The Pregnant Man

What is so surprising about this issue? Is it that he is a man is giving birth to a baby? Is it that he is man who was originally a woman? Is it that he publicizes the fact that he is a pregnant man? Thomas Beatie was born biologically a female, by the name of Tracy Lagondino and had sex change and is now legally a male. When his wife, Nancy, was unable to have kids, Thomas, who still has female organs, had decided he would carry their baby himself. And therefore became the world’s first pregnant man; he is expecting a baby girl in July. But this process, unsurprisingly, has not been so easy for him. “A transgender man can be pregnant because he has the same organs as a woman,” Dr Masterson said. Dr Masterson also said that transgender men face special health risks resulting from their sex change. “It’s really important that he doesn’t take any testosterone early on in the pregnancy and later on, That can cause male-type characteristics in the female baby.” Some of the Beaties’ neighbors are skeptical about the pregnancy. One neighbor said, “I couldn’t say that he looks pregnant. I can stick my stomach out and almost make it look like that. I think it’s kind of bizarre. I don’t know if I believe it or not.” But it was confirmed with Thomas Beatie’s doctor that he was legitimately pregnant. A good question to ask is should this be accepted in society? If so, Why should it be questioned by society? He is a legitimate male who is having a baby. What is mainly strange for us is that it is normally not traditional for a male to be having a baby. But, Thomas Beatie has all the right to express and display that he has a baby. As society, we may think anything we want, but regardless he is legal right to have a baby. The idea that he has told people about him being pregnant shows so much bravery. He is the one giving birth in his family and that is something that has made his wife proud and people in this world should respect the fact that they as a family have made a decision for the father to be pregnant.
Another important issue is to wonder about the welfare of the baby girl that will be coming from the father, It is said by doctors that the baby is in good condition and is making good progress. But, what about when she starts to attend school and she is made fun of for having a father who had been previously a woman. This could cause physiological and social problems for the child.
At this time, I believe the greatest thing that this family could receive is society encouragement and support. It is so important that they have support not only from their family, but also from their close friends and neighbors. It is ok to disagree with the idea of a pregnant man, but the respect for their family should be given without hesitation.

Breadwinner

Lets say there is a case where a mother works and the father doesn’t work. The father gave up his profession so that he can take care of the children, and the mother works all day to support the family. As the kids grow up and leave home the mother finds that the father doesn’t do much of anything and justs spends “their” money and doesn’t bring any income in. The mother finds this irritating and sees that the behavior continues after she had continuously told him to get a job. The mother wants to divorce him, but she is afraid that she will have to pay him money that he does not deserve. She has a catch 22 situation, on one hand, if she doesn’t divorce him she still has to pay for everything and put up with his disrespect. On the other hand, if she divorces him, she will have to pay for other family expenses and plus alimony. She had thought that she would support the family while he took care of the kids and after the kids were gone, that he would get a job and contribute to help pay for college, household necessities, and retirement. She wants to divorce him, but is it fair that she has to pay him money for doing nothing? He doesn’t do anything all day long, and if the mother divorces him, he will continue to get her money. What should she do? Government statistics show that one third of the primary incomes of families comes from women now a days.
will the judge be biased, will he think that since the man is usually the breadwinner, the primary moneymaker in the family, that he is entitled to less money as if the situation was reversed and it was the wife staying at home while the husband worked? In this case, the husband should be treated as if he had a very hard job working 24 hours day with the children. I think the law should acknowledge that this husband has worked at a difficult job and has contributed to the family. Had he not done this job they would have to pay for a nanny or a housekeeper. His contribution to the family is financially valuable; he should be paid a salary (although there is no one to make this payment). If they do move forward with the divorce is it fair that the judge should simply split their savings and not give the husband any alimony while he tries to train for a job outside the home. Its now time to try and put aside our expectations as to who is the breadwinner and who should stay home with the children, and we should also try to consider the contribution of the stay at home parent to be a financial contribution equal to the breadwinner.

