By C. Dyer, contributing writer

I'm not going to talk about morality in general, because I know everyone has their own understanding of what is acceptable behavior. Instead, I want to talk about personal morals.

Personal morals affect our daily interactions and are driven by the things we value. They should be fairly constant unless we have a moment of enlightenment and recognize we are doing wrong. It's a sign of growth when we change for the better. Unfortunately, changes are not always driven by hopes of self-betterment.Too often, popularity and money are the motivators behind our decisions. Who to hang out with, what to wear and how to act are drawn from the opinions of our family and social circles. We become so dependent on the approval of others that we begin to insidiously lose our own identity. Many celebrities and politicians struggle with balancing personal morals and popular approval. Sometimes they even reach a point where morals are no longer an individual code, just a suit to be worn and changed when the winds of majority opinion shift.

Abandoning personal morals to follow the majority can be dangerous, because sometimes the majority is very wrong. Slavery, segregation, and anti-Semitism were all supported by a majority at one point in time. If no one had held to their individual code and what they knew to be right, women wouldn't be able to vote and restaurants could still deny entrance based on skin color. It isn't enough to be satisfied with the status quo and shrug off injustices. 

How much money would convince you to give up your code? Chances are there's a number. The reason is because money and power are valued more than nearly everything else. If this is true of yourself, it will eventually show through in your crumbling personal morals. Be true to your character and conscience. The world needs more genuine people.

"What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?"-Luke 9:25 (New International Version Bible)

J.Says’ Take: Some may view this article as presenting nothing new, but I think we all take it as a given that we don’t compromise or shape our moral views after others, when in reality, we do. All the time. We all care what people think, either on a small or large level. That’s why we clean up before someone comes over or feel the need to clear things up when we’re misinterpreted. Since we care what people think, this can easily affect how we set our moral standards or our honesty about how we set them. If we dare differentiate from what the seeming majority values, we just go find other people who share our feelings so we won’t feel judged. Take time to analyze your modes of operation.

By C. Dyer, contributing writer
Note: Articles written by contributing writers don't necessarily reflect the opinions of J.Says herself.

The phrase "bi-partisan solutions" has come up a lot recently in reference to the fiscal cliff negotiations. Even at the current level of desperation, many politicians seem unable to consider compromise. This "my way or the highway" attitude is characteristic of most modern day politicians. I optimistically hope the United States is reaching a turning point in the way it approaches politics.

George Washington belonged to neither the Democratic nor Republican party. In spite of this, the then fledgling country overwhelmingly supported his election and reelection. During his time in office, Washington saw the heated disputes of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties and wanted nothing to do with them. Although he was no saint, his words on party division in his farewell address sound almost prophetic: "Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another..."

Rather than simply highlighting differences in the way people view public policy, political parties have become divisive in of themselves. Political parties are treated as a birthright, a source of personal pride, even a religion. Individuals who know nothing about each other can stereotype and despise one another simply based on party preference. Moderates, with barely a difference between them, take up banners handed to them by their role-models and pick a side in this silent civil war.

The government is constantly in a stalemate. Even when good ideas come up for consideration, they are routinely voted down because of the party of the person proposing them. Most politicians are so solidly locked into blue or red that purple is no longer possible. After the 2012 Presidential election, Republicans were expected to change their tactics and become more accepting of ideals they opposed. Rush Limbaugh asked in disgust whether the party should abandon its principles and support abortion and illegal immigration. The comments emphasized his narrow view of the possibilities.

A country that cares about principles AND people could achieve incredible things. Imagine what progress could be made if moderates would put aside their differences and find solutions everyone can be satisfied with. For example, instead of ignoring illegal immigration or promoting it, we could improve the efficiency and ease of immigrating legally. Rather than promoting abortion or ignoring the plight of young mothers, we could improve the adoption system and work to lessen the financial cost of child rearing. We could differentiate between marriage as a legal contract and marriage as a religious bond, securing protections under the law for homosexuals while reinforcing the right of religious institutions to govern the use of their buildings as they see fit. The parties have played their game of puppets for far too long. What we need is an America that's willing to change that. We need an America that's open to creativity and compromise. We need an America that can think outside the box. We need an America that sees purple.

By C. Dyer, contributing writer
Note: This article is in response to a piece written by J.Says, entitled "Women's Rights: More Than Just Abortion."

According to many early feminists, abortion reflects not female empowerment, but a society in which being male is still the ideal. Rather than appreciating things that are uniquely female and powerful, like the ability to bear a child, society asserts that women must become like men in form and function to receive respect. Men still find social advancement easier than women who want to be mothers. This reality was reflected in President Obama's statement that Roe v. Wade allowed "our daughters [to] have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." Abortion has done no more to resolve the problems of sexism than heavy makeup does to resolve racism. Financial success is still revered more than motherhood, as though moving up in the corporate world were more important than shaping the next generation.

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading for women to treat their children as property, to be disposed of as they see fit."-feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1873)

The concept of children as property is an ancient idea we never fully abandoned. Child abuse first gained national attention in the late 1800's. The ownership of one's children was considered so personal and private, there wasn't even an institution for the prevention of child abuse. In fact, the first prosecuted child abuse case in the U.S. was brought by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In many ways, we continue this tradition today. Many liberal Democrats would consider it cruel to shoot a cat or dog that inconveniences them, but would accept a woman's right to abort for the same reason. 

Two of the major questions in the abortion argument are "when does life begin to matter?" and "how far do abortion rights extend?" Catholics and other religious groups might contend that value begins at conception. Some atheists and pro-choice advocates believe it matters when the entity develops a self-concept. Both ideas are difficult to prove. Because of this, scientists choose different measures. Recently, many states have outlawed abortions occurring after 22 weeks because of ample scientific evidence that a fetus of that age can feel and react to pain. Even the federal government was willing to recognize some limits on abortion by upholding a partial-birth abortion ban. Most people, regardless of political affiliation, would concede that abortions past the point of viability are unethical. A layer of tissue is the only difference between an infant born a month early and an 8 month old fetus. To allow the abortion of an 8 month fetus would make opposition to infanticide seem hypocritical. The question of viability has been used by some to extend the abortion argument to young infants. There was a recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" The authors received death-threats for their publication, but it raises some valid points. It argues that parents should have the option to "abort" their infant if they discover disabilities that medical exams didn't show. Many of the arguments for or against adoption in such a case would still hold true.