FAILANO, JEMICAH DONA

BSA-2B

Today you found out that you’re pregnant (for girl) or your girlfriend is pregnant (for
boys). It is a norm in the society that before creating a family you need at least finish
college and have a decent job, but the concept of pre-marital sex is not new to you. Your
mom and dad told you to abort the child because it will bring shame to your family and if
you don’t, you will be on your own. You don’t have anything in your bank account and
there are no properties under your name and you don’t have anyone to run to. You asked
the opinion of your partner/guardian and they are in favor of aborting the child.

Question:
1. Do you consider the suggestion of your parent and your significant other ethical?
Doing things that are too early as such a young age are really unethical. But on this
situation, I may abort the child. I am not capable of raising the child himself. If I continue to give
birth of him, then I will not be able to raise him properly because I am not yet ready to have a
family. Disobeying the rules of the society is inappropriate. Having a big mistake as a young
lady, I will serve it as a lesson for not having the right decision for myself and to what the
circumstances it may follow. It may be hurtful for not be able to give life for my soon to be fist
child, but to this situation, it’ll be the best and hardest decision will ever be made. My family
will not support me and the child, neither my boyfriend will disagree the abortion. If I have the
confidence and courage to raise the child then I will raise him myself. I will not be able to
continue to college, not be able to work properly, no people that are willing to help me as a
single mom. A do or die situation wherein young mothers really has the most powerful inner self.

2. Do you think that pre-marital sex is still morally incorrect in the 21st century?
According to zachariastrust.org, The question you have most been dreading comes –
What is wrong with sex before marriage? What on earth are you going to say? It is the 21st
century after all, surely God doesn’t hate you enough to make you say something so ridiculous
and old-fashioned that you will lose all your friends? In the gospels, Jesus was asked many
difficult questions and he frequently responded with a question, before answering more fully. He
did this so often that I think we are probably meant to notice it and learn something.
What question might we ask here? What is wrong with sex before marriage? How about:
“What is wrong with anything?” In other words, where do you get the moral code on which you
live your life? There may be a whole number of different responses: “I do what I feel is right” –
my morals are entirely personal and arbitrary. Or “society decides what is right and wrong” –
laws are made and as long as I stick within them everything is OK. Or anything in between those
two responses. For us as Christians, right and wrong are not purely up to the individual; after all
what you feel is good for you may hurt me. It is not only up to society either – lots of societies
have allowed things to be “legal” which you or I might take issue with. Right and wrong for the
Christian come from a higher standard than any one individual human or group of humans, they
come from God. The creator is also the moral law giver. So when I say that I believe that sex is
designed to be expressed within marriage, I am not setting myself up as judge and jury and
deciding to make life difficult for single people – I am trying to follow the maker’s instructions.
It may sound strange but this question about sex is actually a vitally important question
for many in the search for God. In fact, sometimes sexual and moral issues provide the main
foundation for a person not believing in God. The atheist and writer Aldous Huxley wrote quite
openly about his motivation for believing that life had no meaning and that there is no God:
Here we have a blue print for human sexual love – through the sexual act the man and
woman have a new incredible kind of intimacy. This is called being “one flesh” – this is
designed to be exclusive and faithful. Both Jesus and Paul pick up on this in the New Testament
– emphasizing the beauty of monogamous marriage. In this way, the question of how sex outside
of marriage could be wrong can be approached by looking at the beauty, intimacy and
preciousness of sex. God designed that this happen in a safe and committed context of love and
devotion – according to the maker, this is where sex is at its best.
3. Is it feasible to form a family before graduating college and having a decent job?
Yes, it’s possible but it’ll be hard. I saw many young mothers who are studying while
having a family at such a young age. But they still manage to raise well their child by the support
of their family and their own savings as a working student. But I also see some who stopped
studying just to work and raise their child. This circumstance is not very easy yet a very
challenging part by not having a degree yet you have now a family. But, If you don’t have grand
career goals, it may seem that a degree is extra work for something you may never use. But many
degree programs are designed to create a holistic educational experience. A bachelor’s program
requires attention to detail, good study habits, communication skills, critical thinking, and the
ability to form opinions. All of these “soft skills” that you master in college are useful in your
daily adult life, whether that’s running your own business or managing a family. While you may
not have plans for a career that requires a college degree now, your plans may change. Getting
your bachelor’s can prepare you for taking on new life challenges when the need arises. Most of
us aren’t Steve Jobs. And most of us don’t come with a vast network that we can fall back on
when things get tough. A college environment provides the kind of support most adults need to
not only get a degree, but start a life. Success, for many adults, starts the day they get that
bachelor’s degree.
President Duterte in his administration is particular with punishing acts contrary to the
Comprehensive Dangerous act of 2002. One of your friends invited you to a party, you
were wasted that night. You noticed that your friends are smoking marijuana. They invited
you to join them and you were curious about its effects.