Standing Up For What Is Right – Is it always the best way to handle something?

Is it always good to stand up to tell the truth? Should you always have the courage to stand up and do the right thing? Is standing up for oneself the best way to handle a situation? In most cases, these questions don’t need to be answered; the obvious answer is always that you should do what you believe and stand up for yourself. In fact, it sometimes is imperative that one does that. For example, someone’s life could depend on your courage to tell the truth, as it did in the Twelve Angry Men. I have always learned that telling the truth is always the preferred decision if you’re a very moral person who believes in justice. Is this the way we should handle all situations? Is it ever ok to not be truthful to yourself?
Its one thing to stand up for what you believe in, but it is another thing to be smart enough to stand up for what you believe in. In other words, if you are going to be assertive with other people, it is important that you have “quick” thinking. Part of standing up for yourself is having the ability to stand by your statement. Dont let your weakness show throughout your time with them. This is the reason juror number eight was so successful. He was able to stay “above the game” to prove his point.
In this play a boy’s life was solely on the shoulders of twelve jurors. In the jury room eleven men voted guilty, but one man, juror number eight, voted not guilty. Being truthful to himself had given him the courage to stand up against eleven angry men for the truth and in the end it saved an innocent young man’s life.
If juror number eight had not told the truth a young man’s life would have been gone. The other eleven jurors had voted not guilty solely on the idea that they wanted to get out of there “quicker.” Three and ten men were very intimidating people, in the play they were stuck on the idea of guilty, they weren’t very logical thinkers. All they wanted to believe was that a kid from the slums is definitely a killer. It is never good to think like that, and it was relieving that people like juror number eight were able to set these guys straight.
In conclusion, there are many reasons to stand up and tell the truth. Respect is given to people who are seen to be strong and courageous. Juror number eight had these traits and acted in this manner and was able to receive the respect of the other jurors. So the answer is yes, standing up for what is right is always the way to go. (and I don't mean die)
I hope you enjoyed this wonderful essay, and I would like to add a few things. First if you read this essay you should be convinced that the truth is the way to go. Finally, one man can make a difference if he has courage.

DPT - What to do?

In the state of Michigan it is a law to be vaccinated with DPT (diphtheria, pertusis, and tetanus. This vaccine protects children from those illnesses. Every child in the United States is required to have this vaccination before entering school. This may sound great, but are there long-term side effects? Yes, some of the DPT vaccinations have been implicated to lead to death, permanent neurological, or brain damage of some children. Thimerosal, which is used as a preservative in some DPT vaccines, contains mercury and has been suspected of contributing to the dramatic increase of autism. There have been reports of healthy infants who had been progressing normally to suddenly developing severe problems including autism and brain damage after receiving a DPT vaccine. Now, let me ask you this, if it recommended by the state to be immunized with this vaccination, and you experience terrible side effects like that, do you have the right to sue the state government? I mean, it was their rule that led to a terrible effect? The counter argument to that is that it has only caused these terrible side effects in very rare cases. Most of the nation has benefited from it, and it has helped protect everyone from the spreading of diseases. From a strictly legal point of view, we need to ask does the state have the duty to protect you from such occurrences. For example, if you are walking by a river and you see someone drowning and you can easily help them and you don’t, although, you are not a nice person, you have no duty or obligation to help them so you are not responsible. If it is your child that is drowning, you do have a duty and would be responsible. Probably, In this case, the state does not have the duty if your child receives damage from an immunization that has gone wrong. But, you could argue that the state made it impossible for you to help, without the immunization. From a logical point of view, if someone tells you to do something, you don’t have to do it, it is not as if the state threatened to kill you if you didn’t do it. I’m sure also if there are specific problems that the parent might have with giving the child the DPT vaccination, I am sure there are ways to get around it. In addition, the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is the government agency responsible for regulating vaccines in the United States. They continuously research and monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness. The government really cares about making sure that the vaccination that is injected in people's bodies (as seen in the picture) is safe and secure. In conclusion, it really depends on the situation. Whether or not, that you choose to allow your child to be vaccinated, after being knowledgeable on the rare possibility of these side effects, it puts you responsible.

