World Hunger: Will the poor always be with us?

Recent statistics have shown that every day, about 25,000 children die from hunger and related causes. That is equivalent to 1 child dying every 3.5 seconds. This means that in the time it takes me to drive to work, over 200 children die from entirely preventable causes. It is equivalent to a tsunami like the one that occurred in 2004 happening every 1.5-2 weeks.

Yet, here in America, we ignore this crisis. In fact, we have our own crisis, in the form of obesity. Its sad when you think about it; while others struggle to find something to eat so they can scratch out something that could be called a life, we struggle to put down the soft drink and go for a walk. Nearly 1 in 4 people live on less than $1/day, while we can't stop our love affair with overpriced steaks.

Yes, we have the right to enjoy the fruits of our labors. And I'm not suggesting that we sell all our worldly possessions and live like hippies, sending all our money to other people. I'm not trying to say that we should all live on less than a dollar a day. What I am trying to say is that maybe we could go without for once. Maybe, instead of spending $4 on coffee every day, or $50/mo on a high-speed Internet connection, we could donate that money to help people. You probably need to quit coffee anyways, and is your world really going to come falling down around you if you have to load Youtube videos at DSL speeds?

Here's something I don't hear people talk about very often; tithing. According to this link, 33.4% of households in the US practice tithing. That comes out to a whopping $103.32 billion. Now, you might be thinking, "But the church has missionaries and runs all kinds of programs that help hungry people everywhere!" According to the aforementioned link, 85% of that money goes towards internal operations, with only 2% going to overseas. So you're telling me that my fellow countrymen are already giving away over $100 billion, but that $85 billion is going towards internal operations? And only $2 billion is going to overseas operations, which in turn have their own internal costs?

Here's a thought. Tithing is stupid. Let me tell you why.

1. Imagine what could be done with that $85 billion. According to Feedthechildren.org, you can feed, clothe, educate, and provide medical care to a child for $30/month. Now, if the economies in those poor countries ever recovered, that cost would go up, but they would be in a position to care for themselves and help others. With that $85 billion, we could care for over 236 million children each year.
2. Poor people don't need religion. They need food, safe drinking water, medicine, shelter, and education. And when groups spend money sending audio bibles to Haiti instead of things they can actually use, I want to punch someone in the face.
3. God is going to do whatever he wants, regardless of how much money your local church rakes in on Sunday. And if God is in control, as the popular song says, he's responsible for the death and suffering anyways. Personally I believe it was tectonic plates, which have been moving for billions of years, and will probably continue moving for billions of years after we die.
4. "The hands that help are better than the lips that pray."

In short, I hope that if you are giving money to your church, you will reconsider. If you're already giving money to an organization that will provide what starving people really need, good for you. And if you're not giving, but you are able, I hope you will consider donating to an organization.

Abortion Rights

Above is the direct link to the paper below. I wrote this paper for an ethics course I took in the Fall of 2009. I've already posted the link to Facebook, but I'll post it again here. I may bring the subject up again, because I think there are a lot of things I could say about abortion rights. However, the paper had a 1500 word limit, so there is only so much content. Enjoy.

Kyle Gibson

December 6, 2009

PHI 2600

Professor Dennis Lucius

Why Abortion is Moral

One of the most controversial subjects of debate in modern society is abortion. Some people say that God endows a fetus with a soul at conception. Others believe that a woman has a right to control what happens with her own body, and that perhaps the fetus receives a soul at birth, or that the soul is just a figment of our imagination. Most of our laws are based on the idea that you can do whatever you like, as long as you are not damaging someone else or their physical property. There are serious consequences for murder. Most anti-abortionists, or self-designated “pro-life” individuals, believe that the killing of an unborn fetus is the same as murdering a child. However, it is important to understand that abortion is often the most moral and humane solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

According to a 2006 Washington Post article, “…there were 6.4 million pregnancies in the United States in 2001, resulting in about 4 million births. There were 1.3 million abortions and 1.1 million miscarriages. The pregnancies were almost evenly divided between intended and unintended, and the unintended ones led to almost even numbers of births and abortions.” (Kaufman) 6.4 million pregnancies in one year means that on average, over 17,500 new pregnancies occurred each day in 2001. Of those new pregnancies, about 3000 a day ended in miscarriage, and just over 3500 ended in an abortion.

That means that 11,000 new pregnancies were carried to term every day in the United States, not counting the stillborn or babies that died during or shortly after birth. If abortion were entirely banned in the United States, within 10 years we would have an additional 13 million children. According to a 2009 article published by Time, the average cost of raising a child is $221,000 before college (Gibbs). So, to raise those children would cost a staggering 287.3 billion dollars, without calculating for inflation. “In 1994, the study found, 87 women of every 1,000 living below the poverty line had unintended pregnancies. In 2001, that number had risen to 112 of 1,000 women.” (Kaufman) With the number of children being born into poverty rising, government programs such as Welfare, WIC, and the National School Lunch Program would have to subsidize much of the cost of raising those children, leading to an increased burden on the average tax-payer.

