top of page

Influential Ethics for November

In the blocks below, please find your weekly bio-politics articles in a blog-style layout. If you have any questions or concerns about the research or writing, please reach out to me! I post one bio-ethics blogacle a week followed by an international relations/propaganda piece the following week. These topics are either about current issues or issues I find important yet not discussed enough.

Questions to consider

Week One: 

Questions to consider

Do you think this is true, and fair for the others who are in the 'wrong' just from a difference of opinion of a different family?

Intentions may seem fair and just, whether it was my intention for this blogacle or the intention of the would–be–family, but if the intentions are good, are the actions automatically just?

Pregnancy has a physical toll on the body as it is. Do you think the physical toll of these injections could increase the side effects during pregancy?

If something is unethical for you, does it mean this should be unethical for all?

This is a common issue for adoption centers and adoptees. If this issue can be addressed, how should it start and who should responsible for addressing these issues?

What do you think 'family' means for a forgotten child? Should these children be treated differentlt as part of the adoption process? Why or why not?

This is a highly sensitive subject. Do you think a person's sexuality should/does affect their ability to raise or have children? If ues, why do you think so?

This feels like a rite of passage for a lot of parents. How do you think this affects the relationships they have with their non–biological children down the line?

Why do you think biological parents (in general) have a greater support system? Do you think this is because of the parents themselves or their close family and friends' opinion on "the right way to have a child", unless otherwise stated?

Do you think this dedicated time makes a difference for the parent and baby/child/teen? If denied, could this be a reason of poor relationships in the family or are those isolated cases?

Having the right to choose gives the parents in question an option of who they want to add to their family, but if they fell pregnant naturally, they don't get this choice. Why do you think this is? Should parents be able choose no parenthood if their baby wasn't what they had in mind? Why do you think this?

A Two–Sided Approach of Adoption vs. Fertility Treatments in the E.U. and U.S. Part Four (final part)
 

Is It Right to Ignore Countless Adoptees for the Sake of “Your Own Blood”?

 

The above heading was actually the reason I started writing this blogacle; the first for posts can be seen as the introduction to this final addition. The question of ‘right’ is a contentious topic in the world of bio–ethics because there is always a right and wrong way to do things when it comes to health at the hands of culture and family tradition. This question came to me randomly, and my initial idea was to answer this question based on the previous pieces that were submitted.

 

The problem with this, though, is that while I may have all the data necessary to make this decision if we focus on the adoption process; the success and failure rates of IVF procedures; and the monetary plus emotional cost of adoption in the discussed regions (the United States and the European Union) what is right for the adoptee family and for the adoptee are two different things. When this question came to me, my intention was to discuss that it is ethically (from a bioethical perspective) wrong to put your body through weeks and sometimes months of testing and treatments while there are living, breathing, babies, children, and teens out there who need a home.

 

One of the most important components of medicine and bioethical research in general is to provide healthcare to as many people as possible with the least amount of negative and emotional side effects to ensure an increased life expectancy and an improved quality of life for the patient and those around them. By this definition, ongoing weeks or months (however long it takes for a couple to have a successful IFV treatment: A live baby) of the physical toll on the body using hormonal and other injections, the psychological distress of failed attempts—which are a lot more common that most are led to believe—and/or the monetary stress put on the family in general doesn’t seem to improve the quality of life for anyone involved.

 

Does this mean I think adoption should be prioritized over IVF treatments? At the beginning of this blogacle, this answer would have been a “Yes”. Now, nearly two months after I started my initial research, I think the option to choose which is better for your emotional body and family as a whole should take precedence. There are so many factors to consider when making this decision to add to your family, and some stranger on the internet saying “I think IVF treatments are unethical” shouldn’t be part of the decision making process.

 

I have seen, first hand, what a forgotten child looks like. The child in the orphanage who is maybe a little older than the rest, or a bit more quirky than the other adoptees in their space; so they are often overlooked. The child who just wants to be loved by someone in a safe home where they can forget about their nightmares, regardless of where and when these nightmares started. This child or teen is perfect, there isn’t anything wrong with them, apart from this reality: They were born to the wrong parents and/or community.

 

From the parents’ perspective, I’ve also seen how well this forgotten child could be loved when they find the right family. The family that, for years, tried for a baby of their own but were unsuccessful. The family who had hopes and dreams to paint their baby’s and child/teen’s room and watch the glee on their faces as they step into their Disney princess, racing cars, or Spiderman themed room. For many of these children, this will be the first room they won’t have to share.

 

With adoption, there is also more accessibility for same sex couples. IVF treatment isn’t an option if both partners are male, and even if they use IVF, the stigma around homosexuality is difficult to get around if the woman undergoing the treatment for them disagrees with their lifestyle. She may change her mind at the last minute—usually not, and very complicated once paperwork and funds have been allocated, but still possible. If both partners are female, the quality of any donated sperm could be a factor since recent studies have proven that sperm plays a larger role in fetal development that was previously believed.

