A Nation Constructed By The Media?

A ‘nation’ mourns, a ‘nation’ in crisis, a ‘nation’ rejoices. It is a term branded by the media on a daily basis but its definition has divided many people. Some have described it as a social community who are brought together by their history, origin and descent. Others have merely called it a body of people that we associate with a particular territory. Anderson (1983: 6) describes nations as ‘imagined communities’ because, “even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.”

The media has been accused of building an imagined, impenetrable community. Ethnic minorities, illegal immigrants and even the EU are the main targets of social exclusion by our press. An advance in technology in the way of blogs, podcasts, and 24-hour news feed now means that we are consuming more journalism than ever. I am going to examine the role that the language of journalism plays in the construction and maintenance of these imagined communities. I will explore the linguistic devices that newspapers employ to build this sense of community. The focus will be on how the media creates a ‘them’ and ‘us’ attitude with a look at how ‘us’ the insiders and ‘them’ the outsiders are represented to readers.

Newspapers, although tabloids are most accountable, are dominated by a language that favours certain groups of people and persecutes those it feels do not belong. We read it so much every day, that we have become immune to the level of racism intertwined in our news. Conboy (2007:150) says; “Nationalism has two faces, one benign, all face-painting and national anthems, the other malignant, characterized by hatred of outsiders to the national community and a narrow-minded certainty that one nation is superior to all others.”

We can identify this in the way that newspapers report news that is specific to Britain but choose to overlook international news (Conboy 2006). It could be argued then that the media take a biased approach to events outside of our nation. By minimising the coverage of international news, the media minimise the chance that our community is extended to outsiders. It seems the only exception to international news being reported is when there is an obvious connection to the British news agenda.

Conboy (2007: 163) agrees, “News coverage of non-elite nations reinforces the centrality of the national narratives of the news. It does this by continuing the normative assumptions that most news is national news or at least has a direct and immediate national interest.” In the case of international news or even an affair of national interest, ‘Brits’ and ‘Britons’ are used as common collective tags to reinforce the national community. One Daily Star article reads,

“Forget the rugby, football and motor racing- there are plenty of sports where Brits hold the world title”
(Oct 23, 2007)

The Star acknowledges the sports success of other countries by telling us to “forget” them. Instead, it makes it relevant to Britain by pointing out thirteen other sports that we are “best at.” The use of ‘Brits’ as a common collective tag reminds the reader of who they are and where they belong. The punchy abbreviation is almost a term of endearment or a team name, the ‘Brits.’ Conboy (2006:49) says that its “usage is overall a strong indicator of news-worthiness in the tabloids.” The accompanying headline with its assertive language, “We ARE the champions,” confirms the newspapers belief that Britain is a superior nation.

Fowler (1991: 189) argues that the pronoun ‘we’ suggests a union of the newspaper and its readers in an ‘implied consensus’ of national community. De Cillia, Reisigl and Wodak (1999: 164) share a similar view; “The connotations and persuasive force of the ‘national we’ are so strong that even those participants in the discussions who critically address national motivated generalization cannot avoid its usage.” Newspapers use this term as an automatic assumption of a relationship between itself and readers. The effect of this is that it readers feel they belong to a community. One Sun column it reads,

“If we’re paying, we should be entitled to decide WHEN we see a doctor and WHERE we are treated”
(Jan 8, 2008)

The Sun writes on behalf of the readers when it criticises the government which once again reinforces the ‘them’ and ‘us’ mentality.

Another way in which newspapers construct this ‘imagined community’ is through the constant support of British soldiers. Conboy (2006: 50) says, “They all swear allegiance to the virtues of patriotism and are unequivocal about the bravery of British soldiers abroad.” The tabloids, especially, do this in jingoistic style. One Sun article reads,

“Tears of joy and salute to heroes...Afghan troops praised...The most battle-scarred British unit to fight the Taliban...Six bitter months of intense combat...Proud dad Jason Birch...”
(Oct 25, 2007)

Newspapers worship these soldiers. In every community all over the world, an individual or a group of individuals act as leader and sets an example to others. For instance, a sports team looks to their coach as a classroom looks to their teacher as government looks to the Prime Minister. By putting these soldiers on a pedestal, we are compelled to look up to them. The media then have replicated the archetypal structure of a community and have thus created a community of their own.