Question:
1. Given that there is no law prohibiting the illegal use of marijuana, will you try it in aid of
your curiosity?
First of all, I hate the smell of cigarettes, if I even try marijuana, I might pass out. So
never will I try to smoke marijuana. There are negative effects of marijuana, weed, pot, dope,
grass. They’re different names for the same drug that comes from the cannabis plant. You can
smoke it, vape it, drink it, or eat it. Most folks use marijuana for pleasure and recreation. But a
growing number of doctors prescribe it for specific medical conditions and symptoms. Marijuana
has mind-altering compounds that affect both your brain and body. It can be addictive, and it
may be harmful to some people’s health. Here’s what can happen when you use marijuana, You
Can Get “High”. It’s why most people try pot. The main psychoactive ingredient, THC,
stimulates the part of your brain that responds to pleasure, like food and sex. That unleashes a
chemical called dopamine, which gives you a euphoric, relaxed feeling. If you vape or smoke
weed, the THC could get into your bloodstream quickly enough for you to get your high in
seconds or minutes. The THC level usually peaks in about 30 minutes, and its effects may wear
off in 1-3 hours. If you drink or eat pot, it make take many hours for you to fully sober up. You
may not always know how potent your recreational marijuana might be. That also goes for most
medical marijuana.
2. What is the importance of knowing what is right from wrong from just abiding because
there is a law punishing it?
Since punishment involves pain or deprivation that people wish to avoid, its intentional
imposition by the state requires justification. The difficulties of justification cannot be avoided
by the view that punishment is an inevitable adjunct of a system of criminal law. If criminal law
is defined to include punishment, the central question remains whether society should have a
system of mandatory rules enforced by penalties. Relatively small associations of like-minded
people may be able to operate with rules that are not backed by sanctions, and a choice by the
larger society against authorizing legal punishment is at least theoretically possible. Moreover,
actual infliction of penalties is not inextricably tied to authorization. A father who has threatened
punishment if two daughters do not stop fighting must decide whether to follow through if the
fight continues. Congruence between threat and actual performance on the scene does constitute
one good reason for punishing. Future threats will be taken less seriously if past threats are not
fulfilled, and parents usually wish to avoid the impression that they will not do what they say.
Nevertheless, because he now sees that the punishment threatened is too severe, or understands
better the children's reasons for fighting, the father may fail to carry out his threat. In the broader
society also, threatened punishments are not always inflicted on persons who have
unquestionably committed crimes. The police or prosecutor may decide not to proceed, a jury
may acquit in the face of unmistakable evidence of guilt, or a judge may decide after conviction
not to impose punishment. A judge with legal authority to make such a decision must determine
if punishment is appropriate; even if punishment is legally required to be imposed, the
countervailing reasons may be so powerful that the court will not do so.
If actual punishment never or very rarely followed threatened punishment, the threat
would lose significance. Thus, punishment in some cases is a practical necessity for any system
in which threats of punishment are to be taken seriously; and to that extent, the justification of
punishment is inseparable from the justification of threats of punishment.
The dominant approaches to justification are retributive and utilitarian. Briefly stated, a
retributivist claims that punishment is justified because people deserve it; a utilitarian believes
that justification lies in the useful purposes that punishment serves. Many actual theories of
punishment do not fit unambiguously and exclusively into one of these two categories. Satisfying
both retributive and utilitarian criteria may be thought necessary to warrant punishment; or
utilitarian criteria may be thought crucial for one question and retributive criteria for or the use of
retributive sorts of approaches may be thought appropriate on utilitarian grounds. Beginning
from rather straightforward versions of retributive and utilitarian theory, the analysis proceeds to
positions that are more complex.
3. Assuming that an investigation is conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation due
to an alleged rape incident that night and there were 5 people accused of that crime. You have
seen these 5 people performed the illegal act of smoking marijuana and they even invited you
and let us say out of curiosity, you tried it. These people are your closest friends at school. Being
present on the event, the prosecutor in-charge of the case invited you for questioning. Your
friends warned you that they will also report to the prosecution that you were as well high of
marijuana during that time. The prosecution as well established that the cause of the act of rape
is due to the influence of marijuana. Will you report the incident of marijuana and be a witness
against your friends?

A crime is a crime. You should face the consequence when doing a crime that you know
that isn’t good to do. So When I have a situation like this, I will abide with the law. Even though
they are my closest friends or whatsoever, I will be standing as witness against them. Facing
your crime is already a challenge if you have the mindset to be changed as your usual self.
Because if I will not be punished of what I’ve done and what they’ve done, how come we will
learn on what is the right thing to do and not to do. It is the real reason of the prison itself,
Teaching the bad ones on what they’ve done is a heavy crime that one must not do. So in order
to the case to be solved already, no matter what threatening they may say, I will be standing on
what is true and just. As I was raised to do good things, and knows already what is unethical to
do, There will be no problem for me if I say something about the incident that had happened.