Abortion- What right do you have? (#1)

It's my choice. Really, is it? Is it your prerogative to murder another person? To steal? To kidnap? No. A choice is not an all inclusive free pass. It is not unlimited. The basic argument that it denies a woman her inherent civil rights to outlaw abortion ignores laws forbidding murder and sets a precedent against the safety of all people. By elevating a women's right to such a capacity, the government ignores its function to deliver justice and protect its citizens. A slippery slope is created by the government's refusal to ignore the cries of society and take an objective view of abortion. Instead, the chant of "My choice" rings in the ears of government officials and becomes commonplace- a type of propaganda. The government becomes dependent upon the misguided voice of the people. A civil right is granted to all people and therefore the question lies not in the area of basic rights and freedom, but in the qualitative analysis of a human. The woman does possess civil rights, but their limited to personal pursuits. What about the child? Does he or she not possess the same rights as their mother? Instead of asking this question, society focuses on the cruelty of forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted child; the worries stem from the inconveniences of a child, but if the mindset of society would change this problem could be answered by adoption. No, the government does not have the right to force women to use contraception or undergo sterilization. This effects purely the woman's life. But, abortion effects that of a children and therefore a line must be drawn. Abortion is not equated to sterilization or contraception. Abortion is murder and must be treated as such. A civil right does not condone murder and

 therefore the real question must always be, what is the unborn?

The clarification of the unborn provides an explanation as to the unethical issue of abortion. First of all, living things reproduce after their own kind and therefore "How is it possible for human parents to produce an offspring that is not human and later becomes human?" (Klusendorf) This question reveals the inconsistencies prevalent among pro-choice advocates. How can a fetus be anything other than a human? Size does not determine personhood, nor does functional capacity. A large person is not more of a person that a short human. A handicapped person is no less human than a non-handicapped person. Our functionality cannot determine our personhood because at varying moments in our lives we lack a level of functionality- we should not be murdered! By prompting pro-choice advocates with questions such as "Were you ever an unborn child?" (Klusendorf) This yields a fundamental issue of abortion- that is, identity and personhood is seamless from conception to death. The issue of what is the unborn will most likely persist, but these critical questions demand a deeper level of thinking than before. Furthermore, "You cannot answer the question 'Can I kill this?' until we ask the question, 'What is it?'" (Klusendorf) No one would allow the murder of a toddler. A toddler lacks full functionality and a fully developed body, but he is still considered human. This same thinking must be applied to abortion. The question 'Isn't it my right?' stands pointless in view of the questioning of what exacting women are aborting. The fragility of maintaining civil rights cannot remain at the expense of millions of lives. Not only does abortion inflict damage to the woman's body and psychological state, it destroys the future. The world is not the same because of a single woman's abortion. A life is not dependent upon age or development. A child is conceived at conception and therefore abortion is murder. It is a simple, straightforward answer that remains convoluted by the sinful mindsets of society. A baby is still a baby.  

Mirror: Sylvia Plath

I am silver and exact. I have no preconceptions.

Whatever I see I swallow immediately

Just as it is, unmisted by love or dislike.

I am not cruel, only truthful ‚

The eye of a little god, four-cornered.

Most of the time I meditate on the opposite wall.

It is pink, with speckles. I have looked at it so long

I think it is part of my heart. But it flickers.

Faces and darkness separate us over and over.

Now I am a lake. A woman bends over me,

Searching my reaches for what she really is.

Then she turns to those liars, the candles or the moon.

I see her back, and reflect it faithfully.

She rewards me with tears and an agitation of hands.

I am important to her. She comes and goes.

Each morning it is her face that replaces the darkness.

In me she has drowned a young girl, and in me an old woman

Rises toward her day after day, like a terrible fish.

Title: The title begins the straightforward tone of the poem; providing little information apart from the main subject being the mirror. Due to the simplicity of the title, Mirror, the poem is developing the character of the mirror and its purpose. The mirror remains distinct and separate- characterized by the lack of surrounding words and likely containing thematic weight. 

Paraphrase: The poem consists of a mirror’s musings and eventually it begins to tell a story. It describes itself, who it is and the room in which it resides, and ultimately its purpose. In the second stanza, the mirror turns into a lake, retaining the same characteristics in a different form. The mirror then goes on to describe a face that transforms it, a woman who gazes deeply into the mirror and searches for her identity. She becomes angry with her reflection. Ultimately, the mirror describes the young girl the woman drowned in the mirror and the old woman that is gradually rising to meet her reflection in the lake. 