 

On the other hand, I’ve seen how important a biological baby can be for a couple with little to no family of their own. Either through death, disease, or no–contact, many couples have a very small family circle and would like to add to their bioligical family for the sake of further generations down the line. Having a small piece of you that grows by the day can help shape who you are as a parents from the small moments of smelling your baby’s head after their first bath, taking them for the innoculations and watching them grow, ounce by ounce or gram by gram at the monthly weigh–ins.

 

Adding a baby and toddler to a family community could give you and your partner a sense of pride and accomplishment, while saying: Look what we made. From a support system perspective, a biolical baby concieved and brought to term, along with their parents, usually have a greater support system compared to the adoption process (even if the adoption process involves a baby). This issue is one of the many issues—particularly in the United States—new adoptive families experience, whichh adds to the already–stressful situation. Without dedicated time to spend with a new baby, child, or teen, the relationship of the adoptive parents could be strained from the start when compared to the parents who used IVF, even with the higher cost of IVF treatments.

 

Since I chose not to answer my question in this blogacle, I’m asking you to do that for me: After reading the previous blogacles and this final piece, what do you think? Should all parents have the right to choose how to add to their family, or should the option that benefits the baby, child, or teen be prioritized?

 

Important Philosophers:

None

 

Questions from Piece:

  • Are you or anyone you know an adoptee?

  • Do you think everyone who has the ability to have children should have them?

  • Do you think international adoptions should be as accessable as they are today?

  • Do you think this topic is a bioethical or social one?

  • Do you think other ways of support should be considered before adoption is considered? What other ways can you think of?

  • Have you or anyone you know undergone IFV treatments to add to your family?

​​

Please let me know what you thought of this blogacle using this direct  [ link ] to the optional forum in the header. Alternatively, you can use any of the email links from the contact [ page ]. If you want to answer the Questions to Consider (not required but you are welcome to!), you can also discuss these questions and answers here. 

​

References

There are spaces without written content on either side of the page. This is by design and to avoid me waffling instead of adding thought–out pieces of writing.

​

These spaces can also be used to rest your eyes between blocks of text and give you, the reader, time to process and analyze what has been said on the page so far. 

 

Not everything needs to be jam–packed with writing and an opportunity to respond. Sometimes we need the quiet moments and empty spaces to reflect and prepare ourselves for what comes next. 

​

This is a website for reflection and asking questions! What type of writer would I be if I made readers like you tired on purpose, just so you can finish sooner and miss the opportunity to think about what you have read?

Questions to consider

Week Two: 

The Influence of Rights regarding Definitions from A General Perspective, Followed by How These Rights Influence the Two–Sided Approach Article from Last Week. (Part One of Two)

​

With the previous article about the rights and privileges around adoption and IVF treatments, I thought it might be interesting to discuss important definitions in these two areas that could influence the general rights and privileges of people who undergo these treatments and go through the adoption process. While the two sided approach focused mainly on the actions of those in the population who want to expand their family, there are a set of rights in the European Union and the United States that each individual and family (biological and adoption–based) needs to adhere to for the eligibility of their adoption or IVF process.

 

The European Union safeguards a core set of non–negotiable and equality–based rights through the E.U. Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and secondary anti–discrimination legislation. These rights remain protected even in emergencies and form the backbone of E.U. constitutional identity.

 

In the definitions below, I have provided a detailed and structured explanation of the EU’s position on each protected characteristic. I have also included five five real–world examples of E.U. enforcement or applications of these rights. In the final week of this month, I will provide the definitions of rights from the U.S. perspective in a similar way the adoption article was structured. 

​

Age:

Main Definition: “Age” discrimination occurs when individuals are treated differently because they are older or younger, except where justified by legitimate aims (e.g., safety rules).​

Five examples in the E.U. to illustrate how these rights can be implemented within an individual capacity:

  • Automatic denial of financial services to younger applicants must be proportionate and justified.

  • Blanket bans on applicants over a certain age are generally unlawful unless job–specific.

  • Charging different prices based solely on age requires objective justification.

  • Denying treatment to older adults solely due to age violates non–discrimination norms.

  • Older workers must receive equal access to skill development.

​

Children’s Rights:

Main Definition: Children are protected as independent rights–holders with specific safeguards in education, healthcare, protection from violence, and access to justice.​

Provided Examples:

  • Child protection agencies intervene in cases of neglect or domestic violence.

  • Children are entitled to free primary and secondary education.

  • Children are protected from forced labor, exploitation, and trafficking.

  • Children receive vaccinations and preventive healthcare.

  • Courts must separate children from adult offenders in custody.

​

The Concept of Color

Main Definition: “Color” refers specifically to discrimination based on skin shade, independent of ethnicity or nationality. It is a visual marker often linked to racial discrimination but treated as legally distinct.​

Provided Examples:

  • Bars or clubs refusing entry based on skin tone breach equality law.

