Human Responsibility

       Recognizing that we as the human race have created and discovered so may different things that are instrumental to our health and well-being now, we continue to pillage on in the dark to solve many more mysteries and to chart the diminishing unknown. The field of genetics and its link to diseases and possible cures is such an uncharted territory and to launch into a lengthy project of experimentation would cost much time and money. The unanswered questions about whether scientists should be able to pinpoint the genes of various diseases are controversial. Should scientists inform parents if their fetus has certain traits that are linked to a certain disease that does not have a cure yet? Is it their choice? Who should fund the research, if anyone, and how should it be monitored? Should people be informed it there is still no antidote? Where will the experimentation stop/where are the boundaries? 
         In response to at least some of these question which have no real right or wrong answer, will we, as a nation allow the diagnosis of a doctor control what we do with our children? All too often, the answer is overwhelmingly yes. "It could increase abortions for reasons that have little to do with medical issues and more to do with parental preferences for traits in children." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/health/tests-of-parents-are-used-to-map-genes-of-a-fetus.html?src=me&ref=general
Are we that shallow that we only care for things the way we want them? How will the world turnout if we control the future now with our decisions of how we would like our children to turn out? Is there such thing as de-diversification? Who would regulate the proceedings when/if they come out and are not to expensive for an average person to have?
           At the same time that knowledge without being able to do anything about it can be very painful. Imagine knowing that your future son/daughter is going to have Marfan Syndrome, and then also acknowledge that there is no "cure" for this genetic mutation. This is not far from what parents today have had to deal with and those who have had it before the disease was found. We didn't die, we survived, we lived. Before there was a polio vaccine, people were treated and then overjoyed when Jonas Salk created the vaccination. But even then, it was not yet mass produced and available to the public. It was a luxury that some parents could not afford. So is this going to be a parallel situation, where those who are rich will simply abort the "problem" children before they are born while the lower class has to "suffer" through loving them and getting them the care they need. This is not the only possible course of action, some say that ignorance is bliss and it can be argued that the needy are what makes the world go 'round. They teach us patience, selflessness and kindness; caring for someone who may not be able to do it themselves is a rite that every human being should shoulder equally. Which is also why I believe that it should be everyone's job to pitch in for the cure to these genetic diseases. 
            All in all, if we are going to research and find all kinds of new discoveries concerning genetics, perhaps we should create some boundaries for ourselves before we even begin. Yes, this is exciting and this is the future, we can choose our children not to have diseases or to have there personality traits that we like, but the ethics behind this are numerous and very arguable on both sides.

What's Correct?

This week’s discussion was predominantly focused on the controversial issues revolving around the phenomena of sperm donations and how parents sometimes choose whether or not to keep their child simply based on the fact of whether or not they’ll grow up to be “beautiful” .  Towards the end of the class though, the whole topic of basing the whole abortion decision merely on trifling aspects was the most commotion-generating topic.  Before this whole discussion, when I heard the term abortion, I usually associated it with tragic events culminating to this process such as incest or rape. But, as we got into the fact that in our day and age the majority of abortions are simply due to insignificant factors such as potential appearances - well let’s just say that now it’s apparent why older generations criticize the younger generations so much.  Personally, I see it as alarming that parents choose to terminate a life simply because the child is not what the parents are looking for. I would completely understand if everything was different – if the decision was based on more serious factors. Although I would understand, I completely agree with Daniel when he opinionates that he cannot bring himself to see a mother having in an abortion based on the fact that the child might be born with a disorder or another serious problem. To me personally, all the previously mentioned reasons for abortion are not substantial enough. Why would you not give the baby a chance to live? Why would you end any hopes of bringing in another being into the world? Should insignificant aspects such as appearances and disadvantages dictate whether you are to live or die? What if you were the baby? Would you still essentially terminate a life based on these trivial factors? How do these outweigh the wonders of living? Even if you were truly unwilling to care for such a blessing, there are other alternatives. Why not simply put the baby up for abortion? I’m fairly sure that there is a mother out there, who because she was unfortunately unable to engender a child, who is more than willing to care for a baby. An abortion is not something that should be taken lightly. 