The headline on the article is surrounded by a border of poppy flowers which brings the focus to symbols. Symbols are used on a daily basis in the media but their regularity does not mean that their effect should be overlooked. Symbols are a reminder, a representation and a cue to feel a certain emotion. For example, a crucifix prompts us to think about the death of Jesus. A heart is symbolic of love. Conboy (2006:53) argues that tabloids draw upon a certain set of images enthusiastically. He says, “The flag of St George appears in a variety of relatively banal, everyday contexts in the contemporary tabloids. It is a common sight on the front pages accompanying stories about the EU as it is on the back pages when following the fortunes of English sports teams.” The flag, in particular, is how the media maintains the British ‘imagined community’ because it is a constant reminder of the country we live in.

Listing is also used to build these ‘imagined communities.’ On major sporting events or occasions like St George’s day, readers are often bombarded with ’10 Reasons to be Proud,’ a physical list that reminds us to feel glad that we belong to the community. Conboy (2006: 50) argues that, “The tabloid mnemonic of listing can contribute to the portrayal of national identity as part of the direct address to the imagined community.” This clever device works to maintain our ‘imagined community’ by making us feel as though we ought to be grateful to be a part of it. Polls are also a popular means of creating a community with spirit. A community with a voice that approves or objects to a new government policy for instance, implies that we are an educated and opinionated nation. Conboy (2007: 157) says, “Newspapers can conduct their own polls of their own readers to take a highly selective reading of national sentiments and report them back to that same readership.” Polls serve to construct our ‘imagined community’ and act as a realisation to the audience that there are real people in the community with real views. It creates a real sense of spirit and integration when a large section of the community is united for or against a particular cause.

But newspapers do more to build our ‘imagined communities’ than make us feel patriotic. They act as the bearer of bad news and often highlight a state of national decline but this has a contrary effect. Although it alerts the public to the gloomy state of Britain, it also gives us determination to rise above it. Hall (1992) argues that stories of national decline provide a marker of hope in the transcendence of the nation through adversity. Conboy (2006:59) says, “Alerting the collective community to anxieties of decline fits with a sort of progress or a desire for it as fundamental to the continuity of the narrative of a nation with all its peaks and troughs.” One Daily Star article reads,

“Brits eating more burgers than ever: The Government is trying to tackle soaring obesity levels with its “five-a-day fruit and veg message.”
(Jan 8, 2008)

Once again, ‘Brits’ reinforces the national community but this time for the wrong reasons. The thought of the Government “tackling” the problem tells us that it is a serious matter. The fact that obesity levels are “soaring” suggests that we are a nation in danger. The Star’s uses exaggeration in order to alarm readers into acting on the problem. Articles like this come with so much regularity that the media have created the idea that the community is under attack from forces within and without. Conboy (2007: 168) says, “One aspect of the nation itself is that its discourse survives only to the extent that it is perceived to be under threat. It is at this point that enemies, real and imaginary, need to be marshalled in order to remind the insiders of the national group what exactly is at stake.” While the media is constructing this community of decent, hard-working British people, it oppresses what it perceives to be a threat to the nation. By doing so, the media has managed to make their imagined community tighter and more indestructible than ever.

The media has successfully constructed a community for its nation. The majority of news is national news, it uses ‘Brit’, ‘Britons’ and the ‘national we’ to reinforce our relationship, it worships our soldiers, uses symbols, lists and polls to create a sense of community spirit and alerts readers to states of national decline to boost our determination to succeed. However, the more that journalists use these devices, the more we may become immune to their impact. The media maintain our ‘imagined community’, therefore, by excluding the ‘outsiders’ even more.

