نظرية المعرفة

When studying the AoK of History there where several interesting questions that we discussed in class and that brought me to thinking about other things as well. One of the most important things discussed was the fact that history is based only on records from the past that have been interpreted by people (historians and others) who in turn come from different backgrounds. All these facts add up to conclude that there is no way of knowing the exact way things happened because the interpretations form either the people who lived it, merely saw it, or even read about it. The records of the past allows us to take a look in primary and secondary documents form people who liven in that time and before. Although most of these might seem contradictory, since each represents an individuals perception, it was “what really happened” for them. From this we then might say that the interpretations are not accurate because of the amount of variations form the peoples perspective. But isn’t history itself what people can perceive and record of what goes around them? Is there a way of really knowing what really happened? 

In one of the syllabus questions there was a quote by Carlyle that said “The history of the world is but the biography of great men”. This also reflects the previous statement but in a different approach. In this case history is defined by what people in control decided was the “truth” and that is what we can see now. In a sense this is correct since many powerful people in history have defined what we now perceive of a certain period of time through their manipulation or even their educational and economic status. In our History IB class we learn to analyze documents from certain events and not just from one source of a certain nationality or status. The perception of people from various positions such as a military leader, a reporter, a president or simply a peasant are helpful to understand more completely the set of events in a specific moment in time. The perception from all these people is in itself what history is about since there is not just one correct answer or result in this specific AoK. At the same time the fact that we analyze the different documents is in turn another barrier due to our own perception of things and of “what really happened”. This is the same with historians who even if they try to be as unbiased as possible their own input is always present. 

This does not mean we should not believe any historical event or fact we have learned happened since the interpretation of every person involved in the process is part of what constitutes this AoK. The certainty that revolves in history is so small that the more holistic understanding we have of the several situations people went through the better we are going to be able to identify what happened. 

I was recently watching the news and I came across a report on the new “Black Disney Princess”. This at first caught my attention since not only where they reporting on the new production (the movie) but they were also making special emphasis to the fact that she would be the first black Disney princesses. Her name is Tiana and the movie will be set in the city of New Orleans during the 1920’s. The new film will follow the princess as she transforms a frog (based on the story of the Frog Prince), and ventures into the bayous of Louisiana to find a cure from a voodoo queen. But this was not the original set up of the movie. After a great amount of criticism concerning the movie as “racists”, several aspects of the movie were changed. Disney has changed the profession of the princess to an aspiring restaurant entrepreneur, instead of being a chambermaid. They have also changed her name to Tiana , instead of Maddy. Critics thought Maddy was too similar to Mammy, a once-common term for black female slaves in white households. The controversy intensified after it was revealed the film would be set in New Orleans and Tiana would find love with an almost-white prince. A white prince, critics believe,  transmit the fact that a black man is not deserving of a princess.  

Disney, in an attempt of bringing many aspects of the real world into their movies, has also created princesses such as a Native American character (Pocahontas), Middle Eastern (Jasmine in Aladdin) and an Asian character (Mulan). This will not only make her the first black princess but she will also be the first American (U.S.) princess. What I think is really interesting is the timing of this production. Could it be that the first president of African heritage being elected  president of the United States recently and this have any relation at all? I definitely think so. From the beginning of Barack Obama’s campaign for president people have gone crazy over the fact that first, he is black, and second that he is running for president in a country who has been marked by slavery and discrimination. Now that he was elected the “Obama-mania” does not seem to be decreasing, but instead there is even more action taken on the matters of racism, as princess Tiana. The other question that comes to my mind is if the Obama-mania helps reduce the amount of racism and create conscience among the people or emphasize the problem surrounding  it more? Should there really be that much importance on the election of this specific president only because of his race? We should definitely consider the circumstances as much of the discrimination or admiration people have towards Obama is society and culturally based. African Americans have come a large way from not having the right to vote to becoming president of a nation, but what about the people that get stuck in the past and focus on the “bad” things instead of the “good” things? 

http://starshine1.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/d-frog-princess.jpg

TV, billboards, movies and even news channels have a major influence in our daily lives whether that is entertaining or informing us, the media consciously and unconsciously perpetrates ideas and concepts into our minds. We might at times notice very easily the different tricks that advertisers use to make us want to do  or buy something. But sometimes these images, in television or in movies, transmit even more powerful messages that transmit a very important and common aspect of our society, stereotypes. Because of the power of the media, the messages work in a dangerous cycle were one feed into the other and sustain it. We are constantly bombarded with ideas of how people from certain cultures are. Although we might be aware that these images are not always true, they are spread into society and  they are eventually perpetuated into social responses and dynamics. For example Latin people are commonly portrayed as short and dark-skinned, usually mexican; strong-willed and arrogant; temperamental; passionate; irresponsible; and lazy. Although we know that not all people from Latin America fit this stereotype when competing for a job the, again stereotypical, “white educated guy” will be the first priority. 

