The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, no one shall be subjected to

torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Although this doctrine

was adopted in 1948, the world has fallen quite short of this goal. Violence against women
pervades all states and it is the duty of the international community to ensure that
all persons are afforded equality and respect. Despite cooperative efforts at
combating gross human rights abuses, such as the adoption of the Declaration on the
Elimination of Violence against Women, the United Nations has not been able to alleviate
the injustice women worldwide experience daily.
The Kingdom of Denmark believes that in order to end violence against women, nations
must look to empower women in all aspects of society. This includes promoting equal gender
roles in government, civil society, education and business. However, Denmark also recognizes
the need to combat human rights abuses against women as they occur, and no nation is immune
to gender violence.
In 2002, the Danish Government launched an extensive action plan to combat
domestic violence against women. The plan includes measures to help treat abused
women, identify and prosecute the perpetrators, and incorporate professional medical and
psychological staff into the rehabilitation process. The action plan currently reaches
out to both governmental and nongovernmental groups on the local level throughout the
nation.
The Danish Centre for Human Rights in Copenhagen, Denmark's foremost national human
rights institution, also promotes and protects human rights. Based on the Centre's research,
Denmark's parliament can promote human rights-based legislation and education/awareness
programs throughout the nation. The Centre also addresses the UN Commission on Human
Rights annually regarding human rights developments in Denmark and internationally. Denmark
has no record of committing major human rights violations, most importantly any targeted at
women. In its 2003 Annual Report, Amnesty International also found no human rights violations
against Danish women.
Women are invaluable to Denmark's society and have achieved significant
economic and social gains in the 20th century. Currently, 75 percent of medical students
in Denmark are women.
Denmark is confident that this Commission can bring about an end to violence
against women without compromising the sovereignty of member states. Education
remains perhaps the most useful tool in protecting victims of gender-based violence.
Governments, UN agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can plan a coordinated
campaign that educates national populations on the various ways women are violently targeted.
Similarly, harmful traditions, such as honor killings and female genital mutilation, must be
stopped by reforming traditional views of women in society. Children of both sexes need to
be taught at an early age to value the rights of women in order to prevent such violence in their
generation.
Another way to stop gender violence would be to reproach member states that
consistently violate treaties such as the Convention on Political Rights of Women (1952), the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women(1979), and the
Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993). Although this
Committee cannot impose sanctions, it can pass resolutions verbally condemning states that
commit human rights violations. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights can also meet
with representatives of governments that violate the above treaties to discuss
possible solutions. In order to prevent gender violence, nations must work together to build
a culture of support, equality and community. As such, the Kingdom of Denmark looks forward
to offering its support, in whatever form possible, to nations firmly committed to ending violence
against women in all its forms.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/15970984/
Abortion is the worst thing a woman can do against human dignity. It is a crime against life. No woman has the right to
kill a new living being. Many countries ban abortion and many institutions fight against it. Abortion is immoral, and it
should not be legalized.

Abortion is also a threat to the mother's health. A woman can suffer an infection or internal bleeding. She could also
become sterilized, the permanent inability to bear a child. Abortion not only kills the baby but may kill the mother too.
During an abortion, despite the use of local anesthesia, 97% of the women report severe pain, and if a more powerful
drug is used she could suffer dangerous side effects. Many complications are common after an abortion, like
inflammation of the reproductive organs. As well, there is strong evidence that abortion increases the risk of breast
cancer. Women that abort increase their chances of getting breast cancer by 50%, and teenagers with no previous
pregnancies that abort after the 8th week increase their probability by 800%. Unicef states that 250,000 women die
every year because of legal and illegal abortions: 75,000 of them die of self-inflicted abortions; 75,000 die of
convulsions; and the other 100,000 die of blood poisoning caused by an infection of the uterus. Therefore, if abortion is
legalized there will be not only more fetal murders but also more mothers will die.

None of the methods women use to abort are completely safe. One of the most common methods used is Suction
Aspiration. The doctor uses a special tool to suck the baby into a collection bottle. Great care must be taken to prevent
the uterus from being damaged, which would cause hemorrhage. A woman with hemorrhage will need a blood
transfusion that could cause her AIDS. Also, infection may easily occur if fetal tissue is left behind in the uterus. Another
method used for babies as old as twenty-four weeks, is the Dilation and Evacuation. Sharp jaws are used to grasp
different parts of the unborn baby which are then torn away. The skull of the baby must be crushed to facilitate the
procedure. Another technique used by a lot of pregnant women is the RU486. The RU486 are pills used to abort the
undesired child. These pills have very dangerous side effects. They could cause severe bleeding, nausea, vomiting, pain,
and even death. In France a woman died because of this drug while others suffered life threatening heart attacks. Also,
RU486 can cause severe malformations in later pregnancies. Therefore, the baby is not the only one that is endangered.