  • Hairstyles associated with people of African descent (e.g., locs) can't be banned unless justified objectively.

  • Rejecting applicants because “customers prefer lighter skin” is illegal.

  • Stopping individuals solely due to darker skin violates E.U. human rights standards.

  • Using colour–based casting calls (“fair skin preferred”) can constitute a discriminatory practice.

​

Disability:

Main Definition: A physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment that, in interaction with barriers, prevents full participation in society. The definition follows the social model of disability.​

Provided Examples:

  • Adjusted hours, technological aids, barrier–free access must be provided at work.

  • Banks, shops, and offices can't deny service due to disability.

  • E.U. rules require trains, buses, and airports to accommodate passengers with disabilities.

  • Public sector websites must meet accessibility standards under the Web Accessibility Directive.

  • Schools must integrate disabled children whenever possible.

​

Ethnic or Social Origin:

Main Definition: “Ethnic origin” refers to shared cultural, linguistic, historical, or ancestral identity (e.g., Roma, Kurdish, Sephardic, Sami). “Social origin” refers to class background, family status, or socioeconomic position.​

Provided Examples:

  • Denying social services to ethnic minorities violates equality obligations.

  • E.U. takes legal action against Member States for systemic exclusion of Roma communities.

  • Ethnic linguistic minorities (e.g., Catalan, Sorbian) must not be penalised academically for their language.

  • Local ordinances targeting specific ethnic groups (e.g., forced evictions of Roma camps) trigger E.U. scrutiny.

  • Rejecting candidates from low–income neighbourhoods is unlawful when used as a proxy for social origin.

​

Equality

Main Definition: Equality in E.U. law is guaranteed under Article 21 of the E.U. Charter and various directives. It ensures that all persons receive the same legal protections and opportunities regardless of race, colour, sex, gender, religion, belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation.​

Provided Examples:

  • Employers can't refuse to hire, promote, or terminate employees based on protected characteristics.

  • Government programs must deliver services equitably without discrimination.

  • Landlords can't refuse to rent or sell property based on race, ethnicity, or disability.

  • Member States must ensure equal access to voting and political participation for all citizens.

  • Schools must provide equal access to programs, scholarships, and services for all students.

​

Freedom

Freedom of Association:

Main Definition: Includes the right to form trade unions, political organisations, and civil society groups, with protections against dissolution except under strict legal grounds.​

Provided Examples:

  • Citizens can create and join political parties freely.

  • Civil society groups (NGOs) may form to advocate for social, environmental, or human rights causes.

  • Community clubs (social or hobby groups) may assemble without government interference.

  • Labor unions may organize strikes or engage in collective bargaining.

  • Professionals can establish associations to set standards and ethics in their fields.

​

Freedom of Expression:

Main Definition: A fundamental right under Article 11 of the E.U. Charter. Limitations must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate (e.g., hate speech, incitement to violence).​

Provided Examples:

  • Academic research may be published freely, even if controversial.

  • Artistic freedom allows creation of works critiquing political or religious institutions.

  • Citizens may organize and participate in public protests without interference.

  • Journalists may report on government corruption without censorship.

  • Residents may post opinions online, subject to restrictions on hate speech or incitement to violence.

​

Freedom of Movement:

Main Definition: Non–negotiable for E.U. citizens except under public security, health, or order limitations. Includes the right to live, work, and study in any Member State.

Provided Examples:

  • Citizens may live in another Member State without discrimination.

  • Citizens may move between Member States for employment opportunities.

  • Citizens may travel freely, except for narrowly defined security reasons.

  • Students may enroll in universities across the EU.

  • Citizens may access medical services in any Member State under E.U. health regulations.

​

Freedom of Religion, Thought, and Belief:

Main Definition: The E.U. protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion as non–negotiable (Article 10). This includes the right to change religion, have no religion, and express belief publicly or privately.

Provided Examples:

  • Citizens may wear religious symbols (e.g., hijabs, crosses) in public institutions unless restricted for proportionate reasons like safety or neutrality.

  • Couples of different faiths can marry legally and have their marriages recognised.

  • Employees may take leave to observe religious festivals without penalty.

  • Schools can't force students to participate in religious instruction contrary to their beliefs.

  • Citizens can build and attend houses of worship freely.

​

Freedom to Choose an Occupation

Main Definition: Workers may pursue their desired profession anywhere in the EU, subject only to professional qualification rules (e.g., medicine, law, engineering).

Provided Examples:

  • Citizens may open businesses anywhere in the EU, subject to standard regulatory requirements.

  • Employment rights prevent exclusion from sectors due to protected characteristics.

  • Individuals can switch professions without unnecessary barriers.

  • Medical or legal qualifications are mutually recognised across Member States.

  • Professionals can enter contracts and work in other Member States freely.

 

Race:

Main Definition: “Race” in E.U. law refers to socially constructed categories linked to ancestry, phenotype, or perceived biological characteristics. The EU treats race as a socially assigned category rather than a biological fact.