Through out history different groups have been discriminated for the exact same reason: jews, African American, arabs and even women. These although in a lower degree are still present and affect us every day. Now a days people might even say that people who believe stereotypes are those who are uneducated or close minded, but it takes no more than turning on our TV to see that most shows maintain these images and we are entertained by them, instead of becoming concerned by their long term effects. Shows like Ugly Betty (family of mexican immigrants with a clear accent who live in Queens), Desperate Housewives (latino maids and gardeners), That 70’s Show (exchange student who is naive and uneducated), even cartoons such as Speedy González illustrate clear stereotypical interpretations. But where do these stereotypes come from? The perception and categorization of certain groups was definitely not created out of thin air. These might have been based on the reality of certain people but because of the infinite amount of variations, we can not stick to only one interpretation. The ability of a certain power group, in order to control the other, has allowed certain images to transcend and become stereotypes. To what extent is the interpretation of one person be a reflection of their own stereotypical characteristic? Women being characterized by men as “useless” and “sensitive” while men themselves are considered “controlling” and “stubborn”. 

I will admit this is definitely not a reason to not watch TV anymore, I personally wouldn’t  do so, but I do consider that it is important to be aware of them and their effects. We should ask ourselves sometimes: Is it ok to only laugh at the comical interpretations of a foreigner? Or should we do something about it? Is there really something we can do? 

Ugly Betty

http://blog.seenon.com/files/imported/ugly-betty-poncho.jpg 

Mary Robinson

- Mary Robinson, the first woman President of Ireland (1990-1997)

- Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002)

- Mrs. Robinson was the first Head of State to visit Rwanda in the aftermath of the 1994 genocide there. She was also the first Head of State to visit Somalia following the crisis there in 1992, receiving the CARE Humanitarian Award in recognition of her efforts for that country.

- Before her election as President in 1990, Mrs. Robinson served as Senator, holding that office for 20 years. In 1969 she became the youngest Reid Professor of Constitutional Law at Trinity College, Dublin. She was called to the bar in 1967, becoming a Senior Counsel in 1980, and a member of the English Bar (Middle Temple) in 1973. She also served as a member of the International Commission of Jurists (1987-1990) and of the Advisory Commission of Inter-Rights (1984-1990).

- She was educated at the University of Dublin (Trinity College), King’s Inns Dublin and Harvard Law School to which she won a fellowship in 1967.

-As President, Mrs. Robinson developed a new sense of Ireland’s economic, political and cultural links with other countries and cultures. She placed special emphasis during her Presidency on the needs of developing countries, linking the history of the Great Irish Famine to today’s nutrition, poverty and policy issues, thus creating a bridge of partnership between developed and developing countries.

- She married in 1970 Nicholas Robinson, lawyer, conservationist, and an authority on eighteenth-century caricature. They have a daughter and two sons. Even if she is married and has children she has a more prominent role that her husband. He is successful in his career, but he is definitely overshadowed by her. 

- In 1988 Mary Robinson and her husband founded the Irish Centre for European Law at the Trinity College. Ten years later she was elected Chancellor of the University.

- Harsh deep voice that is not very characteristic of a female. Her outfits also resemble a man because of the dull colors, although she does wear some jewelry they are not very bright or big, they barely stand out. 

