The debate on abortion is one that seems to divide people based on values expressed as rights. Some people cling on rights of the person aborting (prochoice) while others think of the rights of the unborn child (prolife). The prochoice and the prolife go at each other on an issue that to me is a moral issue. Some moral issues although universal, need to have meaning for the individual to be of any effect.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008, abortion is the “expulsion of the products of conception before the embryo or fetus is viable. Any interruption of human pregnancy prior to the 28th week is known as abortion. The term spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, is used to signify delivery of a nonviable embryo or fetus due to fetal or maternal factors, as opposed to purposely induced abortion. Therapeutic abortion is an induced abortion performed to preserve the health or life of the mother.”
If this definition is to be accepted, then it seems there are two types of abortion. One done purposely because the mother wants to regardless of the reason and the other one is done on the recommendation of a doctor with the aim of preserving the health or life of the mother. The word “viable” in this case connotes “capable of living outside the uterus”. We all know that it takes 9 months of pregnancy for a child to be fully matured for birth. Note I use the word child because as far as I am concerned once conception takes place then the child starts developing until he/she is ready to be born.
To justify abortion many try to deny the fact that the foetus is human and therefore deserving protection. Abortion is therefore seen as an easy way out for a woman who is faced with a dilemma of being pregnant but not wanting to carry the child to term. Many times I have heard people say it is just a mass of blood and so it is okay. This is the greatest deception that people have fallen into. I went for a scan when I was 10 weeks pregnant with my son and I was shocked to see all his features developed and him very active in my womb. Yet I was told he was only the size of a pea.
Read more: http://socyberty.com/issues/let-conscience-and-thought-direct-the-abortion-debate/
This is a blog that I educate and express my opinions on some health and mental Health issues. Different therapies used in psychotherapy are also discussed.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Integration Of Psychology And Theology: A Critique
Martin & Deidre Bobgan, in their book "psychoHeresy: The psychological seduction of Christianity", 1987, deals with the areas of concern for Christians concerning integration of psychology and theology.
They talk of four myths about psychology in the church that have led Christians to believe that there is a need for psychological intervention.
The four Myths are:
a) Psychotherapy is a science - a means of understanding and helping humanity based on empirical evidence from measurable consistent data
b) The best kind of counseling utilizes both psychology and the Bible.
c) People who are experiencing mental-emotional behavioral problems are mentally ill - they are psychological sick and therefore need psychological therapy
d) Psychotherapy has a high record of success compared to Biblical counseling
Is Psychology a Religion?
Martin & Deidre Bobgan argues that “since God’s word tell us how to live, all ideas about the why’s of behavior and how's of change must be viewed as religious in nature” (Psychoheresy: the Psycho seduction of Christianity, 1987). While the Bible claims divine revelation, psychotherapy claims scientific substantiation. When it comes to behavior and other attitudes, morals and values, we are dealing with religion. According to them Psychotherapy haunts the church because “it is perceived as a scientific salve for the sick soul, than for what it truly is; a pseudoscientific substitute system of religious belief”.
Neil T. Anderson, Julianne S Zuehlke and Terry Zuehlke also support this view in their book Christ centered therapy: The practical integration of Theology and Psychology 1987. They state that Psychotherapists and other health professionals have become the “primary caregivers and dispensers of moral guidance in our society” (Neil T Anderson et al p. 18). David Nobel, as quoted by Neil t. Anderson et al, states “trying to separate the sacred from the secular is like trying to sear the soul from the body-we must recognize that all world views have religious implications” (Neil t Anderson et al p. 38)
Read more at http://www.bukisa.com/articles/273010_integration-of-psychology-and-theology-a-critique
They talk of four myths about psychology in the church that have led Christians to believe that there is a need for psychological intervention.
The four Myths are:
a) Psychotherapy is a science - a means of understanding and helping humanity based on empirical evidence from measurable consistent data
b) The best kind of counseling utilizes both psychology and the Bible.
c) People who are experiencing mental-emotional behavioral problems are mentally ill - they are psychological sick and therefore need psychological therapy
d) Psychotherapy has a high record of success compared to Biblical counseling
Is Psychology a Religion?
Martin & Deidre Bobgan argues that “since God’s word tell us how to live, all ideas about the why’s of behavior and how's of change must be viewed as religious in nature” (Psychoheresy: the Psycho seduction of Christianity, 1987). While the Bible claims divine revelation, psychotherapy claims scientific substantiation. When it comes to behavior and other attitudes, morals and values, we are dealing with religion. According to them Psychotherapy haunts the church because “it is perceived as a scientific salve for the sick soul, than for what it truly is; a pseudoscientific substitute system of religious belief”.
Neil T. Anderson, Julianne S Zuehlke and Terry Zuehlke also support this view in their book Christ centered therapy: The practical integration of Theology and Psychology 1987. They state that Psychotherapists and other health professionals have become the “primary caregivers and dispensers of moral guidance in our society” (Neil T Anderson et al p. 18). David Nobel, as quoted by Neil t. Anderson et al, states “trying to separate the sacred from the secular is like trying to sear the soul from the body-we must recognize that all world views have religious implications” (Neil t Anderson et al p. 38)
Read more at http://www.bukisa.com/articles/273010_integration-of-psychology-and-theology-a-critique
A commentary on Viktor E. Frankl’s book “Man’s search for meaning”
Man’s search for meaning is a narration of one man’s experience inside a concentration camp and the fight for existence.