Provided Examples:

  • A landlord refusing to rent to someone of African descent violates the Race Equality Directive.

  • Ethnic profiling by police may breach E.U. human rights norms and ECtHR case law.

  • Hospitals can't offer different standards of care based on racial assumptions.

  • Job adverts excluding certain racial groups are illegal under E.U. employment law.

  • Roma children being unlawfully segregated or placed in special–needs schools triggers E.U. infringement procedures.

​

Religion or Belief:

Main Definition: “Religion or belief” includes major world religions, minority religions, indigenous spiritual traditions, atheism, and non–religious belief systems.

Provided Examples:

  • Allowing flexible breaks for prayer unless it creates disproportionate hardship.

  • Denying access to services based on religious appearance is discriminatory.

  • Mockery, hostility, or exclusion targeting religious identity is actionable under E.U. law.

  • Neutral workplace policies may be allowed, but they must be proportionate and consistently applied (ECJ case law).

  • Reasonable accommodations for dietary laws, religious holidays, or religious attire.

​

Sex and Gender:

Main Definition: “Sex” refers to biological attributes; “Gender” refers to socially constructed roles and identity, including discrimination against transgender and non–binary persons.​

Provided Examples:

  • Denying reproductive healthcare to women who do not need is discriminatory.

  • Discrimination against individuals undergoing or having undergone gender transition is treated as sex discrimination.

  • Employers must ensure safe, non–discriminatory access to toilets and changing rooms for all gender identities.

  • Firing or bypassing pregnant employees is unlawful under the Pregnant Workers Directive.

  • Men and women performing the same work must receive equal pay under E.U. law.

​

Sexual Orientation:

Main Definition: Sexual orientation refers to attraction to individuals of the same sex, the opposite sex, or more than one sex. It is a protected characteristic under the E.U. Charter.

Provided Examples:

  • Anti–LGBTQ+ hate crimes may trigger E.U. monitoring or infringement actions.

  • E.U. law requires cross–border recognition of parental rights for same–sex couples when a child is legally recognised in one Member State.

  • Hotels, restaurants, or event venues can't deny service to same–sex couples.

  • Refusing to hire or promote someone because they are gay, lesbian, or bisexual is unlawful.

  • Schools must protect students from harassment based on sexual orientation.

​

Important philosophers:

  • None


The Questions from Piece and References will be posted in Part 2.

​

Please let me know what you thought of this blogacle using this direct  [ link ] to the optional forum in the header. Alternatively, you can use any of the email links from the contact [ page ]. If you want to answer the Questions to Consider (not required but you are welcome to!), you can also discuss these questions and answers here. 

Questions to consider

Why do you think the international relations portion of the articles focus so much on definitions of words?

What do you understand by the backbone of a society? Are these the laws implemented or are the people more important in this context?

There is a difference between laws and being able to enforce them. Do you think a law that is not enforced as powerful? Why or why not?

Definitions are kind of self–explanatory. These don't need further questions outside what I'll add as the Piece Questions but feel free to come up with you own questions and write them in the forum!

Questions to consider

Week Three:

The Month of Rights: A View on Rights by The Man Who Fought For Them From the Beginning, Not Just When It Served His Agenda.

​

When we consider fundamental rights today, those that exist even in emergencies, we engage with principles rooted in J.S. Mill’s classical liberal philosophy. Throughout the European Union and the United States, rights such as equality, freedom, the right to life, and protections for children are deemed inviolable, incapable of suspension by the government under any condition. These freedoms closely align with Mill’s assertion that they are important for human development.

​

Contemporary rights frameworks also specify traits including race, religion, age, disability, gender, and sexual orientation, establishing legal safeguards that promote tolerance within pluralistic societies. In doing so, they actualize Mill’s ideal of protecting individual uniqueness from both political and social pressures.

​

Mill’s advocacy for tolerance is deeply connected to his broader dedication to liberty, personal autonomy, and the harm principle. He maintained that society should restrict individual actions only when they result in harm to others, dismissing moral judgment, personal dislike, or social unease as inadequate reasons for interference.

​

This principle can be seen clearly in today’s legal instruments:

  • In the EU, rights like life, dignity, and freedom from torture are unquestionably permanent, even during crises.

  • In the U.S., essential rights such as free speech, religious belief, and equality are considered necessities.

​

These guarantees do more than symbolize ideals. They carve out spaces where individuals can freely explore their identities and life choices without fear of repression by the state or society. Governments tolerate diversity because they are legally mandated to uphold it.

​

Mill would likely see these non-negotiable rights as the baseline necessary for meaningful freedom and self-realization. In his view, these attributes shielded and protected by modern anti-discrimination legislation (like the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.) highlight the important differences societies are most inclined to suppress.

