In Response to “Crazy Love” by Steven Pinker

As I read this article I found myself agreeing with every sentence produced in this article. He reveals valid points about why love even exists if the natural reason for mates is to simply just reproduce. Why do people become so crazy about another person? Some people may become morose, obsessive, and even violent, but why? In today’s world people change the way they think and they live to cater to be with someone else. They write corny poems and listen to ridiculous songs that try to express they way they feel towards someone else. The author also asks was romantic love created? We know that mankind hasn’t always been involved with romantic love. It has been introduced through playwrights or Hollywood scriptwriters or Hallmark-card poets. He also brings up that most people match with people with similar looks, style, intellect, and way of life. I find this to be very true. In my own life experiences I see many couples that fit this mold.

In Response to Susan Neiman’s “To Resist Hitler and Survive”

I think that Germany is heading in the right direction. They have made huge advancements to show their sorrow towards all they have hurt. They have spent a tremendous amount of money to remember those they have lost during the Holocaust time period. I think it’s important to remember those who were lost as well as those who helped stop the terror. I don’t completely agree with the author who believes that Germany is recognizing the wrong people in such a dark time. He states that you need to focus on “what you have done to the world, not what the world has done to you.” But would that do the six million Jewish people who died in the Holocaust justice? How could you not recognize such a population of people for what the world has done to them? I do agree that the people responsible for the turnaround for the Holocaust should be recognized, but should be secondary to all whose lives were taken.

In Response to “Why We Fight” by William J. Bennett

I completely agree with Bennett’s logic of the three criteria that must be met before going to war. He stated to go to war you must have a legitimate sovereign, avenge wrong doing, and to advance good and avoid evil. I think that if you look at most wars they do follow these criteria. After September 11 the president had a huge decision to make. This decision was in fact “what do we do now?” According to Bennett war is completely appropriate. Our country was ordered to invade Iraq to seek out the terrorist. The president as our legitimate authority ordered to find the terrorists to avenge their wrong doing of killing thousands of Americans as well as avoiding such a catastrophe in the future by riding the world of the terrorists involved and sending a message to other terrorists showing that we will take military action. The action of war was also followed moral principles. We knew we could catch the criminals and be successful without targeting civilians.

In Response to "Warfare: An Invention-Not a Biological Necessity"

I agree with Margaret Mead’s article “Warefare: An Invention-Not a Biological Necessity.” At the beginning of the essay the author states that in order to get rid of warfare altogether would be asking for the world to rid its competitiveness as well as it class systems. The world would have to be equal in every way before warfare would no longer be implemented. Everyone in the world strives to be at the top. There will always be a desire for power. With class systems in every society it is virtually impossible to rid warfare. People at the bottom of the chain will always be fighting to climb to the top. They have a will to fight for the power. In a world that will never be equal there is no chance to get rid of warfare. Mead describes that it is our own nature to be competitive and fight for the power. It is human instinct. It is not something that we can just shut off.

In Response to "Some Convenient Truths"

Gregg Easterbrook hit the nail on the head with his article, “Some Convenient Truths.” Every politician or even news broadcaster reminds us almost daily about how awful we are at something as a country. Over the years global warming was portrayed as this disaster that was slowly but surely destroying our world. We were learning how unenviromentally friendly we were being. People across the nation painted a picture in their head of a polluted and gloomy world. However, politicians and news broadcasters did not see a point in announcing the good the country was doing? They failed to give people hope and reassurance that everything was going to be ok? What is the point of only broadcasting negative events? When times are tough much like they are today it doesn’t make sense to only report negative news back to the community. When spirits are low people need a pick-me-up and this can be achieved by letting us know the good the world is achieving.

In Response to "Your Gamete, Myself"

This article was very interesting. I am still shocked at the amount of money the procedure of receiving egg donations actually costs. I don’t think I really understand the point of it though. You can go through the process of receiving donated eggs and give birth to a child that doesn’t look like you for $35, 000, or you could adopt a child skip the pregnancy and painful child birth experience and save a ton of money and have the same result. If you ask me I think that some of these couples are out of their minds. I understand that psychologically it would be more natural to actually give birth to the child but how much of a difference does that actually make? Would the couples care for the child less if it were adopted rather than a child conceived from donated eggs? I think people are missing the bigger picture. Their goal is to have a family, and I think some people are losing sight of that. With the amount of children in the world that need homes and families is I.V.F. the route to take?