Pro Life, Pro Choice?

Disclaimer what is said in this blog post is strictly to arise conversation and malicious remarks are not intended.

Now this blog post will be unlike my prior ones as I attempt to spark conversation by writing about a very controversial argument… pro life? or pro choice? What is this you may ask?

Pro-Life: an individual that is pro life firmly believes that the government has the responsibility to protect all human life, regardless of the intent or matters regarding quality of life.

·             The Roman Catholic church prohibits: abortion, assisted suicide, the death penalty and war (with few exceptions).

Pro-Choice: an individual that is pro choice occupies the broad middle ground regarding abortion. Pro choice advocates support individuals with unlimited autonomy.

·             Pro choice stances insist that the following must remain legal: celibacy and abstinence, emergency contraception use, contraception use, abortion and childbirth. Not saying that pro choice means pro-abortion, simply put, it's defending the rights of women to have the overall decision for themselves.

The overall argument regarding pro life and pro choice dwell in terms of abortion. Pro life movements strongly believe that even undeveloped, non-viable human life is sacred and must be protected. On the other side of the spectrum, pro choice movements argue that in pregnancies prior to the point of viability, the government does not have the right to intrude on a female’s decision to terminate the pregnancy. The only similarity here is that both movements share the same goal of wanting to minimize the overall number of abortions however, the tactics done to achieve such a goal is what differs between movements.

One of the most influential factors regarding pro life and pro choice relies on religious nature, the consideration of one’s beliefs and values. Some religions believe that terminating a week old pregnancy and killing a living, breathing person serves no difference. Overall, the death of a human being, a product of God, is unaccepted regardless of reasoning because there are other alternative options like adoption to consider. However, in contrast, some religions have alternative opinions regarding life – it’s based around the soul and once the fetus begins to move it is considered life – not at conception. Additionally, other traditions claim each soul does not exist until after birth.

There are pro life activists claim the presence of life alone, the unique DNA, is the definition of personhood. In contrast, pro choice activists argue there is a lack of scientific basis to prove existence of souls however we form conclusions based on the premise of our emotional values. Thus interpretation of abortion is heavily influenced by religious components and what each faith deems as acceptable.

Getting such a controversial discussion into public audiences can be difficult due to the severity and sensitivity of abortion. However, Laurier LifeLink effectively raised awareness about an issue that people tend to walk on thin ice, sort of say, regarding the topic of abortion, contraceptives and other measures. On October 20^th 2016 Laurier LifeLink displayed blue and pink flags in the Quad to represent the number of abortions that occur in Canada per year. LifeLink is a non-sectarian, pro-life club that decided to raise awareness about abortions on campus, each flag represented ten abortions, totaling up to approximately 100,000 abortions yearly in Canada. The public campaign to raise awareness about this issue raised some positive feedback, but a large portion received was negative. Although there were no graphic images displayed, there were disclaimer signs warning people about the pro life demonstration in the Quad. Some responses were negative because this display was right outside of the Rainbow Centre (located in Mac House) and in order to access that center, you must pass right through the display… Laurier LifeLink received responses like “this is really triggering for people who have experienced traumatic situations, its inappropriate because you don’t know what they are going through”. Other students responded by pulling the flags out of the ground and taking down banners surrounding the area, many argued they proceeded with these actions because they “have a lot of female friends and are simply acknowledging women’s right to choose”. Later on Facebook, Laurier's Centre for Women and Trans people responded to the demonstration saying, “our Centre usually closes at 4, but a coordinator will be keeping space open until 5:20pm or so. The Rainbow Centre will remain open until 6pm. We are unfortunately in Mac House, just across from the Quad, so you will have to walk past the protest to get in. Please stay safe, practice self and community care and feel free to spread the word”. 

Laurier LifeLink educated students while effectively getting their word across campus, thus sparking discussion regarding pro life and pro choice, an issue that is most commonly excused. Through platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram the Laurier LifeLink club spread the word about their display and received an abundance of feedback due to the publicity they received on social media. Majority of my classes for the remainder of the week touched on the topic and responses showed that majority of peers also saw the display and sparked discussion throughout Laurier's entire campus. 

Do you think demonstrations like Laurier LifeLink displayed in the Quad should be allowed in the future on campus? why or why not?

America Just Got Trumped

The 2016 Present elect is Donald Trump, and social media can not believe it.