In this video you can hear her voice as well as how most of her outfits are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbtNWnqVXY 

Mary Robinson does fit Block’s “social male” argument since her career, her appearance and personal life are similar to the other examples he uses in his argument. Her role as a female leader is based on a male mold and has had to follow it in order to succeed in her career. 

http://www.euroresidentes.com/Blogs/mary_robinson.jpg

“Darwin’s God” an article by Robin Marantz Henig explores the science behind the existence of God and the purpose of religion and belief. Science and religion seem to be two unrelated topics, whose origins seem to contradict each other. Religion covers the unexplainable, the abstract while science is based upon investigation and results of “overwhelming evidence”. In this article the role of religion and science is explored as well as the real purpose of religion for evolutionary purposes. At the beginning of the article the author brings up the question of “Which is the better biological explanation for a belief in God – evolutionary adaptation or neurological accidents?” Scientists seem to not understand the transcendency of religion as it does not seem to serve a specific purpose in evolution. All characteristics in humans beings can be justified as an the result of an evolutionary process, where what is valuable to our development is kept and what is not is disposed. In my opinion religion and belief serve the purpose of explaining those things that are “unexplainable”, all those thing that I question and can’t find and answer. For some people religion might also serve the purpose of guiding them in their actions concerning themselves and others as a standard for “good” and “bad”. 

Religion is also presented in the article as spandrel. Although this term is used in architecture as a term to describe the space between one side of the outer curve of an arch, a wall, and the ceiling or framework, it serves “to describe a trait that has no adaptive value of its own.” The question then is, is God a spandrel? Religion seems then to have  been maintained from generation to generation simply because it was the result of something else, indicating religions as having no real purpose. Although this might be true, the possibility that religion served as a “survival advantage” is also presented. This is exposed through the individual as well as collective value of belief in a supernatural entity. On the personal level religion will guide people into being good or bad as they expect to be rewarded upon their faith one way or another. On the group level religion served the purpose of unity in a community. For example rituals will bring people together hence benefiting the overall development of societies. 

These is also an emotional concept in religion that has been regarded by scientists. This emotional value of religion allows people to fell secure and in peace with themselves. Because religion serves as a means of understanding things that can not be explained, natural human fears such as death, the afterlife, heaven or hell are eased by this faith, independently form any specific religion. On this aspect of “natural human behavior” the curiosity and need for explaining our surroundings also takes part on the explanation of religion. Inquiry has allowed people to figure out things that people could have never imagined to be true, leading human kind into developing minds and the environment. When trying to justify religion, will there able be a way to explain the “unexplainable”? 

As scientist Daniel Dennet, points out if there really is a separation between science and religion “that does not mead science can’t study what religion does. It just means science can’t do what religion does.” This again refers to the argument that religion currently does not seem to have any other purpose that to justify the abstract, to explain the unexplainable and to provide a safe zone for all the questioning of our minds concerning our surrounding, our reality.

I came across several more woman related issues that have caught my attention. One of them was of an article titled “The Barriers Fell, One Year, One Step at a Time” featured in the New York Times. The other one is an article that was given to us on our ToK class about language and science as well as gender called “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles”.

In both of the articles men are presented in the role of superiority over women. This superiority issue can be traced down to elements such as languages, as I previously commented on. This gender aspect is also linked into language and science as presented in the article by Emily Martin. She brings together several examples on the sperm and egg dynamic in reproduction to emphasize her argument on the role of language in science and to “ shine a bright light on the gender stereotypes hidden within the scientific language of biology”. She points out the fact that “scientific language” does have an important influence in social dynamics between males and females. One of these example is when she says “the imagery keeps alive some of the hoariest old stereotypes about weak damsels in distress and their strong male rescuers”. Men and woman have been portrayed this way for a long time and the use of language in biological processes seem to reflect this behavior. A different portrayal of the role of men and women is presented but still with females in a negative role. She says “ Images of woman as dangerous and aggressive, the femme fatale who victimizes men[...]”. According to her arguments both these stereotypes revolving around the female way of action contribute to the interaction of both sexes in social environments. 

Another point she makes is that “The stereotypical imagery might also encourage people to imagine that what results from the interaction of egg and sperm-a fertilized egg- is the result of deliberate “human” action at the cellular level.” By using certain wording in science about the dominance of one over the other, the amount of emphasis that is given to the role of women and men in our society is indicated. It may even provide a justification for certain behaviors because it is a “ natural behavior ” as the egg and the sperm. I believe that although her arguments are to a certain extent generalizations, since she decided which examples to use in order to prove her point, language in this case in science does shape our perception on different matters. I believe that both of the stereotypes presented by her are true in the sense that men are glorified as the saviors and women must be the ones “saved” by men. My opinion is definitely influenced because of the fact that I am a woman, allowing men to have a different reaction and opinion over this matter. The important thing besides the role of men and women is the influence of language on our daily development and understaning of our surrounding.   