Felony Murder

Did you know that one could be convicted of murder even if he did not kill anyone? This can occur under the law of felony murder. Your probably thinking how does that make any sense; you need to kill someone to be ch

arged for that murder. A felony murder makes any participant in a felony, criminally responsible for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. For example, if two thieves are robbing a bank, even without guns, which is a felony, and a police officer walks in trying to stop the robbery, shoots and kills one of the thieves. Then, the thief that is alive can be charged with murder of the killing of his 

friend even though he did not pull the trigger. You may ask how is this fair, and in fact America is one of the few countries that has the felony murder rule. On one hand, it is clear that if they have not been involved in this crime, the killing would have not occurred. Although, on the other hand, is it fair to punish someone for doing something that they did not intend to do?

            The idea that someone is killed based off of your actions, is a somewhat conflicting idea. If the two thieves are robbing the store, and it just so happens that one is shot and dies, what is the backup argument? What will protect that person from being charged for that murder? It leaves the criminal in a state of helplessness, and really makes criminals think twice before they perform an illegal act. That is the positive aspect of the rule.

            We should also look at this situation from another negative perspective. As we all know, the sentence for a premeditated murder is more punitive than an accidental murder. If the thieves entered to rob the bank and expect one of them to not come out alive; this would be a different story. The idea that seems strange to me is, what if the thieves were a mother and a son? And if the son is shot by a police officer, the mother is blamed? It also could be that the police officer made a bad decision.

            We also forget an important aspect; the police officer killed the thief. The police officer is the killer and he is allowed to blame it on someone else. I can understand if the police shoots someone for his self defense and his control of the situation, but is it worth it to blame it on someone else. The police officer has the free will to choose whether or not he will shoot this thief and therefore is able to determine the sentencing of the other thief.

            As you can see, the felony murder law is a very unique and interesting rule. This strange and sometimes confusing rule has many conflicting side and its important to understand it.

The Second Amendment

Gun control has been an ongoing argument in our country for many years, but what is the argument all about. The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment could be interpreted differently depending on who the one interpreting it is. The (NRA) National Rifle Association, a group that is against any type of gun control restrictions, interprets this amendment by saying all guns should be allowed to be owned and no state should have the right to restrict that. I can understand why the NRA might want to unrestrict guns for sports such as hunting, but then why do they care about personal guns? When people own personal guns, crime occurs.  Hunting accidents do happen also, but I can understand why that would be a reason for someone to own a gun.

It seems pretty obvious that the authors of this amendment wanted this to be used to defend our country at a time when there was not a large enough army to defend our nation. At no point does it suggest that the average man off the street with no military or firearm training should be permitted to own a gun! Nevertheless, many right-wing members of today's United States have interpreted this amendment to mean that every citizen has the right to "keep and bear arms." But uneducated people in our society can still be fooled into believing this absurd idea that everyone can have a gun.

The clear reason for anyone to own a personal hand gun would be for self defense. Even for that it can sometimes have a negative ending. Lets say a man breaks into your house and you point a gun to his head and tell him not to come any closer. This man continues hesitantly moves forward and suddenly you pull the trigger and he dies. This man could have been a poor and mentally ill, and was just looking for some food and never had ever meant to harm you. The result of you shooting this man, causes you guilt and anxiety for the rest of your life. Was it worth it? Did you do the right thing? This whole type of situation could have been avoided if handguns had been banned in the first place.

Why does the NRA feel the need to allow dangerous handguns to be in the United States? Is it worth it to you to own a handgun for your defense? When people are dying everyday from other people owning handguns. People who are not educated and competent enough to own a handgun; how do we know who these people are? We don’t and that is the problem.

We can learn from this that it is important to accurately try to understand an amendment and the importance for the authors of these amendments to make sure that the civilians understand the complexity of the writings.