Van Dijk (2000: 38) argues that news about immigrants and ethnic minorities are often restricted to stories about new immigrants arriving, illegal immigrants, housing and social problems, how they are different, how they are deviant and how they are easily associated with violence, crime, drugs and prostitution. His argument is supported by a poll in The Guardian (14th Nov, 2007) that found 91% of articles in national newspapers about Muslims were negative. The News of the World tells of the,

“Shameful legal lapses that allowed a violent illegal immigrant to stay in Britain and mastermind a terrifying kidnap... Brutal gunman...the gangster... the abduction and torture...crazy immigration scandal...foreign crooks...grisly crime.”
(Dec 10, 2006)

It is clear that the paper wants to exclude criminals like this one from our community. Its graphic and embroidered language serves to shock the reader into a sense of hatred for people that we associate with this man. The article is bias. Although it is only the minority of immigrants that commit crimes in our country, “foreign crooks” is the generalisation the article makes and which prompts readers into making the same assumption. In the same newspaper on the same day, it tells us that,

“Abu Hamza’s female solicitor is being investigated by the Law Society for allegedly kissing an al-Qaeda suspect in JAIL”
(Dec 10, 2006)

Although the solicitor is merely being investigated and has not been charged or found guilty of breaking any rules, the newspaper has decided to report this case. The bold text emphasizes the woman’s alleged crime to make it appear even worse. Finally, the accompanying photograph of the woman laughing is likely to have been a deliberate choice by the newspaper in order to make us believe that the woman may not feel remorse for the offence. As a result of this, we are expected to dislike Muddassar Arani and our ‘imagined community’ becomes more resilient against her and others like her.

The article is clearly one-sided. It states what Arani is being investigated for, gives details into her alleged offence, points out why the al-Qaeda suspect is in jail, quotes the Law Society who condemns Arani and even tells us what she has defended Abu Hamza against. However, it does not give Arani to defend herself. This supports Van Dijk (2000: 39) when he says, “Even in ethnic news, minorities are quoted less, and less prominently than (white) elites. Minority representatives will seldom be allowed to speak alone: a white person is necessary to confirm and convey his or her opinion, possibly against that of a minority spokesperson.” Van Dijk suggests that the British media
adopts a narrow-minded approach to individuals who are outside its own nation and reinforces the idea that Britain, or at least its journalists, try to depict that we are an elite nation.

Van Dijk continues his argument with comment about the language used of ethnic minorities. He says, “Violence and crime of minorities will typically appear in (big) headlines, and prominently on the front page, whereas this is seldom the case for other news about them. Much research has shown that this is a well-known device in the coverage of ethnic issues” (2000: 41). One Daily Star article reads,

“SEARCHING MORE BLACK KIDS WILL STOP GANG WARS:
Stop-and-search tactics need to be increased in black communities to combat inner-city gun and knife crime”
(Oct 23, 2007)

The Star’s choice of words in “black communities” serves to highlight the level of discrimination in the media. To categorize a person by their skin colour is a typical mark of racism and while the newspaper may preach that it takes an objective view (“It’s not racism, it’s just plain common sense!” The Star, Oct 23, 2007), the headline alone contradicts this. It is as though they are a community who are segregated from us and while this may be the case in the ‘imagined communities,’ our physical integration in everyday life tells a different story.

It is not just ethnic minorities who feel the intolerance of the British media. The European Union also comes under heavy criticism on a regular basis. Conboy (2006:56) writes, “Hyperbole concerning the EU is threaded through with emotive language and scripted agendas alluded to economically in a demotic, populist tone of persuasion.” One Sun article reads,

“Britain will be forced to surrender its oil stocks to the EU under the new treaty- costing taxpayers £6BILLION”
(Oct 18, 2007)

The fact that the EU have “forced” us to surrender our oil stocks makes the public feel compromised, but the cost to taxpayers is surely what is meant to outrage readers the most.
The article has a ‘them’ and ‘us’ attitude; taxpayers versus the burden of the EU. Conboy continues, “The language of the criticism of the European Union…includes the weight of corrupt politicians, the EU and MEP’s counterpoised to the plight of overburdened British taxpayers.” By criticising the ‘outsiders,’ in this case the EU, our community can feel more affiliated because we are united against one cause.