In the other article the limitations and freedoms woman have had in our society is presented, this case is sports. One of the parts that I thought was really interesting was the quote by Nina Kuscsik, the first woman to run in the New York Marathon, “ If I went out to run and it rained, the police would stop me, they thought I was running away from something”. This statement reflects an important aspect of the gender issues in our modern world, and that is the perception men had or even have about woman. In this case a woman can not be seen running without a negative reaction to her actions. If a man was seen running, would there be the same kind of reaction? The article also mentioned that “until as recent as the 1970s, women were discouraged from competitive sports in general and running in particular”. This men superiority concept is very common and had been defined throughout time, and is applied in pretty much every area where women have been excluded from. Why is it that woman couldn’t participate is sports but could be the ones that raise the children? Why weren’t men assigned to cook and women to work? Is it a matter of true biological superiority as explained in the the article of science (discussed above) or a matter of language and its ability to shape our realities. Does language interfere with our ways of interacting with our society hence the roles of males and females? 

For reference to the original article see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/health/nutrition/26best.html?ref=health

This Special Jury Prize: Documentary winner at the Sundance Film Festival is a crude but eye-opener exposé on on the incredibly brutal civil war that has raged for over ten years in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The documentary presents several aspect of the situation, from real life cases to the actions the government has taken. Most of the women that are interviewed talk about all the aspects and problems that they have had to go through after their rapes. These include physical damage as well as social and moral. There are also some interviews of the soldiers and their position on the issue. Certainly an eye opener for me. When watching the documentary there were a lot of emotions arising  because of my personal perspective on the subject as well as a bunch of questions that came into my mind, some which I considered worth discussing about.  

One element that is present throughout the documentary as well as in any war or rape related subject is ethics. Many people do believe that any kind of war is unethical, but there are other cultural as well as personal aspects that contribute to the war and eventually to the rapes, specially in a place like this one, that have to be considered. An aspect that is presented in the documentary is the claim some men say they make woman suffer because they are suffering. These men obviously have to overcome hardships that come with a war but how ethical is to inflict pain on someone because of the mere fact that you believe you are entitled to it? In the article the author says “There is also a markedly misogynistic rationale behind the rapes: the soldiers express the deep-rooted social belief that women are inferior and therefore men can take what they want from them – including sex.” So how do you change the belief of a person who has been raised to believe that women are inferior, no matter what anyone tells them now? There is an incredible amount of superstition from the soldiers as well where they believe that raping women will give them good luck and allow them to be victorious in battle. This is also a culture related aspect that is very delicate since the view of the situation from the outside is always different from the one contemplated by the people who life it. 

On the part of the soldiers there is some attitudes and behaviors that make some other moral questions arise. As the author of the article points out “Blaming the survivor is all too common: many women find themselves abandoned by their families after being raped”. This brutal attitude deteriorates no only the women themselves but the society as a whole. These same men who are raping women, have a sort of double morale, as in one hand they admit having raped women but would hurt anyone who would rape the women in their family such as their sisters and wife’s. There are certain villages where every single women, including girls and elderly women have been raped. In this summary article about the documentary the author also explains the fact that “even after being raped and subsequently rejected by their families, women will walk for months through dense forests in search of urgent medical care”. These women struggle with poverty and cultural undermining, as no government has ever taken a position of action over the issue. Although there is some initiative on the part of foreign entities to the government the physical and cultural barriers stop them one way or another. 

Another important aspect to be considered to reach a solution, if there is ever a way, is the damage and influence the future generations of this society are receiving. Children who are the products of rape themselves, those who  have been witnesses or even those who are the victims are being influenced and educated towards a set idea of what is “right” or “wrong”. Boys and girls will grow up to believe this is the right way to treat others and to be treated, eventually leading a future society to run under the same principles. 

The emotional aspects of this issue also have to be considered. The woman who does this documentary is a victim of rape herself , which makes the connection between the people who are being interviewed and the views even more profound. Because of this emotional aspect, the perception on the subject will change form individual to individual and form culture to culture since, as we have learned there is no black and white in anything. Soldiers and villagers have their view over the events that surround them, we have our way of viewing it as well. Is there a way to create an ethical code that these aggressors should considered? Can it be imposed? Does the change come from the government or from the education of future generations?

