I thought that this was a very interesting article.  If I needed to have an in-vitro, I think that I may choose the gender of my child. Those procedures are not cheap, costing about $18,000 dollars.  Therefore If I could afford to have this procedure, why couldn’t I choose the gender of my child?  This same concept is used in making sure that the baby hasn’t received any unwanted genes from their parents.  It has become quite interesting the advancements that our society has brought forth.

Crack I dont smoke nor sell it. But I dont think that a person who sells crack is one hundred times the criminal a person who sells cocaine or pot for is for that matter. In this article the author describes the current movement in the house and senate to abolish the 100-to-1 ratio rule -which makes 1gram of crack equal to 100 grams of cocaine- for crack possession compared to cocaine possession and distribution. This ratio is not only unfair and seemingly unconstitional it is in accordance with mandatory sentencing guidelines which the feds handed down. So good there is movement towards abolish a seemingly cruel punishment.

The problem is that their is actually doubt wether the people presently incarcerated will be effected by a ruling to abolish the 100-to-1 rule and mandatory sentencing guidlines they were put away under. The house and senate are being hush hush on weater the ruling will be retroactive. Now why would a ruling that abolished a law for being unethical in terms of constitional law not be retroactive. Why would the prisoners put away under this system not be relaesed or at the very least be afforded a new trial. Why because the government does not want to face law suits that releasing these individuals, would be like admitting to. I say the feds made a mistake and they should own up to it. They handed down unfair mandatory sentences, taking a judge and jury’s opinon out of the equation. I see it as a highly unethical move on the feds part, drawing out this process of abolishing such guidelines and even considering the option of not making this revaluation and ruling retroactive which would release so many individuals who have been imprisoned for way to long. What do yall think about mandatory sentencing, retroactivity or the crack 100-to-1 ratio?

The author of this article sites the fact that a bachelor’s degree is no longer sufficent or less sufficent than it once was  to make yourself stand out. Unemployment for grads is close to 11% this may be disturbing to you. The author finds that more students than not only need to but are intending to seek  at education beyond their bachelor’s degree.

My ethical question to this article is what obligation do colleges have to ensure that their students who will need to secure at least a master’s degree to differentiate themselves on the job market. Are able to do so at a resonable cost and in a resonable amount of time. I think with the current trend of business seeking out those who are educated beyond a bachelor’s degree. That colleges have an ethical obligation to streamline a bachelors and masters degree a hybird so to speak which can be achieved in five years or less. So that students with limited resources are not put at a further disadvantge by having to take a job they are over qualified for until they have enough money to get that next degree. I think that I have been forced ot take classes in college that literally offer no advantage to me, they are classes full of busy work that really I gain no useable real world knowledge from. So colleges should eliminate some of these type of courses from their curriculum and add classes that are ment to better prepare students for or are master level courses.

This article is about lawsuits which have been placed against the city of Myrtle Beach by business owners regarding the ordinances which Myrtle Beach put into law during the last bike week. Business believe the city has no right to make laws like this that are obviously intended to deter the amount of people that will come for the bike rallies.

I think the city has every right to make a helmet law. With that said I do not think the formers of the helmet law intended to protect the motorcyclist and their families who would be impacted if a rider was in an accident with out a helmet. They obviously formed this law to ruin bike week. I believe it is unethical to pass a law which is intended to protect individuals, families, and socity against the burdens which may come as a result of a rider being injured buring an accident with out a helmet. When the true intent of the law was to deter individuals from visting for the rallies. The rallies have been a huge money maker for the strand. And there are families who have built business to specifically serve this demographic visitors. So is it ethical for law makers to pass laws aimed at reducing the amount of people coming for rallies?

This article is about a juvenile girl whose mother called the police regarding pictures she discovered on her daughter’s cell phone during a two day argument. The pictures were of a dead fetus that had been still born and was less than twenty weeks old, apparently buried at the families prior residence. The juvenile is charged with destruction and or desecration of human remains, she has been in custody since Monday and will remain at DJJ for mental evaluation for the next ten days.

Of course this is very sad. But my question is why did it happen maybe if we as a society recognized that not all young ladies are able to share a pregency with their parents with out fear of consequences. And if we as a society had organizations to offer free prenatal care and a plan for adoption after birth for the baby than things like this will stop happening. Further I would like to point out what I belive is a very ethical and just stance that our state- as is the norm-to protect the identity of the defender and her family. This girl will have to live with this tragedy forever however being that she is a juvenile I am gald that this will not follow her around on her arresst record. I am not sure what her punishment will be for this crime. However I hope that there will be more than just a punishment I hope that this girl will recieve what ever services she needs to move on from this tragedy that I am sure she did not intend to happen. It would be unethical for us as a society to just lock her up for whatever amt of time.  I think that one life has already been lost and we should do everything necessary to make sure this young lady does not waste her life over this tragedy in a constant state of depression or addiction.

<http://ethics.georgesmay.com/doing_right.htm>

<http://ethics.georgesmay.com/check_yourself.htm>

This article is about a man who killed his daughter 3 years ago by shooting and suffocating his 21 year old daughter. How could you kill anyone, better yet how could you kill your daughter. I know that children can be very disrespectful and unruly at times, but what can a child do so bad as to make a parent shoot and suffocate them? This is morally and ethically wrong, and for him to hide the body for 3 years is just brutal. This man had no heart. How can a person with a heart even do anything as extreme as this? He should be tried and given life in prison for taking the life of his 21 year old daughter.

<http://ethics.georgesmay.com/ethical_ways.htm>

This article is about a disgruntled patient, Combs, that walked into a doctors, Sandlins’ office on Tuesday and shot and killed his doctor. Combs had been a patient of Sandlin’s earlier in the day, returned with a gun and fired at the 57-year-old doctor. Combs came to the clinic, saw Sandlin in the doctor’s treating area, which is separate from the waiting room, and fired. Patients were at the clinic at the time, but Watts did not know how many because they had cleared out by the time many police arrived. This is just wrong, this man, had no right to kill this doctor, and better yet he probably does not even have a motive as to why he did it. If he was given a misdiagnosis or something, there are other ways to handle it rather than killing the doctor. No life deserves to be taken for any mistake someone makes. What right does any person has to take the life of another?