Whether we realise it yet or not, British newspapers have a very influential role on its readers. Support for the nation will always be top of the journalistic agenda. Conboy (2006:47) says the “language of representing and addressing a national community” is a very large part of a newspapers appeal. Furthermore, “The ‘them’ and ‘us’ divide defines to a large extent the community which the tabloids are constructing” (2006: 61). It is safe to say then that in terms of the role they play in constructing and maintaining our ‘imagined community’ their role is huge.

The Cosmological Argument

“Why is there something instead of nothing?”
~Gottfried Leibniz

The cosmological argument is based on an undeniable fact. The universe exists. It tries to find an explanation for the universe, its origin and why it is changing. The argument has baffled thinkers for over two thousand years, but Plato’s idea that a prime mover can be the only explanation for the universe remains to be the most philosophically influential.

But despite its popularity, the argument has also provoked much criticism. I will outline the most famous application of the argument, as offered by Thomas Aquinas, and state and assess two objections; Hume’s argument that the cause of the universe need not be the God of classical theism, and Russell’s idea that the universe needs no explanation at all.

Aquinas proposed three ways for God’s existence in the classic version of the cosmological argument. He concluded from each that God can be the only explanation for the universe. For example, in the Argument from Motion, he noted that everything in the world is moving but nothing can move by itself. Neither can there be an infinite regress of things moving other things. He argued that there must be a prime mover and he called this God. Similarly, the Argument from Contingency claims that all things in nature are subject to change. Since nothing can come from nothing, there must be a necessary being that brings contingent things into existence. This he called God. Finally, the Argument from Causation noted that everything in the universe has a cause but nothing is the cause of itself. There has to be a first cause to start the chain of causes. Again he called this God.

But it is the Argument from Causation that sceptic David Hume objected to the most. Hume accused Aquinas of making a leap in logic. The fact that everything within the universe has a cause does not necessarily mean the universe itself must have a cause. Why do we need a cause for the whole chain if we can explain each item in the chain; “Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts” (Hume, D. 1935 p.190). He argued that we have no experience of the universe being made, and so we cannot speak meaningfully about the creation of it.

However, William Lane Craig rejects this. He argues that the universe cannot be infinite because you cannot add to an infinite amount. The past can be regarded as a succession of events added onto one another. So since the universe is finite, it must have had a beginning. Whatever exists must have a cause, therefore the universe had a cause to its existence (Craig, W.L. 1991 pp. 85-96).

As John Mackie wrote, we would not expect a railway train with an infinite number of carriages to get along without an engine. He writes that God is like an engine, not just another truck, but a machine which has the power to move without requiring something else to act upon it (Mackie, J.L. 1982).

More importantly though, Hume says Aquinas is guilty of moving from the need to identify a first mover to identifying it as God. Even if the existence of the universe points to a prime mover, he argues this need not be the God of classical theism; “Any particle of matter, it is said, may be conceived to be annihilated, and any form may be conceived to be altered. Such an annihilation or alteration is not therefore impossible. But it seems a great partiality not to perceive that the same argument extends equally to the Deity, so far as we have any conception of him…” (Op. Cit. p.190)

But Craig rejects this idea too. He argues that if the universe has a cause, it came about naturally or through a ‘personal choice.’ The laws of nature did not exist before the universe. There were no natural causes to bring the universe about. Therefore, the world came about due to random forces of nature. He says, “The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time… We are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator” (Op. Cit. p.92). Craig suggested that this personal agent must have existed outside time and space, since these began at the point of creation. The ‘personal agent’ is a transcendent being which Craig calls God.

However, despite the criticisms of his argument, David Hume has inspired similar ideas in other thinkers. Bertrand Russell does not believe that we need to seek an explanation for the universe. In fact, Russell denies that the universe needs an explanation at all; “The whole concept of cause is one we derive from our observation of particular things. I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever…What I’m saying is that the concept of the cause is not applicable to the total” (Hick, J. 1964 p.232). In a debate with Frederick Copleston, Russell makes the existence of the universe a brute fact; “I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all” (Loc. Cit.).