Issues Concerning Sperm Donation

          This week we talked about infectious disease and somehow got side tracked into talking about sperm donation, and how people chose whether to abort their kids more for the fact that they won't be what they want aesthetically, rather than for reasons like rape. This then led to the question of whether or not donated sperm should be tested to see if it is positive for certain traits like diseases or just aesthetic traits.  I personally feel that the government shouldn't force themselves into paying for all these donations to be tested. I feel this way because we have so many problem with money in the government now that I don't feel it would be smart for us to put the financial burden of funding thousands of genetic tests for these donations. Instead, I think the people that want the donations should pay for the tests themselves if they are very concerned about what the donation is positive for. While I would feel sympathy for those that cannot afford this testing, I just don't feel it would be wise for the government to get involved in trying to pay for testing the donation they hope to get. In addition to this, if they cannot afford the testing, maybe they wouldn't be able to afford to have a family as well.
          Another issue I would like to talk about is the issue of whether or not someone should abort a child because he or she has been diagnosed with a mental disorder. While I understand that it would take great sacrifice to raise a child with a mental disorder, I cannot bring myself to see aborting a child because they would have that kind of problem. For starters, just because they would have that problem, it wouldn't mean that they will have no life worth living. In addition to this, if you really feel like you cannot raise a child like that, then you can always put the child up for adoption. Finally, I want to address the fact that I do understand that there are great sacrifices in raising a child with mental disorders, but I cannot bring myself to feel that it is alright to abort that child because of those sacrifices when you can put the baby up for adoption.
          I just want to conclude by saying these are my personal opinions and that I am not trying to influence anyone else's ideas or to start a problem or conflict with other people here who feel differently.

Is Knowledge Always Power

          In this day and age invasive procedures and modern technologies, also known as scientific progress, have helped cure diseases, treat medical anomalies, and furthered life expectancies. But, along with all these benefits, comes a great deal of responsibility and complication. Recently, researchers have developed methods by which they are able to determine the genome of a fetus by obtaining only a blood sample from the mother and saliva sample from the father. The process is deemed as “impractical and not affordable enough for now”, but in 3-5 years may be commonly used and inexpensive.  Now, although this procedure is a revolutionary discovery, the results may render ethical and moral problems for potential parents of the fetus.

         DNA sequencing results can be used to highlight whether diseases or genetic abnormalities are present in a fetus. I think that this knowledge is advantageous, but incredibly harmful at the same time. The DNA results will allow potential parents to be aware if their child will be born with any defects and allow them to prepare for the process of dealing with whatever lies ahead (benefit) or the results may enable the potential parents to want to abort the baby because they don’t want to deal with a defective fetus (advantage). I understand that research is used to further knowledge, but maybe some things are just meant to be unknown. I know that this type of research will allow people to change their fates, but it will also increase the abortion rate. Perhaps many would argue aborting a fetus because it has a Mendelian disorder (i.e. tay sachs disease, marfan syndrome, etc) is superficial and that the parents of that fetus are selfish because they do not want to bring themselves to take care of a child who is destined to a life filled with obstacles. But the other side would argue that it is a very difficult job to take care of a child with such medical disorders and that they would rather not deal with a life of having to take care of a 24/7 dependent child (which is understandable).

               This is an incredibly sensitive issue and I applaud those who are able to remain objective when trying to make a decision based on the knowledge that is handed to them by a simple test. No life is inconsequential, but a fetus that does not have the ability to sustain life independently after exiting the womb may not be seen as necessary for some people, thus they might choose to abort the fetus. Aborting fetuses that suffer from disorders says something about humanity; it doesn’t show that humans necessarily lack empathy, but it does say that the decisions of humans have become significantly altered by the knowledge obtained from a doctor’s results.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/health/tests-of-parents-are-used-to-map-genes-of-a-fetus.html?src=me&ref=general

Consider This

On Tuesday, we talked about a few things that got myself thinking about alternatives and effects.  The potential aftermath must also be taken into account. 

We talked about the ability to choose characteristics for embryos and the possibility of regulating the selection process.  It is understandable why parents would go through all the testing and sorting to ensure the best quality life for their children and to give their children the best opportunities in life.  Although it would be beneficial since laws would prevent the uprising of a superior race and the abortion of fetus deemed “not favorable”, I feel that creating rules would not limit the ability to choose the physical characteristics and talents a child would have.  Many families, especially those who can afford it, would find alternatives in other countries.  An example of this was during the time preceding the Supreme Court Case Roe vs. Wade where women were not allowed to have abortions in the US but migrated to Mexico where abortions were not regulated.  The same would happen today if we discouraged parents from having their designer babies.