The baby's mother not only has to deal with physical consequences, but also psychological problems that could last for a
lifetime. Women that abort usually suffer severe traumas. Once, a woman was raped by five men. She didn't want to
have the child, but her pain and embarrassment were so great that she couldn't abort until the last month. She is still in
psychological treatment. Psychologist Wanda Franz states, "Women feel worthless because they failed at the most
natural of human activities, the role of being a mother." Women report horrible nightmares of children calling them
from a trash can full of body parts and blood. Surgical abortions aren't as traumatic as chemical abortions. Women
having chemical abortions often see the complete tiny bodies of their babies and are even able to distinguish the
developing hands and eyes. So traumatic is this for some future mothers that it is recommended that women that are
not prepared for this, do not take the drug. Researchers call these physiological problems the Post Abortion Syndrome
(PAS). Women that suffer from PAS experience drug and alcohol abuse, personal relationship problems, repeated
abortions, and even suicide. Of all the women that abort, 56% feel guilty and suffer PAS. In the United States there are
over 3000 Pregnancy Crisis Centers which help women that are facing unplanned pregnancies. They make the future
mothers realize that her baby deserves to have the chance of living. They tell them that if they can't support the baby
then she could give it up for adoption but not kill him.

Do women have the right to steal the life of a new living being? Killing a person is illegal, so why should a fetal murder be
legal? You have to ask yourself these questions and realize that when a woman aborts, she is acting like any other
murderer. Researchers have discovered that life begins at the moment of conception in the mother's uterus, therefore
abortion ends a human life and should be punishable by law. As well, nine short months of pregnancy is a small cost for
a life without physical and health problems,
think about it.