 

He cautioned that social intolerance frequently poses a bigger danger than governmental interference. Central to Mill’s theory is a utilitarian reasoning grounded in liberalism: Allowing individuals to pursue their personal conception of a good life creates the greatest overall well-being, provided it does not infringe on others’ autonomy. The practical consequences of this principle include:

  • Non-negotiable rights must never be suspended for purported collective benefit.

  • Democratic majorities cannot silence minorities through the exercise of power.

  • Laws founded solely on moral offense or discomfort do not justify restricting freedoms.

​

Critics assert that Mill’s opposition to coercion hampers the state’s ability to address systemic inequalities. However, Mill might argue that coercion often inflicts greater damage, fostering what he termed the “tyranny of the majority”. This, he argued, could be a risk both E.U. and U.S. constitutions strive to prevent through protections. Mill also sharply distinguished between subjective harm, which included offense or distress, and objective harm which included direct violations of rights or interests.

  • Personal discomfort with someone’s race, religion, sexuality, or gender is subjective and cannot justify legal restrictions.

  • Conduct that causes concrete damage, like discriminatory hiring practices or violence, is objective and warrants state action.

​

Modern anti-discrimination laws reflect this distinction by safeguarding individuals from genuine harm while rejecting limitations based on prejudice or mere offense. Still, critics highlight that deep-seated discrimination in systemic racism and economic marginalization, challenged Mill’s framework, revealing tension between his focus on individual liberty and the collective nature of many rights.

 

Mill insisted that toleration requires exposure to a wide range of views, even those that offend, because only through open discussion can truth prevail. Applied today, this raises challenging questions:

  • Should expressions targeting protected groups be permitted under free speech?

  • Should tolerance allow speech that perpetuates inequality if it causes no direct harm?

​

Mill’s approach suggests broad speech protections, limiting restrictions to where core, non-negotiable rights face substantial threats. Yet, democracies continue to grapple with these boundaries. The E.U. generally enforces stricter limits on hate speech than the U.S., echoing Mill’s subtle distinction between harmful actions and harmful expressions.

 

He believed governments should foster conditions for autonomy through education, information access, and safeguards against coercion, without dictating a specific vision of the good life. Today:

  • The E.U. prioritizes dignity, welfare, and socio-economic equality.

  • The U.S. emphasizes liberty and curbing government overreach.

​

Balancing protection without paternalism remains a challenge. Mill feared excessive intervention, but critics argue that without state action, social pressures and discrimination persist in undermining autonomy. This ongoing tension surfaces in debates over affirmative action, hate speech, and anti-discrimination enforcement.

Mill’s philosophy offers a valuable framework for understanding today’s inviolable rights and protected categories. His focus on liberty, autonomy, and the harm principle aligns closely with the ethical and legal bases that uphold equality, freedom, and identity in both the E.U. and the U.S.

​

With this, it's important to remember that Mill's model of rights had its limitations and these limitations can be seen today. This model downplays structural and collective harms and prioritizes individual freedom over systemic remedies. It also underestimates the influence of social intolerance beyond governmental control.

​

With all of the above, we can argue that Mill’s legacy on rights is unmistakable: A society without tolerance risks authoritarianism, and a community lacking respect for diversity endangers the freedoms these rights protect. By legally and culturally embedding tolerance, modern states preserve the principles Mill championed: Freedom, diversity, and individual autonomy, in our pluralistic world.

​

Important Philosophers:

  • John Stuart Mill—1806–1873

 

Questions from piece:

  • At what point should a state (country) intervene on behalf of their citizens in the medical or work place regarding potential discrimination? 

  • If you have the autonomy to be offended, should you also have the autonomy to react in whatever way you choose?

  • Is there a difference between medical and political rights?

  • Mill believes in complete autonomy from a social, legal, and political perspective. At what stage does a person's legal and medical autonomy become less important than their medical autonomy, if at all?

  • Should this be handled by the hospital or place of work at all or should there be an outside body to ensure fairness?

  • Should everyone have the right to believe and do what they can, even if this might offend their neighbor? Why or why not?

  • Should medical rights supersede the social rights of individuals? Why do you think like this?  

​

Please let me know what you thought of this blogacle using this direct  [ link ] to the optional forum in the header. Alternatively, you can use any of the email links from the contact [ page ]. If you want to answer the Questions to Consider (not required but you are welcome to!), you can also discuss these questions and answers here. 

​

References:​

Questions to consider

What do you understand by fundamental rights? Do you think there is a difference between fundamental and medical rights?

What do you understand by fundamental contemporary rights? Are these rights in the modern era or are they rights that have modern idea's, even if they were thought of in the past?

Have you heard of this principle? If yes, what is it? If not, what do you think it is? 

These rights are important in the E.U. Why do you think they are so specific?

These rights are different to the rights in the E.U. Why do you think freedom of speech and religion/belief are so focused on in the U.S.?

What happens when these life choice enfringe on others and affect their autonomy or health? Do you think complete freedom of choice is possible, particularly if person A enfringes on person B's health (like smoking) or quality of life (like pollution in the case of sound or air pollution)?