However, Russell has attracted huge criticism for his lack of curiosity about the cause and origin of the universe. His universe would appear to be entirely without reason. In the debate, Copleston famously replied, “If one refuses to sit down at the chessboard and make a move, one cannot be check-mated” (Loc. Cit.). But like Hume, Russell noted that explaining the individual constituents is sufficient enough; “Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother...That’s a different logical sphere” (Loc. Cit.). Russell in effect withdrew from the debate by refusing to consider that it was valid to ask questions without origins. It is precisely this reason why Russell’s objection to the cosmological argument is often perceived to have no substance.

Leibniz rejects Russell’s claim altogether. Through the Principle of Sufficient Reason, he argued that even if the universe had always been in existence, it would still require an explanation, since we need to establish why there is something rather than nothing. Self-causation is incoherent so the cause of the universe must be something other than the universe itself. It seems that God is the best solution for this since He is capable of creating a universe without being a part of it. Without God, the existence of the universe is unexplained (Tyler, S.K. 2001 p.21).

Richard Swinburne uses Ockham’s razor to suggest that "God is simpler than anything we can imagine and gives us a simple explanation for the system" (Ibid. p.22). J.S. O’Connor, a Jesuit Professor of Physics, says that, “the existence of an intelligent being as the First Cause of the universe can be established by rational scientific inference" (O’Connor, J.S. 1940 p.369). Even Professor Dawes Hicks who accepts the objections of Hume and others admits that the cosmological argument has a certain core of truth. So, what is the truth?

The cosmological argument is one of the oldest and most popular for the existence of God.
If we follow the logic, Aquinas and his contemporaries have presented us with an argument that we cannot ignore. The universe exists. Nothing comes from nothing. The universe has a cause. Stephen Hawking describes the universe as “finite but unbounded” (Hawking, S.W. 1989 p.44), but the question of what caused the universe remains to be solved. The argument of Bertrand Russell, although popular among atheists, is lacking any justification. Professor John Hick calls the atheistic argument “the more economic option” (Tyler, S.K. 2001 p.22), which suggests it is the easiest to swallow, but still we cannot deny that nothing comes from nothing. Science has proven this. And since the God of classical theism is perceived to be outside time and space, it would seem, just as Leibniz argued, that he can be the only explanation.

Hume, whilst not denying that the universe has a cause, disagrees that God can be the only explanation. Atheist Richard Dawkins has similar ideas. He writes that the First Cause argument works by setting up an infinite regress which God is wheeled out to terminate, “but we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself,” (Dawkins, R. 2006). In typical atheist fashion, he notes that the first cause could not have been an intelligence, since “intelligent, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe.” The fact remains that there is no evidence that God exists. Although objections to the cosmological argument, especially in Russell’s case, have been weak, it is the fact that the cosmological argument is based purely on faith and reason, with a lack of evidence, that makes it so hard to believe in my opinion.

Abortion: Is it Moral?

ABORTION dates back to ancient times when pregnancies were terminated with herbs, sharp implements, violent exercise and other disturbing techniques.

Over the course of history, induced abortions have been a source of debate regarding the morality and legality of the practise.

But with 46 million abortions performed each year and 21st century’s growing demand for independence, the pro-choice argument is ever emerging. I will examine the arguments in support of abortion, their criticisms and give my own opinion on what I believe to be morally acceptable.

The argument falls into several categories but a woman’s right to make her own decisions forms the basis of the pro-choice viewpoint. The struggle for women’s rights began in Biblical times, and it was only in 1928 when women got the vote, that their views were finally taken seriously.

Feminists argue that their right over their reproductive system is a fundamental right without which women cannot live in liberty. Gregory Pence says that a basic principle in civilised countries is that “competent adults possess the right to make personal decisions.” And Mary Anne Warren writes that “To deny a woman access to abortion is to deprive her of the right to control her own body” So, abortion is morally permissible because a woman’s rights are most important, but what about the rights of the foetus?