We also talked about genetic screening to see if people are carrier for different diseases and cancers.  However, while we mainly talked about screening of teenagers and adults as a result of family history, we forgot to mention the screening of pregnant women.  These screenings determine if the fetus is born with life threatening diseases or with genetic mutations and abnormalities.  This has thus greatly impacted the rate of abortion (1 out of 3 women will have at least 1 abortion, so in our class, 2 of us). The increased ability to get rid of the child we do not want actually negatively impacts the number of carriers for a certain disease.  Take for example a couple where both the male and the female are carriers for Tay-Sachs.  If we follow the Punnett Square logic, there is a 25% chance the baby will be born with Tay-Sachs and a 75% chance the baby will be born without Tay-Sachs.  But there is a 50% chance the baby will be a carrier and a 25% chance the baby will not be a carrier. If we compare this to a couple where one is a carrier and the other is not, there is a 50/50 chance of being a carrier and not being a carrier.  Suddenly, it seems like everyone has the gene to pass to his or her child!

(I would also like to comment on Mr. Bonamo’s question on insurance companies paying for genetic testing that he mentioned in his post.  With the introduction of genetic testing and screening, people would be more curious to know if they are a carrier for diseases.  As a result, insurance companies would be more selective about who they wish to insure and are likely to deny a person coverage if he or she has the oinka genes for cancer.  Whether or not this person actually has cancer would not matter anymore, but the potential to have cancer based on genetics is more important).

Biomedical Issues that arise with Fetal Genomes

                 Although I was absent on Tuesday, reading Mr.Bonamo's post and the links he put up initiated many questions in my mind. The ability to take  blood specimen, prenatal tissue, or fraternal saliva to recreate the genome of a fetus is an incredible breakthrough in the scientific community, especially when DNA sequencing technology is becoming faster and more affordable.
                  However, such advancements bring on a test of biomedical ethics. As mentioned in the NYTimes article, the acquirement of fetal cells through invasive testing can potentially cause a miscarriage. Although the chances of this possibility are not likely, I don't think a lot of parents would be willing to take the risk. Another issue that comes up is using the information gained from a fetal genome responsibly. What about couples that concieve a child through in-vitro fertilization? With the new technology available, they can have the embryo genetically tested for diseases. And what if they find out the embryo is positive for Down's Syndrome or Tay-Sachs disease? They might not want that embryo and move on to the next. And it can get worse; what if couples want a baby with certain traits? Blonde hair and blue eyes? There's nothing wrong with wanting such traits, but is it ethical to be that selective and have the right to choose between traits? If that were to happen, imagine what would happen to diversity and randomization in America. No parent want their child to have a disease or disorder, but it doesn't make it okay to reject a child that isn't seemingly perfect. So if DNA technology was abused and parents did get to choose what kind of baby they wanted, then for each rejection of an embryo, a life would be lost. Actually, many lives would be lost because that one fetus, that one child, is equal to however many generations it would have preceded. And to add on to that loss, abortion rates would certainly rise.
                  My point is, DNA sequencing and the recreation of whole genomes can be as helpful as they can be dangerous. With great success comes great responsibility.  I think if such techniques were made available to the public in 3-5 years, the issues I mentioned above should be taken into consideration and rules should be instilled to assure that the technology is not abused.

Infectious Diseases, Genetic Testing, and Medical Ethics

(Many thanks to Nazifa for these articles)

Dealing with infections diseases and advancements in human genetics provides several questions with regard to medical ethics.

For example, there is an uptick in an infectious disease known as Chagas disease, that can be fatal and that is now spread through mosquitoes.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/science/spread-of-chagas-is-called-the-new-aids-of-the-americas.html?_r=1  The question this provokes, similar to our West Nile virus problem, is whether the need for health safety overrides concerns about environmental and ecological damage in using insecticides or other pest control methods.  In addition, from where will the resources come to protect populations in countries with limited resources?