Article by Jessica Mosby on “The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo”:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/05/8106

There has been an apparent reference to gender issues in our ToK class lately through out several topics. One of the things we saw was an article titled “Man-Made Language”. This article not only refer to the importance of language and its ability to shape our world and our reality but also how the whole language issue is also related to gender and the creation or origin of language itself. Among some of the things that are considered in the article on the subject of reality and language is the fact that “language is a powerful determinant of reality”. This statement is assertive as language, which includes symbols as well, help us give meaning to the things that surround us and even allow us to communicate with others despite the fact that our realities may differ and there is also no way of “grasping things as they really are” as also mentioned in the article. 

“To speak metaphorically, the brain is quite blind and deaf, it has no direct contact with light or sound, but instead has to acquire all its information about the state of the outside world in the form of pulses of bio-electrical activity pumped along bundles of nerve fibers from the external surface of the body, its interface with the environment”

(Smith 1971: 82)

As the previous quote stated, there is nothing simple about language, reality, or our perception of the things around us. 

This fact is later introduced as a gender issue as the article says “males – who have created the world, invented the categories, constructed sexism and its justification and developed a language trap which is in their interest”. What this pretty much means is that because language shapes our reality and language was created by men, then our reality is based on what men decided things to be, leading us into a sexist world and a one gender dominant society because of it. It then later says “The group which has the power to ordain the structure of language, thought, and reality has the potential to create a world in which they are the central figures, while those who are not of their group are peripheral and therefore may be exploited”. This quote is also assertive, in my opinion, because it defines the ability of language to control and shape one or more realities, if there even is such thing as “one reality”. This fact can be reflected on the male and female dynamics through out history and the “exploitation” of one over the other because of the mere domination over the path language takes. This sexists issue, wether it is feminism or even chauvinism, can be exemplified even in our class discussion. When we where divided into two sides, there was the immediate reaction from both parts of making clear who was better. Even when discussing the article there where several comments that demonstrated the sexists attitude by both parts, and the undermining of one by the other. 

The world we live in has definitely been shaped by man because of the role women and men have had in the past. From the simple fact that women where the ones designated to stay home and raise the children, while men where the source of income, or that women where designated to vote after men did. So can a world designed and developed from a man mold ever suit both men and women equally? Can language, thought and their effect on reality ever be different?

Due to the recent emphasis that has been given to Nadya Suleman’s fourteen children family, huge amounts of controversy over the ethics on her and her doctors decision making has been brought out to the public eyes attention. There are several factors in this case that contribute to the criticism and judgement she has received from the media as well as from many other people concerning how she will be able to handle the economic capability needed and what the role of the government or well fare aid will be. 

One of this aspects is the fact that she is a single woman who has no job and apparently no money and has to take care of six children already. Apart form the difficulty that is present on raising children she has two with minor disabilities and one autistic son. This definitely presents a huge obligation on her, as all these children need special attention and care that could not be sufficiently provided by herself even with the help of her parents that being economically or time wise. There are many people who question the actual attention each one of these children is getting, as well as their safety and the risks of allowing one child to be unattended. Police phone calls and neighbor complains have shown that there is a lot of commotion around the household, which is normal in any place where there is children, even if the ratio of kids to adults is different in this case. Police reports that Nadya called 911, as she did not know where one child was, it turns out the kid was locked in one of the rooms and was not harmed in any way. This kind of incident could be considered understandable to a child who’s playing, but the difficulty here is that she can not, by herself, take care of fourteen children. 

The world’s current situation of limited resources and economic crises makes everyone wonder what her real intentions are on making such a decision as she is encompassing a difficult life where her responsibility are enormous. The imminent population growth is also an aspect to be considered, since the world has limited resources. Some people have pretty harsh opinions on this, they claim that people in the western world who are educated enough to know the consequences of having so many children, are breeding like animals. There are two generalizations that these people are making since they are saying that non-western people are not educated and civilized and that having so many children is a mere act of ignorance. This assumption can not be made since not everyone complies with this profile. 

Another aspect for which she is widely criticized is the fact that she is single. In one of the blogs that I was reading about, one blogger claimed that single people should have no children at all. But why? Another one claims that many other people decide to have large families of twelve or thirteen children and that she is exposed as the only one who is doing so. But is she being placed in the spotlight because she does not have a man in her life? Or no apparent income from a masculine figure? Is she rather criticized because all of her children are the product of in-vitro fertilization and not from a marriage?