Should add attributes be sheilded and protected regarding rights? Why or why not?

What do you understand by 'social intolerance'? Is this purely what affects the social lives of those involved or does this affect the social decisions made by the state on the citizens' behalf? 

The form of democracy that Mill understood in the 1800s was different to the forms we know today. What do you think he meant by "majority" if the forms of democracy have changed in modern times?

This is a well–known idea of Mill. Have you heard of this before? What do you understand by this?

What do you understand as the difference between subjective and objective harm? Do you think these forms of harm are linked? Why do you think this?

Who's responsibility is it, or should it be, to safeguard individuals from harm? 

The word 'offend' has become a buzz word. Do you think it's your responsibility to avoid saying or doing things that could cause offence, or is the offending person's responsibility to handle their reactions to any offence caused by you or something they read?

Why do you think states still grapple with this? Could it be because people are inherently selfish which means true democracies are impossible, or is it because there isn't a set rule for a democratic state or country? Can you think of another reason?

This blogacle deals with political philosophy instead of bioethics or medical philosophy compared to the others. With this, do you think the meaning and conditions for autonomy should be the same as in bioethics?

What do you understand by 'paternalism'? Do you think it has a basis in 'patriachy'? Why or why not?

How different would world governments be today if Mill's philosophy and this focus were implemented more strictly? There are many similarities between his philosophy and political structures in the U.S., but these structures don't put as much weight on bodily autonomy. Why do you think this is?

Do you think these limitations of downplaying certain aspects gives the U.S. and world government an opportunity to learn from these limitations and improve their policies, or will these limitations be copy–pasted into policies without vetting them first under the guise of "Mill knew what he was doing. We don't need to check his ideas"?

What do you understand by tolerance? Is this necessary for a functioning society or are some tolerances not acceptable based on who the group is?

What do you understand by pluralism? Do you think this is necessary for a well functioning society?

There are spaces without written content on either side of the page. This is by design and to avoid me waffling instead of adding thought–out pieces of writing.

​

These spaces can also be used to rest your eyes between blocks of text and give you, the reader, time to process and analyze what has been said on the page so far. 

 

Not everything needs to be jam–packed with writing and an opportunity to respond. Sometimes we need the quiet moments and empty spaces to reflect and prepare ourselves for what comes next. 

​

This is a website for reflection and asking questions! What type of writer would I be if I made readers like you tired on purpose, just so you can finish sooner and miss the opportunity to think about what you have read?

Questions to consider

Week Four:

The Influence of Rights regarding Definitions from A General Perspective, Followed by How These Rights Influence the Two–Sided Approach Article from Last Week. (Final part)

​

Age:

Main Definition: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects individuals aged 40 and older from employment discrimination.

Five examples in the U.S. to illustrate how these rights can be implemented within an individual capacity:

  • Access to professional training can't be limited based on age.

  • Employers can't refuse to hire someone because of age.

  • Older employees must be considered equally for promotions.

  • Retirement or health benefits can't discriminate against older employees.

  • Termination decisions can't be based solely on age.

​

Children’s Rights:

Main Definition: Derived from federal and state law and Supreme Court precedent, children’s rights protect welfare, safety, development, education, and protection from abuse or exploitation.

Provided Examples:

  • Child labor laws restrict the type and number of hours children may work, safeguarding health, safety, and education.

  • Child Protective Services (CPS) can remove children from homes where abuse or neglect is substantiated.

  • Federal laws such as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act protect children from forced labor and sexual exploitation.

  • Minors are generally tried in separate juvenile courts and protected from adult sentencing in many cases.

  • Public schools must provide equal access to education for all children, free from discrimination.

​

Color:

Main Definition: Colour is explicitly prohibited as a basis for discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. Discrimination occurs when individuals are treated differently due to skin tone, even within the same racial group.

Provided Examples:

  • Employers can't favor lighter-skinned employees for promotions over darker-skinned employees.

  • Landlords can't deny a lease to someone because of their skin shade.

  • Law enforcement can't target individuals for stops or searches due to skin tone.

  • Restaurants or stores can't refuse service to customers because of skin color.

  • Schools must not impose unequal disciplinary measures based on skin tone.

​

Disability:

Main Definition: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities.

Provided Examples:

  • Employers must provide reasonable accommodations for disabled employees.

  • Healthcare providers can't deny care based on a person’s disability.

  • Public buildings must provide ramps, elevators, and other accessible facilities.

  • Public transportation must accommodate individuals with disabilities.

  • Schools must ensure accessibility and support for students with disabilities.

​

Ethnic or Social Origin:

Main Definition: “Ethnic origin” relates to ancestry (e.g., Hispanic, Jewish, Arab). “Social origin” is not formally protected federally, though socioeconomic discrimination may sometimes be addressed indirectly.

Provided Examples:

  • Employers can't deny jobs to applicants because of their ethnic background.