With 74% of American citizens engaging on social media through platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, it's not unusual that candidates utilize these mediums in numerous ways to aid their campaign such as:

•         Creating the ideal public persona 
•         Targeting opponents
•         Attracting potential supporters in ways that are comfortable with them
•         Aligning voters with candidate’s goals

A main contribution to Trumps success is because he engaged with supporters through digital platforms. Not only is social media a good way to engage with supporters, but it also greatly aided Trump by reaching out to people willing to become involved with the campaign. By urging supporters to act on behalf of a specific candidate, this provides campaigns with free labour and most importantly enthusiastic people who faithfully encourage other audiences such as friends, family, and community members to either vote on election day, or also partake in the campaign. Social media facilitated the word-of-mouth campaign and this proved it to be beneficial and more expensive than previous methods like TV ads or radio commercials. The entire election was just choosing the lesser of two evils and given the fact that mainstream media was primarily anti-trump, voters turned to alternative media sources in hopes of seeking out the truths behind each candidate’s claims. 

Facebook and Twitter have been receiving shockwaves from the recent 2016 Presidential election because of unexpected victory from the Republican candidate, Trump. It’s been said that social media needed Trumps bigot remarks, like an addict needs a hit… and Americans bought into the notion of Trump and his approach towards the election. Social media users fuelled the success of Trump by retweeting, reposting, or sharing news/videos regarding him on networking sites. 

As we try to pick ourselves up from this result, we must consider the reasoning behind it.

Trump had success on social media in a number of ways:

Trump dominated the Twitter game by having four million more followers on Twitter than Clinton and The Hill states the overall online interest for Trump was three times greater than Clinton, while also being the most mentioned on Twitter and Facebook. 

The claims of 'media making the man' relate to Trump and his usage of social media, like TV did with John Kennedy’s election. Trump in a sense, earned free media due to the controversial remarks he would make, thus publicizing his name and providing an opportunity to explain himself. Social media won the election for Trump. As I say, good or bad, at least people are talking about you… and I assume that's the mentality trump had.

Arguments concerning the low voter count is said to have had impact on the results due to the substantially lower turnout in the 2016 election than in prior years. Clintons campaign can be said to have failed because of Slacktivism; supporters displaying their commitment via Facebook, however not actually submitting votes. Clinton based her campaign around old media and conventional strategies, and in the end this hurt her chance of becoming the first female President of the US. Clinton unlike Trump, never actually tweeted herself, she used social media in a conventional way whereas Trump used it to drive news cycles and create a form of authenticity by speaking directly to voters outside the mainstream filters. 

Trump targeted the working-class and in America they are categorized as being mostly without college degrees and he spoke about things they cared about such as: sexuality, marriage, liberty, religion, abortion and gun rights. He addressed the public on elementary level vocabulary and as a Canadian watching the broadcasts, I never assumed he would win because of the lack of knowledge he has and how unfortunate it is when he presents himself and speaks publicly. Also, I did not think America would make transition from Obama to Trump because of how politically incorrect he is regarding oppression of race, gender and class etc. 

 friends…… he has the best words… didn’t you know?

Trump along with Clinton had pre-existing social establishment prior to the 2016 election. With Hilary being married to Bill and her presence within the Government since the 80s and Trump being a celebrity on The Apprentice, Americans had already established opinions regarding the two. 

 Does this even need a caption...?

There is a distrust that lies within American citizens and mainstream media and this suggests that it’s the most influential factor regarding Trumps win. Many voters will change the channel upon encountering a political TV ad because they are often demeaning and infused with bias. Instead, when candidates engage in social media it receives a positive response because ‘mainstream’ news channels do not portray stories fully, accurately or fairly therefore preventing the truth from prevailing. A lot of people supported Trump because he shut down mainstream media and fought back against them; this caused citizens to support his campaign by showing leadership. This proves that Americans were impressed with Trumps unruly perspective and considered him a better candidate than Hilary.

The list goes on and on regarding the things Trump did wrong for his campaign and vise-versa for Clinton however, what do you think is the main reason Trump won? Do you feel Trump will alter his controversial statements regarding “building walls to keep others out” among many more now that he has actually assumed the Presidency role, or will it all go downhill? (aka do you think he will mature and deviate from his bigot remarks?)