. This growth has been accompanied by and industrial increase in the number of things that can be bought, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that the purchase and designing of a foetus to suit its parents’ desires has become a more apparent occurrence. The term ‘designer baby’ refers to an infant that has been genetically engineered at some stage of it’s gestation period, so that desired looks, talents, and skills can be feasibly attained. The majority of parents that go through with this procedure are happy with the results, but there are some people who believe that genetically engineering babies is unethical and it should be stopped. These people believe that such a procedure, which costs a substantial amount of money, is a waste of medical resources, and children should be had the old-fashioned way.

There are quite a number of opinions against this procedure; it implies that people with genetic disorders are inferior, it’s treating a sacred human life as a thing, it’s using a technique, designed to prevent the most serious disorders, in a trivial way, and it is simply ‘playing God’. These opinions are mainly held by conservative traditionalists, who, in my opinion, need to adapt to the world around us which is constantly changing. When we are young and we make mistakes we are often told that no one is perfect, from this we can ascertain that we all have aspects of ourselves in which we are inferior. Of course, this isn’t a pleasant thought, but sugar coating it will not change the level of truthfulness it carries along with it.

World-renowned scientist Dr Roger Gosden said “Imagine the reaction there would be if an organ transplantation were prohibited because it’s ‘unnatural’ –though that is what some people called for when transplantation was a medical novelty. It is hard to see how the replacement of a defective gene is any less ‘natural’ than the replacement of a defective organ. Indeed, the major difference is the entirely beneficial one that beneficial one that medical intervention need occur only once around the time of conception, and the benefits would be inherited by the children and its descendants. Many also forget the advantages of this process, of which there are many; such as the prevention of spreading genetic diseases, the prevention of unnecessary deaths to infants, the peace of mind it provides to parents, poses potential means of eradicating all genetic diseases, provides a more stable alternative to sifting through organ donor lists, and it provides a means of reducing the number of prenatal (unborn) deaths. The traits that can be changed in a designer baby include gender, appearance, intelligence, disease, and personality, all these factors contribute to one’s ability to survive and essentially just to live a normal life. People seem to forget that one of the basic principles of medical ethics is beneficence. No medical process would ever be approved if it did more harm than good. So don’t be too confused or displeased if in the not too distant future questions such as ‘how much was that foetus?’ are being posed to new parents.