https://www.dreamessays.com/customessays/Abortion/4818.htm
 It is apparent that euthanasia should be permitted everywhere for the following reasons: individual liberty; one’s undesired
pain, suffering, and misery; and the individual s frustration from having a valueless life. First of all, one should be able to understand
the term euthanasia. In ancient Greece, eu thanatos meant easy death. Today s euthanasia generally refers to mercy killing, the
voluntary ending of the life of someone who is terminally or hopelessly ill (Euthanasia 1). Knowing that, it is seemingly appropriate to
say that one has the right to die an easy death if, and only if, he is terminally ill. Otherwise, different situations should not play any
part in this issue. To understand more about the pro-euthanasia side of this issue, it is best conceived through the viewpoints, strong
beliefs, and perspectives of proponents of euthanasia.
An individual has liberty, which includes the right of owning his life. He is the possessor of his life. Just as he can do whatever
he wishes with his possessions, such as selling his new house, he can also wish to discontinue his life if the reasons were rational. In a
typical situation, a person has some terrible, deadly disease. He is trapped in a hospital bed, with all sorts of medical equipment
connected to him, unable to move or do much of anything except exist. He is in terrible pain; he begs to have these machines
disconnected so he can go home and live out whatever life he has left and die in peace. He does not want to endure the pain, but
instead, to assuage it. However, the doctors refuse because to turn off the machines would surely result in his death, and they have
a presumed bias against doing this. If a person decides that he wants to die, and someone does not think that this is a good decision,
what right does the opposing person have to tell him that he cannot do this? It is clear that a patient s decision to ask for a cessation
in treatment, reflecting his own preference for death rather than for a continuation of discomfort or suffering, must be respected,
barring exceptional circumstances (Behnke 17). Therefore, that individual s decision should be carried out because he has that right
to his own personal decision, which is only one of many reasons why euthanasia should be legalized.
In addition, one should have the right to end his life by euthanasia because of the unsolicited pain, suffering, and misery he
feels due to the disease he has or the condition he is in. People in this position would most likely want to alleviate their pain,
suffering, and depression just to name a few partially because of the inconveniences, emotional and physical burdens, and
drawbacks imposed on family members, relatives, and friends. Furthermore, family members may be sensitive to the costs
accumulating during terminal care (Hagen 91). Consequently, patients may feel guilty in this entire ordeal. Even more, people who,
maybe because of a serious illness, are extremely depressed partly because they want to live their lives to the fullest by perhaps
participating in energetic and active events but know that that is not possible now that they are severely ill and sick. Since they
recognize that enjoying life in those ways is no longer possible, they may want an easy way out euthanasia. Others simply do not
want to sustain suffering. Everybody has different amounts of pain and suffering that he/she can tolerate (Behnke 17). In considering
suffering of terminal patients, one cannot exclude from thought the grief due to distress, fear, and agony. Nor must anyone
underestimate the bearable level of pain in the periods between doses of medication or simply from being turned over in bed. There
is still too little known about what is actually experienced by patients as they approach death so it is evident that the individual, and
only the individual, has the right to choose when he wants to die. These factors, along with unwanted suffering, pain, and misery are
only some of the components considered in allowing the act of euthanasia.
The final element worthy of discussion in legalizing euthanasia is an individual s frustration in living, in his opinion, a valueless
life after becoming critically ill. People who suffer from illnesses that make them unable to communicate do not want to live any
longer. This includes people who are in a coma, are paralyzed, or simply so sick and weak that they cannot make meaningful sounds
or other communication. If the person is no longer able to relate in any way to his relatives and friends, he might not want to live a
day further (Bender 28). In addition to that, some people believe that their quality of life is so low that they would rather die. If this
is the case, then what position do others have to go against this? No one other than the patient has any right to deny the patient his
way of dying. Therefore, euthanasia should and must be a legal choice.
Like any other issue, there are opposing viewpoints regarding the legalization of euthanasia. Pro-lifers, people who are
against euthanasia, place the emphasis on killing. They believe that we are merely stewards of our lives; it is for God to decide when
our lives are to end. Further, suffering, is an inevitable part of life; our task is to understand and grow from suffering, not evade it
(Mabie 65). Pro-euthanasia people, who place the emphasis on mercy, argue that stewardship has not prevented the religious from
exercising control in other areas of their lives for example, in using analgesics for surgery and childbirth. If it is for God to decide
when life will end, if suffering is ennobling, then the very practice of medicine is and always has been wrong. Further, they hold that
theological arguments against euthanasia pertain only to the religious; the constitutional separation of church and state requires
that opposition to euthanasia on theological grounds alone not be codified in law Mabie 66). Therefore, the counter-argument
against euthanasia was objectionable and absurd. In our increasingly secular society, many believe that humans are sovereigns, not
stewards, of their own lives. For them, it follows that respect for autonomy should mean respect for a person s decision to end his or
her life. How can we demand that someone endure unbearable pain just so that we can be morally comfortable (Mabie 67)? Other
arguments facing this issue focus on medical grounds. Critics say that diagnosis can be wrong. Furthermore, a cure for what is today
incurable might be found tomorrow. And what of informed consent? Can a patient struggling with pain and the enormity of death
make a truly rational decision to end his or her life (Mabie 65)? Pro-euthanasia people debate that diagnoses can be wrong, but for
the most part they are very accurate, especially when disease is so far advanced that euthanasia is discussed. At that stage death will
not be held off even if a miracle cure is found. Proponents of legalizing euthanasia respect the trust that springs from the physician-
patient relationship. But they feel sure that that essential trust can be protected by establishing tight procedures to ensure that
euthanasia is not abused (Mabie 67). Just as before, the pro-lifers are proven wrong.
Individual liberty, undesired misery, pain, and suffering, and one’s frustration in having a worthless life all serve as critical
circumstances to be considered thoroughly in legalizing the act of euthanasia everywhere. Euthanasia is a death option that should
not raise controversy if performed solely in the appropriate predicaments mentioned earlier. Knowing this, shouldn’ t euthanasia be
legalized? The solution to that question would have to be yes. Coming to an end, the crux of this matter is summarized in one simple
sentence: The emphasis of euthanasia should be placed on the purpose of the act, not the nature of the act (Bender 50).
http://www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/Euthanasia/15443.htm
 Stay-at-Home Moms
Paola Brown