Despite the costs, almost everyone would agree that the monetary issues should take a back seat to the moral issue at the heart of the abortion debate. Is killing a fetus a crime in the eyes of God, if a god exists? The majority of pro-life supporters agree that it is. Alternately, the majority of pro-choice supporters believe that the soul is bestowed either very late in the pregnancy, or during childbirth itself. This controversy involves issues in the metaphysical realm, such as the nature of the human soul, if it is present, and indeed the very existence of a higher power. These issues are well beyond the scope of this essay, and probably surpass the knowledge and reasoning capacity of this author. Instead, I will focus on more readily describable problems.

A woman should have the right to choose what happens to her own body. She should not be forced to carry a baby if she does not want to. A fetus is essentially a parasite. A parasite, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is, “an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism.” (Webster) During pregnancy, a fetus draws all of its nourishment from the mother. The mother must consume extra calories and vitamins to provide for the fetus, to ensure that both the baby and mother are as healthy as possible when the child is born. The mother must also make changes to her lifestyle, such as discontinue the use of alcohol and tobacco, buy new clothes to fit her changing body, and take time off of work to have her child and recover from giving birth. She must also suffer the pain of childbirth, and accept the risks involved with it. If the mother chooses to keep the child, her life is forever changed. If she gives the child up for adoption, she will possibly be facing years of emotional anguish, particularly around the child’s birthday (birthmothers.info).

If the government were to say that the right of the fetus to survive were more important than the right of the woman to choose, the value of the woman would be diminished. Additionally, forcing women to follow through with unwanted pregnancies is in violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution. The amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (Bill of Rights Transcript) The issue of whether or not a soul exists, and if it does, when God imparts it is strictly a religious issue. Therefore, laws cannot be made banning abortion if that is the overwhelming reason why pro-lifers want the ban. It’s unconstitutional, and does not hold with the American tradition of freedom of religion. Many people say that America was founded on Christian values, but history shows us that we are a nation founded on the principals of freedom, equality, and justice.

So logically, if the issue cannot be based upon religious concerns, it must be based on concerns centered in the physical world. One of these concerns is that the fetus feels pain very early in the pregnancy, shortly after conception. “By this age the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt” (Willke). So we see that according to this research, a fetus can feel pain at an early stage in the pregnancy. Regardless, animals are often killed for food in a manner more barbaric than some abortion methods. Its not that animals are the same as humans (though many arguments could be made about that), but it is important to understand that the level of brain activity in a fetus is below that of many common animals until late in the pregnancy. Therefore, why is their pain any more important than the pain of a smarter animal?

On a purely philosophical scale, we can look to the ideas of two famous philosophers with differing ideals: Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. In summary, Kant believed that moral rules and philosophy could be understood only in the terms of absolutes. Kant believed that God was responsible for setting these absolutes. Without God chiming in (which it doesn’t look like he will) I can say that in all likelihood, Immanuel Kant would not have supported abortion rights. Contrarily, Mill believed that the rules and philosophies of morality could be based on whatever provided the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. So Mill would likely agree that abortion could be the most moral way to handle an unwanted pregnancy.

Many pro-life supporters propose adoption as an alternative to abortion. Certainly there are many couples that would love to have children, but are unable to conceive their own. In fact, adoption is the option that will likely lead to the most happiness for these people. However, with an estimated 15 million children dying each year as a result of hunger (Oracle ThinkQuest Library), we should not be adding additional children and straining the world food supply even further. Adopting an undernourished child from a developing country or donating the cost of raising a child to a program to feed, clothe, and educate the children in those countries is a much better option. Giving human life is a wonderful thing, but not at the expense of pre-existing human life.

In short, while abortion is not always the most moral choice for every situation, it is often the best solution to an unwanted pregnancy. A woman’s rights should not be compromised in the name of a being that she can give life to. She should have the right to choose what to do with her own body. While many opponents of abortion rights allege that abortion constitutes murder, it is not that way in the eyes of the law. Abortion is a personal issue, and the courts in this country should not ban that option. Kant and Mill would have a fundamental disagreement about the morality of abortion, because Kant believed that morality could only be understood in absolutes. Abortion can create more happiness than it destroys, and according to Mill, that is what our ultimate goal should be.

Works Cited

"Bill of Rights Transcript." National Archives and Records Administration. Web. 07 Dec. 2009. .

Birthmothers.info - Research, effects of adoption separation on mothers, babies. Web. 06 Dec. 2009. .

Gibbs, Nancy. "The Cost of Raising Kids - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 24 Aug. 2009. Web. 06 Dec. 2009. .

Kaufman, Marc. "Unwanted Pregnancies Rise for Poor Women - washingtonpost.com." Washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines. 05 May 2006. Web. 06 Dec. 2009. .

Parasite - Definition. Web. 6 Dec. 2009. .

"The world hunger problem: Facts, figures and statistics." Oracle ThinkQuest Library. Web. 09 Dec. 2009. .

5

Gibson