Warren explores this idea, but argues that a foetus has no rights because it is not a member of the moral community. It is not a person, and so it cannot be regarded as equal to those who are.

She puts forward six criteria of personhood; Sentience (the ability to have conscious experiences), emotionality (to feel happy or sad), reason (to solve complex problems), communication (the ability to give messages), self-awareness (having a concept of yourself) and moral agency (moral principles and ideals).
Warren concludes that a foetus in the early stages of development satisfies none of the criteria of personhood.

Michael Tooley agrees. He says “An organism possesses a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states.” For Tooley, you must be self-conscious to have a right to life. Since a foetus doesn’t, it makes no sense to grant it moral rights strong enough to override the woman’s rights to liberty, bodily integrity, and even life itself.

However, even if the foetus is a human being, and even if it has the right to life, abortion is still morally permissible according to some. Judith Thompson uses the violinist analogy to illustrate this. She asks us to imagine being kidnapped and our bloodstream connected to a violinists, who has an illness that will kill him unless he is allowed to share your kidneys for nine months. Although the anti-abortion approach would say that you are obliged to stay connected to the violinist (because he is a human being and all humans have the right to life), the pro-choice view says that it is absurd to suggest that your refusal to do so would be the moral equivalent of murder.

Warren highlights this and claims that “A law which required you to stay in bed with the violinist” (in other words, a law which prohibited abortion) “is unjust since unwilling persons ought not to be required to be extremely Good Samaritans.” The general consensus is that a woman should not have to make enormous personal sacrifices for the sake of other individuals to whom they have no special prior obligation.

Thompson’s analogy faces some criticism. The analogy suggests that the person who was kidnapped was in no way responsible for their situation, nor could he foresee being attached to the violinist. Thompson argues therefore, intentionally or unintentionally, that a woman has a right to choose abortion only in cases where she is in no way morally responsible for her pregnancy. For instance, abortion is acceptable in the case of rape.

Situation Ethics takes the same approach. If a 12-year old girl with Downs’ Syndrome was raped and discovered to be pregnant, the foetus is likely to be largely ignored at the expense of the wellbeing of the 12-year old girl. Also consider Utilitarianism which would suggest that the abortion of the foetus may be the greatest good for the greatest number.

But Warren questions a woman who becomes pregnant not through rape but because she did not use available forms of contraception. Or even in the case of a woman who became pregnant intentionally, but then changed her mind.

A pro-choice viewpoint is likely to suggest that we cannot expect a woman who forgets her contraceptive pill for one day to complete an unwanted pregnancy. And this might be the case, for another branch of the pro-choice argument says that a foetus at such an early stage of development is not a person. Although this links to Warren’s six criteria, this approach focuses more on the scientific evidence.

The question of when life begins has plagued the abortion debate. Consider this set of premises; it is wrong to take a human life, a foetus is a human life, therefore, abortion is wrong.

However, if a foetus, for whatever reason, does not possess human life, we may reach a different conclusion; it is wrong to take a human life, a foetus does not possess a human life, therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

Pope Pius IX claims that the foetus is a human person from the moment of conception and so abortion is always murder. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.”

More importantly, the sanctity of life is crucial to religion. Jeremiah 1, verse 5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” indicating that for Christians at least, life begins before contraception does.

However, others argue that the ovum is too different from anything we would recognise as a person to be treated the same. Some believe that there is a continuous development in foetal growth but argue that there is a point at which it is not a human being. There is a continuous growth from acorn to oak tree, but an acorn is not an oak tree, just as a fertilised ovum is not a person.

Some have suggested that birth marks the beginning of true moral status, and a foetus is not a person, just as sperm and ovum are not persons. In which case, abortion would be considered acceptable, although Jonathan Glover rejects this idea because of the similarity between foetuses and premature babies.

Women’s rights and what constitutes personhood all form a debate which has raged for thousands of years. But there are some factors which even anti-abortionists can excuse. Rape is one of these, but a threat to the mother’s life has also caused some to reconsider their approach.