  • Government programs must provide equal treatment regardless of ethnicity.

  • Public institutions can't marginalize ethnic groups or deny cultural recognition.

  • Schools can't implement admission policies that disadvantage certain ethnic groups.

  • Voting access must be equal for ethnic minorities without obstruction.

​

Equality:

Main Definition: Equality in US law is primarily guaranteed through the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and various federal and state statutes. These protections ensure individuals are not discriminated against based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Other grounds, such as social origin or shade of color, are generally addressed through judicial interpretation rather than explicit statutory text.

​

Provided Examples:

  • Employers can't refuse to hire, promote, or fire someone based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.

  • Government agencies can't provide unequal services or benefits to individuals based on protected characteristics.

  • Landlords can't refuse to rent or sell property to tenants because of race, color, or ethnicity.

  • Laws or policies that prevent minority groups from voting are unconstitutional.

  • Universities and schools can't deny admission or scholarships to students based on race, gender, or religion.

​

Freedom

Freedom of Association:

Main Definition: Inferred from First Amendment protections of speech and assembly, this right allows individuals to organize or join groups, political parties, unions, or clubs without government interference.

Provided Examples:

  • Advocacy groups may lobby government officials for policy changes.

  • Citizens can join political parties of their choice.

  • Labor unions may organize strikes or advocate for workers’ rights.

  • Nonprofit organizations can assemble volunteers for civic or social causes.

  • Social clubs (e.g., hobby or cultural organizations) may form without restrictions.

​

Freedom of Expression:

Main Definition: The First Amendment protects political speech, artistic expression, protest, and even offensive speech, with extremely limited restrictions.

Provided Examples:

  • Authors and artists can produce controversial works without censorship.

  • Citizens may protest or demonstrate against government policies.

  • Individuals may post political opinions online, even if critical of officials.

  • Journalists can publish investigative reports on government misconduct.

  • Satirical shows or cartoons may criticize political figures freely.

​

Freedom of Movement:

Main Definition: Protected under the constitutional right to interstate travel, allowing citizens to move freely between states and enter/leave the country, subject to lawful criminal or immigration restrictions.

Provided Examples:

  • A family can relocate from one state (ex. Montana) to another state (ex. New Jersey) without state interference.

  • Citizens may move temporarily for education or medical treatment.

  • Individuals may travel abroad and return to the US freely.

  • States can't block residents from entering or leaving based on economic or political reasons.

  • Workers may change jobs across state lines without government permission.

​

Freedom of Religion, Thought, and Belief:

Main Definition: Protected by the First Amendment, this right prohibits government establishment of religion and guarantees the free exercise of religion. Individuals may choose, change, or reject religious beliefs without interference.

Provided Examples:

  • A Muslim family or community can build a mosque without government obstruction.

  • Employers can't discriminate against employees based on religious practice (e.g., wearing a hijab or kippah).

  • Individuals may convert to another religion or become non-religious freely.

  • Public schools can't force students to pray or participate in religious activities.

  • Religious organizations can operate according to their beliefs, as long as they comply with general laws.

​

Freedom of Trade, Occupation, or Profession:

Main Definition: Protected under the 14th Amendment’s due process clauses, federal and state labor laws, and anti-discrimination measures, this right ensures individuals can choose their profession and work freely.

Provided Examples:

  • A licensed doctor may practice medicine in any state that recognizes their credentials.

  • Employers can't refuse to hire qualified applicants due to gender, race, or religion.

  • Individuals may switch careers or relocate for professional opportunities.

  • Licensing boards can't impose arbitrary restrictions unrelated to skill or safety.

  • Workers may start a business or trade legally without government interference.

​

Life:

Main Definition: The Constitution guarantees the right to life, though capital punishment is allowed in many states. This right protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of life while allowing legal regulation of serious crimes.

Provided Examples:

  • Abortion and euthanasia laws vary by state, regulating the protection of unborn children and the dying.

  • Assisted suicide is permitted under strict conditions in a few states.

  • Law enforcement must follow due process before using lethal force.

  • Murder is prosecuted and punishable by life imprisonment or, in some states, the death penalty.

  • Police and government agencies are accountable for actions that endanger life.

​

Race:

Main Definition: “Race” in US law refers to groupings connected to ancestry or shared physical traits historically used to justify discrimination (e.g., Black, White, Asian, Native American).

Provided Examples:

  • An employer can't refuse to hire or promote someone because of their race.

  • Landlords can't refuse to rent to tenants because of race.

  • Law enforcement can't target individuals for stops or searches based on race.

  • Schools can't segregate students by race or deny access to programs.

  • Voting laws or practices that prevent certain racial groups from voting are unconstitutional.

​

Religion or Belief Practices:

Main Definition: The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, including the right to follow any religion, no religion, or personal beliefs. The government can't establish or interfere with religious practice.

Provided Examples:

  • Employers must accommodate religious practices, such as prayer times or holidays.