Anita Renfroe wrote these catchy words for the song “Momisms”, sung to the familiar tune of the William Tell Overture. Her words best
describe a typical day of mayhem through the eyes of a mother. Mothers who stay at home know that at times, their lives can be
discombobulating. Despite the chaos, stay-at-home mothers get the tremendous responsibility of only having one chance of raising their children in
such a way that makes a difference in their children’s lives and in society.
Throughout history, society has looked upon the male as the breadwinner: the one expected to work and support the family. The mother
has been viewed as the nurturer: the one to stay home and raise the children. During the 1960’s, women wanted more rights, power, and the
ability to get higher paying jobs. Women were given this right so they expressed this new found freedom by going to work outside of the home. As
women sought employment, their children were left to the care of babysitters and day care workers. Because society has redefined the role of a
mother to be one who is an important element in the workforce, the loss of the mother in the home has led to the decline of the family unit, and
thus, to society. This forfeiture has created a generation for whom social morals and values are not as important as they once were. Perhaps this is
due to a working mother being absent from the home where she is unable to personally instill these ethical standards in her children, thus leaving
her children to receive their value system from strangers. “Society truly does begin at home”, asserts Sibyl Niemann, so, in order to return to a
culture with better morals and values, the importance of the role of the stay at home mother should be restored. (2) In this way, stay at home
mothers can improve society.
It is disappointing when mothers are devalued for staying at home to raise their children. Richard Lowry states, “There is something
valuable in a mother’s caring for her own child.” (4) In general, no one can take care of your child in the same way his or her mother would. A
mother’s care is usually superior to daycare since she naturally wants what is best for her child. “According to a non-partisan Public Agenda survey
in 2000, roughly 80 percent of parents with children five and younger say a stay-at-home parent is best able to give children the “affection and
attention they need.”” (qtd. in Lowry 4)
A mother’s individual care can also curb the aggression that is evident in day care centers. “A study done by the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), reports that, kids in non-maternal care tend to be associated with qualities such as “gets in lots of
fights,” “cruelty,” “explosive behavior,” “talking too much,” “argues a lot,” and “demands a lot of attention.”” (qtd. in Lowry 1) Teachers who work
in a preschool environment, like my daughter, are frustrated with how badly the children usually behave. Workers in day care are governed by
strict rules which prevent disciplining children the way one can do at home. This causes a disregard and loss of respect for others because many
children grow up thinking they can do what they want. Today, many of the younger generation act like they are owed something. In the workplace,
it is shocking to see the way they treat others with their degrading manners and think there is nothing wrong with their behavior. They also tend to
have lazy work ethics and “cop an attitude” when asked to do anything extra. This makes it difficult for many employers to find hard working and
respectful employees.
It is important to note that not all children in daycare grow up to be aggressive and unproductive adults. Even though many women in the
work force find raising children to be a very difficult task which leaves them feeling lonely and bored, they do a fine job of balancing their jobs with
raising successful children. These women enjoy being able to show their children the advantages of working outside of the home. They are able to
“teach their children how to be independent, inquisitive, and ambitious”, as well as “learn the value of personal fulfillment and goal setting.”
(Karaim 1) Reed Karaim also proclaims that, “successful working mothers give their children one of the best gifts any parent can: the example of a
life lived to its potential.” (3) I think that all of these examples are helpful in raising successful children, however, I believe a stay at home mom can
also teach these same qualities in the home. I know this to be true because I was fortunate to remain at home and raise my children. I was the one
who was the nurturer and demonstrated love and compassion to my children by hugging, cuddling, and kissing them. I was personally involved in
teaching them throughout all the stages of development and shared in the joy of my children’s accomplishments. There is something special about
hearing your child’s first word and watching them take their first step as they giggle with glee. I was able to mold my children’s character by
instilling good values and morals that taught them to be independent and set goals for themselves, such as being on time for work and
appointments. These attributes have helped to contribute to society in a positive way and leave me feeling as if I have done a good job.
Despite the seemingly successful results of a stay at home mom’s efforts, “our culture no longer values the household supported by a
sole breadwinner.” (Niemann 3) This is demonstrated by the many women who currently do work outside of the home because they feel the need
to contribute to their families’ well being. According to Niemann, “everything—from buying a house to applying for a college loan for one’s son or
daughter—seems structured around the two income family.” (3) A household that has a dual income helps “boost many families into middle
class.”, says Karaim. (2) This allows their children to experience the comforts, options for education and opportunities that they might otherwise
not have had.
As tempting as this extra income may be, couples should be careful that this does not impact their relationship as husband and wife.
When spouses compete for power in the workforce and then return home too tired to deal with the many needs of their children, the harmony of
the family unit can suffer. This is because husbands often feel threatened by the success of their wives. Steven Rhoads claims that “men are more
likely to divorce women who are ambitious.” (5) Lowry explains that “just the specter of divorce creates a kind of intra-marital arms race. The wife
works to hedge against getting abandoned, but her very act of working, research shows, makes it more likely that the marriage will fail—a
dismaying downward spiral.” (3) Since divorces negatively impact society, we should refocus on preserving marriage and on strengthening the
family unit. When men and women are happy and comfortable in their roles as the father breadwinner, and mother-caregiver, marriages can
thrive.
Women who do remain at home should not hide behind their children or husbands but instead should be proud of their role. They should
be vocal about how productive they are with their children and family. This allows working women and men to see and appreciate the importance
of the role of a stay at home mom. Perhaps they will see for themselves the advantages of remaining at home and raising their children. According
to Lowry, “most women would like to stay home and care for their children, but society pressures them into believing that a career is more
important than family.” (1) Unless some changes are made, the family unit will continue to decline. Less time spent with children building character
increases the risk for disregarding and disrespecting others. The current attitudes of “you owe me”, “I deserve it”, as well as “it is all about me” will
probably continue to get worse.
Even though being a stay-at-home mom may have periods of loneliness, boredom, frustration, and feelings of futility, the rewards of
being personally involved with raising one’s own children greatly outweigh the negatives. One of the greatest accomplishments in life is being a
stay-at-home mom where one can teach and model good behavior and moral fortitude. By emulating these morals and values, children enter into
adulthood with the necessary tools needed to produce a successful society. As tough as this unpaid task may be, this self-sacrifice of staying at
home to raise ones’ children can be the most society enhancing job a woman can do.

https://www.mesacc.edu/~paoih30491/ArgumentEssay5.pdf