We now have the power to do several kinds of genetic testing on humans.  In fact, diseases can be found to have genetic foundations.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/science/many-rare-mutations-may-underpin-diseases.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1338649721-zq+0oFL98KtbvNZvroVprA  Will we (or insurance companies) foot the bill for expensive genetic testing for diseases, if we do not yet have the ability to treat these genetic defects and prevent the diseases?  In a similar vein, since some diseases are passed from parents to children, untested donated sperm can give a woman a baby with a genetic defect.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/health/in-sperm-banks-a-matrix-of-untested-genetic-diseases.html?pagewanted=all  Should genetic testing of sperm and egg donations and/or donors be uniform and/or mandatory?  Should the offspring allowed from one donor be limited to a specific number?  Should potential parents be able to make selection of sperm, eggs, and/or fetuses on the basis of genetic test results?  Should this be limited to health-related characteristics, or be expanded to include other traits such as race, sex, intelligence, height, etc.?

Finally, it has been determined that both warfare and contact sports result in similar brain injuries: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/brain-disease-is-found-in-veterans-exposed-to-bombs.html?pagewanted=all.  Should military personnel be better protected from these injuries, or is the known inherent risk of injury or death implicit in military enrollment enough to cover these brain injuries?  Put otherwise, is modern warfare so dangerous to make it incompatible with the human condition?  (Advances in war-zone medical treatment have decreased deaths but increased casualties, meaning that far more soldiers survive with far more serious injuries than previously.)  Also, should intense contact sports, such as football, be limited to older athletes; should they be banned entirely; or is this concern just a sign of our increasing softness as a society?  Remember, in the old days football and hockey players didn't even wear helmets.

Lots of questions, which will hopefully spur lots of discussion for our last week together.  See you Tuesday.

Can Egypt Truly Become Liberal?

                Can democracy truly be implemented in an Islamic society? That is the question I ultimately drew from the video we watched on Tuesday. This here video served two purposes. First, to repudiate the American media's general view of the Middle East, bringing a much needed sense of diversification to an overly generalized topic. Second, to shed light on the political situation that is currently happening in Egypt. As of right now, Egypt is nearing the ends of revolution - that is to say - a political revolution. After President Hosni Mubarak was removed from offices, the country has endured fifteen months of militaristic rule. The fifteen months have been filled with nothing but protests, economic crises and just general anarchy that have resulted from the soon-to-be occupied political seat. But as Harvey Dent said, "The night is darkest just before the dawn". The darkness left behind by Mubarak's dictatorship is now being followed by one thing: Democracy. An idea that is almost seemingly inconceivable is now taking hold of the country. For the first time ever, the citizens have the right to elect their own president despite the unpredictability of the election: the polls are not reliable and the looming threat of a run-off. Despite the cry for reformation, two of the running candidates are former ministers from ex-President Mubarak's former government. This already poses a threat to the newly found sense of potential democracy. And even more pressing is the idea of an amalgamation between Islam and liberalized views. Being a country that has inherently been under strict religious regulation for the last few thousand years, it is no wonder that opinions are divided. Change is terrifying but sometimes it is inevitable, especially when the views of the young contrast those of the old. Although some might argue that democracy is impossible for a country that intertwines religion and government so closely, they are forgetting that our democracy is a reinterpretation of the one used so long ago in ancient Greece. In fact, religion has long dominated politics. A religious government may in fact serve to keep the people united, especially in a time as trying as this.

Does One Size Fit all?

The US assumes a "one-size-fits-all" solution for all international governments, failing to take into account the desires of the people. Pretending that we are still in the Golden Age of America, we continue to export democracy around the world. It has been a successful system for us as a country; surely, it would be beneficial elsewhere. However, this is not the case. In Egypt, for instance, the Egyptians may choose a president that the US views as malignant to US interests. If they do choose such a president, is the US allowed to intervene and change their choice? Of course not. If the US did intervene to change their president, the US would be no better than all of European countries that once lorded over the colonies. It would go against the US's perception of itself.
In February, the Egyptian government brought criminal charges against the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute. The US immediately objected and this dispute could cause problems in the Middle East, especially since Egypt is one of the US's best Middle Eastern allies. They could  not understand; what was wrong with supporting democracy? But if you picture the situation in reverse, it becomes clear what exactly Egypt was unhappy with. Imagine no explanation as to why your form of government is wrong. Imagine free Korans being handed out in the streets. Imagine the encouragement of jihad, a word not even fully understood by most Americans. Imagine a country with no shorts or tank tops or any "immodest" attire. Imagine what the uproar would be like if Egypt had asked that of us. Americans demand equality, youth empowerment, and secularization. None of this fits into the desires of Egypt. Admittedly, it is regrettable that some parts of democracy (particularly gender equality) are rejected because of cultural traditions but these are issues that Egypt must sort out by itself -- if it turns out to be an issue at all. After all, foreign policy is meant to create allies of the US, not clones of American society. Even so, American democracy isn't the only type of democracy; perhaps Egypt could develop its own working government where religion and government are appropriately balanced.
If we consider our cinema, is it any wonder why a country like Egypt wouldn't want to be like us?