Devices:

1. Metaphor: “The eye of a little god”- The mirror is compared to the omniscience of a god and in possession of the power to alter lives; however, it remains a “little god” and therefore its purpose remains relatively insignificant. “Now I am a lake”- Through personification, the mirror is identified as a lake- still reflective, but now capable of extending the punishment of the woman. This comparison is continued through the “drowning of the young girl” and a “terrible fish” rising up. The language is cold and grotesque, full or violence and ugliness reflecting the torture of trusting in appearances. 
2. Personification: “I am silver and exact”- The mirror is given a voice- a voice that is honest and reflective and becomes the main character of the poem. Plath’s ability to evoke emotional connection to the mirror displays the prowess of her writing and the necessity to view the mirror as capable of feelings. Through personification, Plath ascribes to the mirror the ability to interact with the woman whose face appears in the mirror. “To those liars, the candles or the moon”- The personified candle and moon suggests a rather paradoxical idea that light is actually hiding the truth; it is distracting the woman from confronting the truth present in the mirror. 
3. Imagery- “Terrible fish” and “drowned a young girl” prompt vivid connections to death and the bizarreness of a nightmare. The wall of “pink”
4. Diction: “unmisted”, “faithfully”, “liars”, and basically all of the words that make up the poem. Through her diction, Plath indicates the feelings of a mirror and the gradual transformation of the woman. Each verb and “I am” emphasizes the mirror’s ability to reveal the truth and simple understanding of the complexity of the woman’s emotions. 
5. Allusion: The second stanza suggests an allusion to Narcissus, who was destroyed by gazing at his reflection. This is a bit of a stretch, as no mention of Greek mythology is really mentioned. 

Tone: Plath’s tone is objective and honest, gradually succumbing to a slightly frustrated tone regarding the behavior of the woman. The mirror speaks and reveals personality and emotion that casts the woman as foolish and cruel. As an inanimate object, the mirror’s voice is reflective and open and therefore Plath’s tone is indicative of the mirror’s contemplative musings. The simplicity of the mirror’s speech contrasts to the gravity of its reflection and portrays the misplaced hope of the woman. The reader identifies not with the woman, but the mirror.  

One World Government

William Penn predicted "If we are not governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants." His sentiments concerning the issue of leadership reveal a fundamental tension existing between the government and Christians. As Christians, we struggle to comprehend the role of government in light of God's surpassing rule. A balance exists among the importance of government and the doctrine of God- Christians must ultimately conform to the will of God exhibited through laws and/ or leaders. However, God instituted a specific role for government, a role that is consistently being threatened by the growing ideas of a global, secular government. The ramifications of this approach derive their consequences from the abandonment of God within politics

 and a complete trust in the perfection of humanity. 

Basically, a one world government is a corruption of the designated function of leadership and a falsified view of mankind. For instance, the government is limited to performing "two principle roles [which] are to protect the innocent and punish the guilty." (Noebel 318) A global government not only adds an infinite amount of tasks to that list, but will most likely succumb to avoiding these two roles. Government's purpose is clouded by the selfish desires of its citizens and its continual trust being placed in the state. Even more so,  government is comprised of sinful individuals and therefore decisions are tainted by the defects of mankind. Therefore, "We know that power tends to corrupt, so a government that disperses power is better than one that gathers power into the hands of a few." (Noebel 318) Furthermore, consequences such as misuse of authority and inequality will develop from a system that is innately driven by the authority of a small group of people. The decisions of the government would tend toward favoring a select group of people and punishing others. Government acts as an extension of God's doctrine enacted in scripture; by forgoing these designs global governments seek an empty satisfaction. Moreover, ultimately "Christians see justice as the principal reason for the state's existence." (Noebel 320) This belief has multiple implications for the Christian view of government- first of all, global government ignores this precept, government does not control the economy, and thirdly, government should not impose personal opinions upon society. Finally, "government, therefore, has limited responsibility." (Noebel 320) Because a global, secular government denies the existence or relevance of God within politics it will naturally ignore the innate sin of humanity and the perfection of God ordained laws. This government will succumb to rampant immorality, a disregard for leadership, and the citizen's belief in their selfish desires 

as foundational to the government's purpose. 

Slightly more obvious consequences descend from a global government and therefore my opinions regarding the ramifications of a one world government. Firstly, a decrease in diversity will follow the amalgamation of different governments. The differing viewpoints and questioning of other leaders provides a level of accountability and criticize that develops into reformed ideas. Not a decrease in the diversity of people, but a lack of contrasting viewpoints, methods, and functions that each country proudly uplifts. Disagreements are part of a political system that retains patriotism and community within each country. Through the governments cohesion, negativity will rise between countries because of the impact of the global governments decisions and mandates. Anger and disrespect will engender between countries as the loss of identity of each culture and the infringement on previously held beliefs. Also, a misunderstanding of the beliefs and culture of each country will ultimately arise due to the global perceptions of a limited group. Within this global government, representatives will struggle to overcome cultural barriers and thus inefficiency and arguments would ensue. Each of the benefits of a global government share an equally terrible ramifications- such as the loss of cultural uniqueness. Finally, due to the massive amount of issues that will bombard the global government the significance of justice will be overlooked. The government will be dealing with large issues and forget the smaller, but equally important problems of society. Ultimately, government interference will increase exponentially and continually attempt to control the lives of its citizens. A global, secular government is a corruption of the role God provided for leadership and attempts to elevate the gifts of man to include a perfect ruler. 