The Doctrine of Double Effect states that in some cases of abortion, the foetus is not the most important factor in ethical consideration. If the mother’s life is considered to be of greater value than that of the foetus, then she clearly must have considerable rights.

For instance, if a woman has cancer of the uterus and needs an urgent hysterectomy, an abortion is necessary to save the woman’s life. An abortion may be justified since it is the secondary result of a primary act. By removing the uterus, the foetus will die, but this was not the primary intention of the operation. In this case, it is not the foetus which is the most important factor in ethical consideration, but the mother’s life.

For all the arguments in support of abortion, very few address the consequences of anti-abortion, but advocates of a right to choose abortion point to the terrible consequences of prohibiting it, especially while contraception is still largely unreliable.

Mary Ann Warren argues that worldwide, thousands of women die each year from illegal abortions, and many more suffer from complications that may leave them injured or infertile. Furthermore, women who are poor, underage or otherwise vulnerable suffer most from the absence of safe and legal abortion. Abortion then, must not only be considered permissible, but legal for the very safety of the mother.

Abortion has happened, it happens and for as long as people are having sex, it will continue to happen. But is it justified? I would argue that only when abortion adheres to a set of solid, moral conditions can it ever be considered ethical.

Of course the woman has a right to decide what happens to her body. And in the case of rape and the threat to her life, abortion can be excused, in my view at least.

Forgetting to take your contraceptive pill is one thing, but refusing to use contraception when you are fully aware of the consequences is inexcusable. In America, it seems that abortion is actually becoming a social fashion, with International abortion giant, Planned Parenthood, setting up a line of coffee mugs, bumper stickers and t-shirts with the phrase “I had an abortion.” Journalist David Warren has even suggested the line “I eat unborn babies for breakfast.” This attitude, in my opinion, is completely unjustifiable.

Whilst I take the sanctity of life very seriously, I believe that it is the woman’s right to make her own decisions, providing that she is not careless and inconsiderate in her actions. Only in this case, do I believe that abortion can ever morally justified.

Campus Life

Choosing a University is important, but choosing the right one for you is key. I was 17 and naive when UCAS was thrust upon me. I found myself head in hands under a pile of prospectuses wondering where to begin. Thankfully, I knew from a young age of what I wanted to be but for those who were clueless, their task was doubly hard.
The hunt began with an internet search that told me which Universities offered my course. Those whose websites were easy to navigate and made the most of virtual tours, photographs and student eye views were most appealing because it proved that they were fresh and in touch with their students. Then it was a process of elimination.
Naturally, I wanted the best course. Because journalism is so competitive, it was obvious I’d need something to make me stand out and so I opted for an accredited course. I’d heard great things about other Universities but sadly, the fact their course was not professionally recognised meant they stood no chance in my mind. Next I considered the quality of teaching, the number of students who get jobs after graduation, the cost of living and finally, the location. Unfortunately, University is expensive enough without having to spend hundreds of pounds travelling across the country whenever I fancied a weekend at home.
It is true what they say that first impressions count. On my very first Open Day, I was greeted with a warm welcome by the University staff. I shook hands and had a lively conversation with the Head of Department which told me immediately that I would be a student at this University and not a statistic. Q&A with the tutors also proved useful and put faces to the names I had read so much about. There were 70 nervous youngsters in that room. They made us feel straight at home which was a big tick in the box.
Not every visit was as successful. Soon after, I visited a different University courtesy of an internet route planner because we had not been sent directions in the post. This time, although staff were friendly, the day was thrown into chaos as nobody had a timetable of events. Coupled with a few students who were overheard joking and criticising their own University, it was a poor reflection of where I would be studying.
Of the seven Universities I chose just three made regular contact with details about the course, information on city life and upcoming events on the social scene. In my view, there are two factors which most influenced my choice of University. The course was the most important. However, it is the people who will make your time at University a professional and enjoyable experience that most swayed my decision.

View this article in its original context here: http://www.unite-group.co.uk/data/Reports/Campus%20Life%20Low%20res%20Sept%202007.pdf