Taste And See

Democracy, some might argue, is an acquired taste, similar to that of a child warming up to the prospects of eating an entire vegetable because they no longer mind its previous foul disposition (i.e. bitterness, tastelessness, etc). If we take a look back and journey over the green-capped mountains and pristine rivers that were staples to the pious realm of the Medieval Ages, democracy, an idea conceived and cultivated by the ancient Greeks centuries prior, was a forgotten system, well hidden within the crevices of books that were branded with other idols as "blasphemous." One would argue that although the juxtaposition of church and state was not questioned and retaliated against, it was still an unethical practice of government because of its indirect nature as being oppressive and totalitarian. Another, however, would argue that because the people were seemingly content with the government (such as in the form of obsolete revolution), there was no such malpractice, and that as long as the people were not opposed to the considerably lowered strata women composed, as well as the menial services that were available for the population, there was nothing wrong with the simultaneous rule of the Bible and the monarchy. However, as time collapsed and Europe entered the 16th century, many theologians began to re-consider the teachings of the Ancient Romans and Greeks, and henceforth sprung the mass effort of educating the youth through the renowned movement known by many students today as "The Renaissance." Returning back to the present, it is evidently clear and growing that the youth of the Middle East are beginning to open their eyes to the many injustices that comprise the Qu'ran, such as the inability for a woman to drive a car or take a walk during the night. The answer to the dilemma of establishing democracy in the country of Egypt is education. Most Islamists who are radically fanatic about their religion are considerably uneducated, and are only informed by their culture and previously established way of life within their country. The offspring of the Medieval Ages revolted against the Church's doctrine because education was becoming vastly attainable. Similar to a new born babe, they were acting as sponges, soaking up information previously inaccessible because of the Church's deterrence. They were beginning to understand the true meanings of human rights, and the differences between what is truly right and what is truly wrong (not what the Church considered right or wrong). Although they were able to obtain and practice what had been taught at the universities, the leaders of the Renaissance were still, in today's standards, considerably far away from implementing these basic human entitlements. So, in conclusion, although the candidates for presidency in the country of Egypt are not in the least bit "democratic" (the two popular candidates are Islamist and intend to keep and maintain Sharia Law), the country is taking a step in the right direction. The people have had a taste of democracy, and they like it, and although the older generation would prefer a "God-fearing" president versus a neutral leader, the accessibility of receiving a formal education is exponentially higher than ever before, and the youth of Egypt's tomorrow will commence the slow yet steady movement towards revolutionizing the concrete Constitution that dictates most of the Middle East to this day. In other words, even if the Egyptians do not govern themselves under a democratic system or anything reminiscent to that of America's government, what is currently happening in that country is the acquirement of a new taste, the stomaches welcoming of a healthier remedy, the beginnings of a less hesitant invitation for freedom.