The other aspect that contributes to the controversy of this case is the doctor who assisted Nadya with first her six and then her eight children. This doctor agreed to implant a large amount of embryos, even if all of these had a great chance of eventually developing into a fetus. Both Nadya and the doctor who assisted her knew that a large amount of babies at once would not be able to remain in the uterus the whole nine months and they would be premature and exposed to infinite amount of difficulties, both before and after birth, restating the question of how ethical was it to do this.

All the aspects mentioned above are part of the publicity and attacks that this woman has had to face. They are all obvious reasons why she should have considered before encompassing this difficult task of raising fourteen children, but the critics should also be aware of her personal reasons and not just what they think as a mere spectators of the situation. Cases like this make you wonder about the ethical implications present in artificial methods such as in-vitro fertilization and the use people give it. To what extent is it right to have so many children when the resources available are limited in order to give them a good life style and education? Can one person be able to provide what is needed to so many when it may lack even in the smallest of families? Can someone be judged over their will of raising individuals that will take part of the world as active citizens? 

For reference to the original article see:

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/how-many-children-is-too-many/

Over the past years there has been an increase and development on research concerning prenatal care, genetic engineering and DNA. Not only has this type of research brought about enormous benefits to the improvement of the care of pregnancies but it has also been related to how this is involved with abortion and laws pro and against it. This kind of testing rises many questions concerning morals, religious perspectives, and medical/scientific perspectives. The controversy between people who are for and against abortion is related to pre-natal testing in this case because of the technological advancement. There is now the possibility to identify defective genes that in the future may be the cause of certain diseases. The uncertainty that still exist in identifying if that baby is in fact going to develop some kind of disease is what has allowed people to have controversial opinions on it. 

The greatest disagreement between both parts is that there is no way of knowing that a disease will be developed eventually from viewing genes in an embryo. Although there is a possibility of a certain defect, there is no way of knowing the degree of harm this disease will bring to that person. So how can you make the decision of disposing an living organism on the mere possibility that some kind of disease will affect it? As parents, if their child is to be sick throughout their lives they would consider the possibility of not carrying on with the pregnancy so that is no suffering from the baby and from themselves. In this case some would argue if this  kind of decision is moral? It certainly has to do with different believes that have been developed through out the person’s life such as religious principles. While some people will agree with this decision some will not permit it because it goes against what they believe is right. 

On my last ToK presentation we talked about a similar topic, eugenics. Our Knowledge Issue was if eugenics was ethical or not, and if should it be a social responsibility or an infringement on human rights. Because eugenics consist of so many methods  to “purify the race” and provide better living conditions to the human race such as sterilization, abortion, and genetic engineering, the standpoint in the issue is not definite in all people. One of the aspects that also affects the point of view of people concerning eugenics is the fact that many relate it with Hitler and the Holocaust and their brutal treatment in an attempt of eliminating all of those who where not pure arians. But if eugenics really is to serve human beings in improving living conditions what can be determined to be a pure person? We discussed that there is so many variations of what someone could consider the standard of keeping someone alive. Some of those where beauty, intelligence, culture, religion, or even social status. None of these can be a guideline to purify the race because all people have different ideologies and there is no possibility of defining what really is “pure”. 

This topic of abortion, genetics, technology, and DNA is related to AOK’s such as science and human science. Because of the development in technology and ability to do scientific research there has been an increase in practices such as medication and prenatal care (ultrasounds, blood tests, etc) This kind of advancement has been taken one step forward and there is now infinite amount of possibilities. Society has now become more accustomed to accept new scientific methods, or at least is several countries and cultures of the world, even if there still are some that do not consider these methods viable. Not so many years ago there was no way of knowing even the gender of a baby, but now there is even the possibility of even deciding on their genetic information that will determine their hair or skin color. 

The Ways of Knowing are also of extreme importance in this issue. Ethics relates because for someone a baby with a predisposition of cancer should not develop and should be aborted while for another that would be unethical. Reason is an important factor because this specific AOK is not emotionally related so if reason is the only aspect to be considered there is no sense in allowing a sick person to continue living and for people to be forced to take care of them regardless of their conditions. Also sense perception will define it due to the different experiences people have had and their now perception of the world around them. Sense allow us to perceive the world and people around us in a certain way shaping our realities.

There are always going to be new discoveries in the sciences and advancement in technology that will open new doors of development for us and because of the difference between people in their culture, beliefs and reason arguing for or against a topic such as abortion, it seems to me to be not definitely an issue with no solution but instead an ever changing one. 

For reference to the original article see: http://www.slate.com/id/2203324/