  • Public schools can't require students to participate in religious activities.

  • Individuals may convert to another religion or become non-religious freely.

  • Interfaith marriages and ceremonies are legally recognized.

  • Religious organizations may operate according to their beliefs as long as they comply with general laws.

​

Sex and Gender:

Main Definition: Federal law protects against sex discrimination, and following the 2020 Bostock ruling, protections extend to gender identity and sexual orientation. State-level protections may vary.

Provided Examples:

  • Custody laws and employment leave policies must treat parents equally regardless of sex.

  • Employers can't fire or refuse to promote someone based on gender or gender identity.

  • Gender-based discrimination in sports is unlawful.

  • Healthcare providers can't deny treatment because of a person’s gender identity.

  • Schools must provide equal educational opportunities to all students, regardless of gender.

​

Sexual Orientation:

Main Definition: Sexual orientation is protected under the interpretation of “sex” discrimination (post-Bostock), though protections vary by state.

Provided Examples:

  • Employers can't fire employees for being LGBTQ+.

  • Government services must serve individuals regardless of sexual orientation.

  • Healthcare providers can't deny care based on sexual orientation.

  • Landlords can't deny housing because of sexual orientation.

  • Schools must provide equal treatment to LGBTQ+ students.

​

Each of these rights needs to be upheld by the adoptee parents and the baby/child/teen being adopted. In a way, these rights are set in place to protect the state as well as the people involved. These rights could be a cause for discrimination in specific circumstances and it’s important to realize that rights, while possible to be removed, should only be removed under very specific and at times, dire need.

 

The comparison between rights in the E.U. and the U.S. is meant to illustrate how different societies function, even if both societies have the same goal. In this case, the goal is to love and work in their respective regions with the opportunity to grow their family based on rights given to them according to their citizenship status.

​

When these rights are upheld in general (not solely for the purpose of being eligible to adopt or go through the IVF process), they help citizens realize their place in their own country. These rights protect those who can’t fight for their rights themselves. This includes children, the disabled, or anyone who loses their autonomy. In politics, these rights can also influence how easily citizens accept the status quo and read or misread any messages or forms of propaganda in their path.

​

Important Philosophers:

  • None

​

Questions from piece:

  • Are rights another way of explaining a specific value system?

  • In international relations, why are definitions so important?

  • In the context of IVF and adoption, do you think the state (on either side) should dictate or control what you and your family can do regarding family planning and any decisions made for the elderly?

  • What happens when two societies (like the E.U. and the U.S.) clash over rights while traveling? Do you think an individual's rights should trump the rights of the new country because of a differing value system?

  • Why are there so many extreme differences between some definitions between the E.U. and the U.S.?

​

Please let me know what you thought of this blogacle using this direct  [ link ] to the optional forum in the header. Alternatively, you can use any of the email links from the contact [ page ]. If you want to answer the Questions to Consider (not required but you are welcome to!), you can also discuss these questions and answers here. 

​

E.U. References:

  • commission.europa.eu. (n.d.). Justice and Fundamental Rights. [online] Link. 

  • Europa.eu. (2012). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. [online] Link.

  • Europa.eu. (2013). Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment between Persons Irrespective of Racial or Ethnic Origin. [online] Link. 

  • Europa.eu. (2016). Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the Accessibility of the Websites and Mobile Applications of Public Sector Bodies (Text with EEA Relevance ). [online] Link. 

  • Europa.eu. (2020). Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 Establishing a General Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation. [online] Link. 

  • Fundamental rights report - 2025. (2025). Link. 

​​

U.S. References: 

  • Cornell Law School (2022). First Amendment. [online] Legal Information Institute. Link. 

  • Supreme Court (2020). Supreme court of the United States. [online] Link.

  • U.S. Department of Labor (2018). Child Labor | U.S. Department of Labor. [online] Dol.gov. Link. 

  • U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.). The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. [online] www.eeoc.gov. Link.

  • U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [online] www.eeoc.gov. Link. 

  • United States Department of State. (2025). Reports – Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. [online] Link. 

Questions to consider

What do you understand by rights? Are they yours alone or should others be considered when deciding on your rights?

If rights are able to be removed, did they exist in the first place? Why do you think like this?

With this comparison, do you think rights are socially/politically based or are they based on personal preference of the ruling party for the respective countries? Why do you think this?

Do you think a family should grow in number and influence based on shared rights or should some rights be omitted from a family situation? For example, the right to life. In the case of family planning and how people handle their aged and sick relatives, should a family's right to live the way they choose negate necessary medical care of family members? 

Who, in your opinion, should be protected? Does this include everyone who can't protect themselves or should it also include those who can protect themselves but may not know how to protect others?

Why do you think people are so willing to accept the status quo of those around them? Do you think this serves a political purpose?

Thank you for your interest in Write Remedy: Vial Blossoms where curiosity is key, and everything else falls into place.

bottom of page