             On Tuesday we discussed the latest election in Egypt and how surprising it is that even after so many revolts and calls for reform, the candidates in the election are more or less conservative Islamists. But is it really that surprising? Mr. Bonamo brought up a vital question: Whether true democracy can take root in nations where it is not rooted in history. I believe this question can have more than one correct answer because it really depends on nation and its people. In Egypt's case, revolution has just taken place, but there is still much change and reform that needs to take place. If you think about the American Revolution, America didn't truly "revolutionize" after the war. We became independent of British rule, but we still had to work a long way to achieve rights for Blacks, Native Americans, and women. There were still plenty of loyalists in the Nation and aspects of the British system in the Articles of Confederation. As you can see, it is entirely possible for Egypt to grant its citizens true liberty, but it's still in early development.
              Due to the fact that Egyptian law is deeply based on the religion of Islam, it may take a longer time. Some citizens are content with this government and only ask for stability. What many people don't realize is that the Sharia laws many Muslim nations engrave into society are simple rules, similar to the Ten Commandments. Some nations regard these laws to the highest degree and that is why they base federal laws upon them. And since Egypt is mostly comprised of an Islamic population, it's difficult for many to accept democracy the way America institutionalizes it. In my opinion, I don't think such religious laws should be imposed upon anyone who does not believe in them. Instead, the individual could follow them if they please.
            It's not impossible to institute true democracy in Egypt, but it will be very difficult since many Mulsim citizens are opposed to certain things like gay marriage or the right to an abortion. The cultural and historic background in Egypt prohibit change, but there's still hope.

Democracy in Egypt

On Tuesday, we tipped the iceberg of this topic with a discussion about how changing a country's government to democracy can affect them. We mentioned that Democracy works as an opposing force to religion. In a world where there are such thing as Islamists, we must admit that here in America, we are "Christian-ists", in that we use many Judeo-Christian values and laws to "base" our law system upon. We have examined how the diminishing of our very religious based values is due to the fact that our government system is Federalism. We have a three branch government that provides checks and balances so that no one group can have too much power. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights allow for either a strict interpretation or a liberal one that leaves a lot of wiggle room. It’s important to understand that although our society takes a very long time to change, it is easier to change in a democratically run nation because of the “rights” of the people.

The rights of the people caused us to allow for court cases such as Roe v. Wade to take place and for Same-sex marriage to be legal in some states. These are contradictory to the original rules of the Judeo-Christian faith and if we started out as such a nation that can be called “Christian” then what might happen to Egypt with such a system being newly implemented. The Egyptian people have a lot to learn with the government change and “Absorbing such ideals has not been easy since Egypt’s 18-day uprising that ended the three-decade reign of Hosni Mubarak. The ruling military has preferred a speedy transition, forcing Egyptians to learn democracy on the run. A key mistake was that the youthful leaders of the revolution failed to unite behind one pro-democracy candidate before the first round of voting May 23-24.” The Egyptians will have to wait until the next election to try again to elect a pro-democratic president.

The other problem is also is what the people want? Perhaps the people do not like the idea of a democratic government. They can be content with a ruling system that is intertwined with religion, it actually makes them feel safer knowing that their leader is intone with God and that their faith will be upheld as high as the law. The fact that less than half the population even bothered to vote shows the nonchalance or rather the fear that the people feel at the prospect of having a democratic president or voting against the overconfident Muslim Brotherhood who “expected to win outright with more than 50 percent of the vote.”  This battle is far from over and only time will tell how the next events will blow over with the Egyptian people. While they may have conducted a “democratic” election, we shall see how different the change will be from the authoritarian regime to a democracy in Egypt.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2012/0529/Egypt-elections-a-test-of-hard-won-civic-values

Democracy in Egypt: Is it Really a Government by the People, for the People?

          This week in class, we discussed the recent presidential elections in Egypt. The pool of candidates was a wide one, consisting of twelve nominees ranging from more conservative Islamist ideas to more liberal ideas. Recently, the pool of nominees has been narrowed to two:

• Former Mubarak Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq
• Muslim Brotherhood member Mohammed Morsy

Yet though these two were the ones that garnered the most votes, don't begin to think that they have incredibly strong support, as neither of the two garnered even a quarter of the vote and both are criticized for a variety of reasons.

          First lets take a look at Shafiq. As stated earlier, Shafiq was the Prime Minister under Mubarak's regime and is now seen as a defender of it, making him a somewhat unfavorable candidate to some people. However, the biggest thing associated with Shafiq is that people look at him as a military strongman, or someone that has great power and support from the military, making people cautious of what may happen if he were to be elected. He holds a strong and unrelenting stance on the need for stability as well, something that has led him to become indirectly connected to the bloody attack on February 2nd, 2011 in Tahrir, again making him unpopular. Some revolutionaries even go as far as to say he is a "Darth Vader," character for all his stances on these issues.

