Saturday, May 1, 2010

Response to Jessica's Blog

Jessica's blog was about the Raw milk debate. A debate that has been made most famous in Wisconsin (the dairy state) over the past couple years. This debate is partial to the legal selling of raw milk, which is not legal in stores now, so that the average person can buy it in any grocery store.
The first article that Jessica linked to was about a man who drank raw milk to heal his Crohn's disease. This is pretty interesting considering there are not too many conventional ways to heal any illness as serious. However this man was receiving flak for supporting a "dangerous food commodity".
The second article that Jessica linked to was against the selling of raw milk claiming that it cause many deaths centuries ago and it could possibly start again. This article claims that many people died from drinking raw milk but, many people die every year from more sever causes than raw milk.
Jessica's point is valid that the second article's argument isn't very persuasive at all. They have quite a few short comings and do not explain everything in great detail. They also lack scientific fact, which always helps an argument.
Frankly, I'm against raw milk mostly in the fact that we, humans, have pasteurized milk for a good 3 centuries and have had little problems with it, now that people have gotten comfortable to not having to fear milk they want it unpasteurized and raw. This is completely dangerous and the cons do not outweigh the pros in my mind. I believe that as soon as we legalize raw milk it will be used and not labeled in many products that we, the non-raw milk drinkers will consume and be put at risk for diseases such as tuberculosis. Now whether or not this is true I'd rather stay away from the chances of consuming raw milk, since I am threatened by hundreds of ways to die everyday, I do not need another plaguing me.

Is abortion right or wrong?

The controversial topic I decided upon was abortion. The first article is about why abortion is alright to perform in the early stages of conception. The author argues that a zygote (a ball of cells containing 46 chromosomes) is not a person but a potential person because it shares many characteristics with other cells in a person's body.
The second article talks about how it is in no right a woman's choice to take the life of an unborn child at any time during the pregnancy and should be considered murder. The author is a professional pathologist and is also very religious and uses God in his argument claiming that it is not people who make life but God so, we people have no choice to take the life of said child.
The first article was the more convincing one. Using scientific facts and logic convinced me that a zygote was not completely human yet and was merely a potential human not an actual human. The second article relied too much on religion and emotion to be effective towards me, more scientific facts could have been used. Especially since the author was a pathologist.
I have always had a mixed feeling on abortion, I have always felt that under certain circumstances it should be legal but in other cases illegal. I understand that legally it would be almost impossible to control what the cutoff would be. The articles did not really change my stance at all I still believe that abortion should be situational and I wish there was some way of reviewing each separate situation and analyzing them but in all reality this would be costly. So, I remain unchanged in my stance on abortion.