Artful?

Pablo Picasso mused "Art is a lie that makes us realize truth." His words speak to the complexity and glory of art; its tremendous power to transform perspectives and attitudes. Art derives its purpose and message from the artist, and therefore art is an essential vessel of worldviews. Through his article, The Creative Arts, Leland Ryken theorizes regarding the Christian outlook upon art- his words capture the treasure of art and its manifestation of God's beauty. On the other hand, a documentary named The Philosophy of Art, provides an argument against the ugliness of modern art which lacks the necessary component of God in the analysis of art's function. I really enjoyed Ryken's article; his thoughts and commentary regarding the importance of art and the effect it has were profound. The video was endowed with several thoughtful ideas, but I believe it presented a very limited and narrow view of art's purpose. In fact, I thought it was shallow. The repetition of beauty being essential to art began to become tedious and placed on an exaggerated pedestal. Whereas the article reflected upon the realities of art, noting how "People organize their lives and make their decisions partly in terms of such images as heroes and villains, cross and altar, national emblem and patriotic legend, love song and hymn, landscape painting and portrait", the video focused upon how beautiful art provided meaning to life. (Ryken) I disagreed with the video's emphasis on humanity's need of beautiful art and that this beauty fills the void of god within us. The speaker attempted to replace the God of creation with an elitist view of art. However, I did agree with the video's portrayal of the sacredness of art and the consuming peace of being overwhelmed with the beauty of art. It provides a remedy for suffering, a safe haven, and can be representative of the ideals that do not exist within these modern times. I guess my main criticism of the video is the focus upon modern's art ugliness and the narrow lens through which the commentator viewed art. He proclaimed creativity is not enough, that art must be beautiful and of the highest level of detail and skill. And while, these factors engender fantastic and awesome art, art is not limited to the best. It can be found in the idea, the intention, the imagination presented by the artist. Music remains wonderful even if it is not Bach or Mozart; art remains despite the flaws and imperfections. Mainly, I believe art is a personal gift that is enhanced in enumerable exploits. 

Despite my criticism of the film, I found many similarities between the two critiques on art. The largest difference was the absence of God and therefore the purpose of art shifted in order to "transform the ugliness of the world." Its ultimate task is too exhibit beauty. However, both articles displayed the idea of paradoxes being foundational to the study of art. Each reflection spent time musing over the ordinary becoming extraordinary, and the reality of life being found in the surreal. Moreover, both speakers revealed the importance of contemplation and the simple task of absorbing art. It requires no outside purpose. Art "has its own meaning. A work of art can stand in the art gallery and be cherished for its own sake." (Ryken) Within the trap of a hectic, busy lifestyle, art provides a respite and an opportunity to be a revelation of the beauty of the world. Both discussions explored the duality of the happiness and the tragic within art, and did not limit art to a specific emotion or aspect of life. Indeed, each piece recognized the ability art possesses to capture the glory of tragedies, such as the crucifixion. The two elaborated upon the beauty of the human form and the creativity found within the perfection of the face. The differences between the articles also extend to their examination of modern art- the video declares it a "cult of ugliness", while the article stated "Modern art also possesses its version of these formal qualities, even when the artists claim that they are not using them." (Ryken) The article describes modern art in more subdued tones, but also recognizes a dismissal of the fundamental purposes of art. Again, another difference is dependent upon the Christian worldview through which the article is written. Ryken depicts God's glory revealed through art and therefore the value of developing one's own personal gift. He speaks to the evidence of hope and sin in art and also the various doctrines affirming the goodness of art. Finally, he focuses upon the truth and worldview that art presents and therefore the audience's responsibility to approach art appreciatively and cautiously. 

 The conclusion of each piece stemmed from a relatively similar view of art- a need for sacred contemplation of its worth and an appreciation that transcends a quick glance. The article approached this message through the task of Christians regarding art- our need to reveal the goodness of God through the talents he has gifted us. A passionate fervor is basically a requirement of art. And, I agree. Art is so often thrown aside, considered unimportant, but it is was of the greatest and most powerful tools for communicating the complexities of life. Each piece concluded that art is worthy of attention. An attention that is respectful, absorbed, and aware of the value of what is being presented. It is an opportunity to embrace the joy of heaven upon earth and experience the profoundness of human life. Art spreads hope. 