          Then there is Mohammed Morsy. Many feel that he is "Uncharismatic, unimaginative, unappealing, and often unintelligible," (Iskandar). Morsy's organization/ party, the Muslim Brotherhood, isn't an attractive option to most Egyptians either, appearing "Opportunistic and disingenuous," by their use of religious rhetoric to eliminate their opposition (Iskandar). In addition to this, their lack of acknowledgement of the killing of protesters has made many question the party's trustworthiness. Also, many Egyptians are unclear about their platform, as they have never stated if the would or wouldn't instate sharia law. Finally, the party already has control of the parliament, and a win in the presidential election would give it full control of the writing of Egypt's constitution.

          With all these uncertainty and anxiety over these candidates, Egyptians are worried over what they may do, or are even able to do. Some have even begun to take steps to get a recount, a revote, and even a cancellation of the election all together. So knowing all this, can the Egyptian government become a democratic government by the people, for the people? And if it is, will possible fears of outside countries (like the United States) of the government chosen cause these countries to intervene? 

Can democracy take root in cultures, societies, and nations in which it is not rooted in history?

During Tuesday’s class, there were many points that were addressed concerning the first democratic elections in Egypt. At the beginning of the class, we were showed a 6 minute video that brought us up to speed with who the runners were, a broad feel as to what the people sought in them, and a peek as to who the top contenders were. Contrary to what was expected from this Democratic election, the two candidates who received the most votes were the former prime minister under the old regime and the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate. To those citizens that hoped for a real change, this outcome doesn’t guarantee this but rather the opposite – that not much will change. With this in mind, the question of whether or not a democracy can take root in cultures, societies, or nations in which it is was not originally rooted, seems pertinent. Speaking solely from observations that I made about this particular democratic election and from my point of view, it appears that the democracy that we as Americans know cannot be instilled completely on a nation that never really had a desire of actually implementing it. From the video that we watched, we saw that when the citizens of Egypt were asked what they sought in their future president, the prominent answer was stability. The fact that this was even an answer expresses quite a lot as it implies that the people will be content with their president as long as this is exactly what he provides – it doesn’t take into consideration how it will be reached or even maintained. Personally, I would have thought these people, especially seeing as they were under an authoritarian rule before, would want a president that would ensure that they have basic rights and liberties – someone who would steer them in a completely different direction than the one they were previously in. But, evidently this is not the case seeing as the people appear to value stability over freedom. It appears that the Egyptian populous is too accustomed to the rule that they have had up until now and that they rather not take a risk and make too much of a drastic change. Even if they were willing to look at change, this does not address the issue of how they would begin to build the foundations to their new government. In order to arrive at a valid answer to this perplexing question it is clear that there needs to be much more research but as of now, I’m inclined to believe that it is really difficult to bring democracy into a nation, culture, or society that never really aspired to have it in the first place.  (And I didn’t even get the chance to discuss the issues concerning a democracy and religious beliefs…) 

Egyptians Vote in Democratic Election

Egyptians went to the polls on Wednesday to choose their first freely elected president, hoping to recapture the promise of a popular uprising that defined the Arab Spring, end 15 chaotic months of military rule and perhaps shape the character of political Islam across the region.

In scenes unthinkable at any time in this country’s vast history, millions of Egyptians waited patiently in long lines, often holding scraps of cardboard against the desert sun, debating with their neighbors which of the five leading contenders deserved their vote. “It is like honey to my heart,” said Mohamed Mustafa Seif, 36, an accountant voting in downtown Cairo. “For the first time in my life, I feel like I have a role to play. My vote could possibly make a difference.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/world/middleeast/egypt-presidential-election.html

This was surprisingly in keeping with a timetable outlined in January (exactly one year after the revolution) in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/middleeast/egyptians-mark-anniversary-of-revolt-in-tahrir-square.html

The other surprise was that the two candidates who received the most votes are the former prime minister under the old regime and the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate, a sort-of worst-case scenario for those hoping for real change.  A runoff between the two will occur in mid-June.  Here is an article on this outcome from Egypt's oldest newspaper: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/36/122/42909/Presidential-elections-/Presidential-elections-news/Presidential-elections-nightmare-scenario-leaves-E.aspx

The questions here include whether democracy can take root in cultures, societies, and nations in which it is not rooted in history, and how other democracies will regard undesdirable outcomes of legitimately democratic elections.

I welcome your additional questions and resources in our discussion on Tuesday.