This is not a book, in my experience, that one can read in a sitting as a narration of an event that took place in the past. Although written by a humanist, the writer found the principles that the author highlights, are basic Biblical principles. This writer had to pause on many occasions to reflect on the magnitude of the events taking place at the concentration camp. At times the writer found herself crying with the prisoners as she imagined their torture. As the writer read the book, many times she had to pause to reflect on her own life and some of the challenges she had encountered. This led to a realization that all her experiences served a purpose.
As the writer read through the pages, she realized that she had been asking the wrong questions about her life. Everything in life happens for a reason; even suffering can define our destiny. Indeed Christ identified His destiny as dying for the salvation of the human race and found meaning in it. The only thing that we truly own and are masters of is our will. Anything else can be taken away or restored but once we lose our will to live we lose everything.
For full reading turn to http://www.bukisa.com/articles/249873_a-commentary-on-viktor-e-frankls-book-mans-search-for-meaning
This is not a book, in my experience, that one can read in a sitting as a narration of an event that took place in the past. Although written by a humanist, the writer found the principles that the author highlights, are basic Biblical principles. This writer had to pause on many occasions to reflect on the magnitude of the events taking place at the concentration camp. At times the writer found herself crying with the prisoners as she imagined their torture. As the writer read the book, many times she had to pause to reflect on her own life and some of the challenges she had encountered. This led to a realization that all her experiences served a purpose.
As the writer read through the pages, she realized that she had been asking the wrong questions about her life. Everything in life happens for a reason; even suffering can define our destiny. Indeed Christ identified His destiny as dying for the salvation of the human race and found meaning in it. The only thing that we truly own and are masters of is our will. Anything else can be taken away or restored but once we lose our will to live we lose everything.
For full reading turn to http://www.bukisa.com/articles/249873_a-commentary-on-viktor-e-frankls-book-mans-search-for-meaning
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
How to communicate and resolve conflict effectively
Effective communication can be the key to resolving conflict while ineffective communication often may be the cause of and exacerbate conflict. This comment was made in a paper presented by (Schwartz, Howard, Szeto, Mary Ping, Stewart, Carol, 1999) in a workshop for the Nonprofit Coordinating committee of New York.
Among factors recognized as affecting communication were conscious or unconscious “screens”. This can include values, perceptions, assumptions, body language, facial expressions, emotional status, and physical appearances, past personal experiences, stereotypes, cultural differences, nationality, race and gender, one’s use of the English language, and positioning and power.
Five broad styles of dealing with conflict are identified to include;
1) the accommodating style which entails giving in maybe because the relationship is more important than the conflict.
2) The competing style which involves win/lose scenario where one person gets what he wants at the expense of another.
3) The avoiding style where the conflict is not addressed at all.
4) The compromising style where one party meets the other half way usually giving up something in order to get something and
5) the collaborating style where the parties equally value their relationship and each others needs
For full article turn to http://www.bukisa.com/articles/250757_how-to-communicate-and-resolve-conflict-effectively
Among factors recognized as affecting communication were conscious or unconscious “screens”. This can include values, perceptions, assumptions, body language, facial expressions, emotional status, and physical appearances, past personal experiences, stereotypes, cultural differences, nationality, race and gender, one’s use of the English language, and positioning and power.
Five broad styles of dealing with conflict are identified to include;
1) the accommodating style which entails giving in maybe because the relationship is more important than the conflict.
2) The competing style which involves win/lose scenario where one person gets what he wants at the expense of another.
3) The avoiding style where the conflict is not addressed at all.
4) The compromising style where one party meets the other half way usually giving up something in order to get something and
5) the collaborating style where the parties equally value their relationship and each others needs
For full article turn to http://www.bukisa.com/articles/250757_how-to-communicate-and-resolve-conflict-effectively
Friday, February 19, 2010
Why I do not support the death Penalty
The model of punishment has been used in many nations for punishment of various crimes notably of which is murder, robbery with violence and treason. The mode of death could be by hanging, lethal injection, electrocution or stoning to death as in countries of the Middle East.
Most of the times the family of the victims may even want it so badly because they assume by the person dying they feel justice will have been met. So to them an eye for eye serves the purpose of justice. Murder no doubt is a heinous crime and deserves grave consequences for the one committing the crime. But is another killing the solution?
The justice system aims at preventing crime, punishing those who offend the law, bring retribution to the offended while trying to rehabilitate the offender. The main reason really is to provide justice however that may look like. The question that we must all ask is how does the state committing the same act that the offender is convicted of help in curbing such crimes? Do we as human beings have the right to decide who should live and who should die?
For full article turn to http://socyberty.com/issues/why-i-do-not-support-the-death-penalty/
Most of the times the family of the victims may even want it so badly because they assume by the person dying they feel justice will have been met. So to them an eye for eye serves the purpose of justice. Murder no doubt is a heinous crime and deserves grave consequences for the one committing the crime. But is another killing the solution?
The justice system aims at preventing crime, punishing those who offend the law, bring retribution to the offended while trying to rehabilitate the offender. The main reason really is to provide justice however that may look like. The question that we must all ask is how does the state committing the same act that the offender is convicted of help in curbing such crimes? Do we as human beings have the right to decide who should live and who should die?
For full article turn to http://socyberty.com/issues/why-i-do-not-support-the-death-penalty/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)