Really Muhammad?

With the ever growing number of Muslims in America, the doctrine of American law is changing and adapting to the evolving culture. The problems arising from Shari'ah law, the Islamic system of law, amounts to direct opposition to the citizens possession of liberty. Shari' Ah Law is defined as the "Islamic law derived from the Qur'an and the Hadith and applied to the public and private lives of Muslims within the Islamic states. Shari'ah law governs many aspects of day-to-day life- politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, social issues, etc." (Noebel 291) The precedents established within the American judicial system are devoid of religious doctrine and therefore the cohesion of Islamic and American law is impossible. Of fundamental importance is the establishment of law regarding Muslims in America; the law cannot be bent to the will of Allah. Especially as cases continue, Muslims are using the composition of their law as a defense against their crimes. Harassment, abuse, and physical assault are direct results of Muslims attempt to adhere to Shari'ah law within America. Shari'ah law cannot exist in America and most definitely, it would not make America a better place. 

First of all, Shari'ah misunderstands the innate sinfulness of man and therefore their political systems lack safeguards against corruption. By glorifying man, Shari'ah law outlines a do and don't list that its leaders naturally will follow. Thus, their leaders are righteous observers of the mandates of Shari'ah law, but this does not create a brilliant and caring leader. Instead, adherents of Shari'ah law tend toward an obsession over power and ignorance regarding forgiveness and redemption. Ultimately, "Because the Islamist model is predicted on the belief in government by morally impeccable individuals who can be counted on to resist temptation, it does not generate institutions capable of functioning autonomously by means of structural checks and balances" (Noebel 295). In short, Shari'ah law is dependent upon the power of the individual and his understand righteous- this lends toward a corruption of absolute power. For instance, the governments of Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are devoid of the exercise of personal freedom. These governments tend toward monarchies and dictatorship which soon become infested with personal greed and a warped understanding of the needs of their citizens. Shari'ah law basis upon the uprightness of the individual would prove ineffectual in the political atmosphere of America. 

Due to the basis of Shari'ah law, the basic rights of citizens are limited and dependent upon gender and race. This view would prompt bigotry and sexism within any culture and therefore would destroy the fundamental principles of American culture. Although American refutes the existence of God, it acknowledges the evilness of man and utilizes the force of justice. Shari'ah law retracts human rights and promotes a cruel system of rules- thus crippling the goodness find within the American judicial system. Without an understanding of the value of personal liberty, a system of law would be hated and destroyed, an aspect of Shari'ah law that is disgraceful. Furthermore, "the Muslim community cannot find a similar basis for individual freedom within its religion" (295). Due to the absence of personal freedoms, the idea of integrating Shari' ah law into the American system is laughable. The basis of unity within our country is the blessing of personal freedom and liberty. Shari'ah law defies that idea. Therefore, Shari'ah is incompatible with the philosophy of law within American and the purpose of retaining the individual rights of its citizens. Of course, an adequate recognition of the benefits of Shari'ah law is necessary to any argument. Although rigid and strict, it does provide moral guidelines that are virtually nonexistent within in America. Still, morality cannot be forced upon citizens and a system of law so completely in defiance of American's virtues would prompt disarray and anger. 

A Pair of Perfection

Wandering, her hand reached

Desperate to grab the unattainable

She groped in her pockets

The rough, worn fabric producing nothingness

Her fingers found air; she sighed

The pockets were empty

She loved the jeans 

The comforting caress and warmth of artificial heat

A sufficient method of dress

But, Practicality reduces to meaninglessness 

Only in the cold winters

                            did she feel their inadequacy

Their inability to withstand

The toil of daily dysfunctionality

Holes widened, tears appeared

The seams of seeming perfection

Unraveled

The jeans were unable

The mirror whispered the curses of the jeans

Too small, too short, too without

With every squirm and wiggle

The jeans shouted her imperfections

Crushing the dream of the idyllic pair

The ideal person

A pair of the sea's blue, a cloud's comfort, a sunset's beauty

And the girl, ragged and worn,

Fell to the floor

defeated

But, He stepped through the door

Picked up the jeans and tore them in two

Declaring them finished

Their superficiality is diminished

The imperfections unimportant

She stands triumphant

The jeans a mere corruption of the White Robes

An attempt to hide the flaws, the lacks

An empty hope of the greatest burden

The joy lies in the conclusion

In the destruction of the jeans, of the lies, of the weariness

Of the facade in a pair of perfection