My portfolio showcases various writing samples, and will continously be updated with new projects as I begin my freelance writing journey.. See my contact information below and get in touch!
~WRITING SAMPLES~
*BLOG POST*
May~Mental Health Awareness Month
Mental Health. These two words hold so much importance in them, yet so many fail to recognize that each and every one of us is affected by mental health. Yes, EVERY ONE OF US. Some of us are completely mentally healthy, we don’t suffer from any mental health ailment, and some of us suffer from one or many mental health ailments. Unfortunately, in most cases those who don’t suffer from a mental health issues do not believe that mental health diseases are real, and this is part of the problem in helping those who so desperately need the help.
There are so many facets to mental health disease and disorder, and the spectrums vary from very mild to extremely severe; and unfortunately those who fall anywhere on the spectrum are labeled as “crazy”, and a few very disturbed people have stigmatized the entire spectrum as well. Those who are not affected, just do not understand.
It is safe to say if you, yourself are not affected by a mental health disorder or disease, be it permanent, or seasonal, one of your close family members or friends is suffering. They might outwardly be suffering, or on the outside they may appear to have it all and you would never know they are dying on the inside. Just as diseases such as cancer do not discriminate, nor do mental health diseases. Your friends can’t help their clinical depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders (there are several types), or more serious mental health diseases such as schizophrenia and identity dissociative disorder. They don’t want to be sick. They don’t want to have to take medicine every day to function “normally” like the majority of the population. It’s bad enough to suffer from a mental health disease or disorder without dealing with the stigma, and self esteem issues and hit to one’s pride as well.
It is hell to always feel like you have a hamster spinning in a wheel inside of your head; thoughts of every aspect of your life always on a repeat cycle. It becomes a full time job to pretend your happy on the outside, because you most definitely should be, your life is better than it has ever been before. Yet, when you’re alone the tears flow like a stream. It’s humiliating to go the emergency room fearing that you’re in the midst of an heart attack due to the symptoms of a panic attack. The pain in your chest, the inability to breathe, the temporary paralysis. The fear.
Medication. The double edged sword. You want to take it so you feel better, but you don’t want to take it because you don’t want to have to take medicine to feel “normal”. Why can’t you just be normal like everyone else? Why do you have to take 2 or 3 pills a day for mental stability? It’s bad enough you ask yourself these questions, but then your loved ones question you too. They don’t understand your disease, they don’t think it is a disease, therefore they don’t understand why you need medication.
May~Mental Health Awareness Month. It’s okay to not be okay, it’s okay to ask for help, it’s okay to take your medicine, and it okay for others to not understand, they don’t have to. If you are one of those others, please take the time to make yourself more aware.
Sports Writing Sample
Rookie v. Rookie
1st and 2nd round draft picks line up on field during training camp.
The Carolina Panthers opened their 2019 training camp on July 25th at Wofford College in Spartanburg, SC. There have been many standouts in the first five days of practice, including veteran stars Cam Newton and Curtis Samuel, but Saturday Twitter was abuzz about practice reps between two rookies. Carolina’s 1stround pick, and the 16th pick overall, Brian Burns and 2nd round pick, 37th overall, Greg Little stole the headlines on day three of training camp.
Brian Burns, the 6’5”, 250-pound Panther’s rookie linebacker/defensive end, not only beat the 6’6’, 310-pound rookie left tackle, Little, in speed drills, but he also easily handled Little on the field when they lined up against each other.
https://twitter.com/panthersmax/status/1155120929766354944?s=12
Burns, the Florida State breakout star, displayed his edge speed and physical and mental agility as he easily pushed through Little, the starting Tackle from Ole Miss. Little, whose strengths include lateral quickness, pass slide quickness, and the ability to adjust blocks, was no match for Burns. In numerous practice reps Burns’ quickness and ability to transition during the pass is helping to solidify his position as a starter. It’s still early, and training camp just started, but Little isn’t showing off his talents, and is struggling with stability. This combination is a double-edged sword because both sides can’t win during a rep, and in this case, Burns is looking promising, and Little is left looking weak.
Published at:
L.com/nfl/455#https://mysportsvote.com/nfl/455#
An opinionated essay on capital punishment, and how my views were formed using philosophic moral theories.
Capital punishment, or the death penalty the more common terminology, has been a long-standing source of contentious debate. Unlike many controversial subjects such as abortion, gun rights, and euthanasia, there isn’t a middle ground to stand on in the death penalty debate. One is either for the death penalty or they are against the death penalty. Those who oppose the death penalty are categorized as abolitionists, and those who are in favor of the penalty are called retentionists. There are type two types of retentionist, the utilitarian and the retributivists. The retributivists further break down into the categories of equality retributivists and proportional retributivists. I support death as a sentence for the most heinous offenses to our fellow human beings. In the following essay I will give the reader s sense of my moral code, and how those foundations support my stance on the death penalty.
The Natural Law Theory basically states that we should avoid evil and promote goodness of virtue and morals. This theory states that as humans we are naturally able to understand human nature and the nature of the world around us; therefore, we are able to determine objective facts about moral right and wrong. I believe that by nature I am extremely empathetic and forgiving. I wasn’t brought up in an environment conducive to the level of empathy and forgiveness I convey, and because these aren’t traits that can be taught, I believe this is part of my moral code. The contribution of this theory to what I believe is my moral code both support and contradict my position on the death penalty. My empathy is supportive of my stand because I literally feel the pain and anguish others feel. I feel if the pain and anguish caused is intentional and without regard for human life, such as murder, there should be consequences that equal the pain brought upon the victims. My ability to forgive is contradictory to my position on the death penalty. I believe in forgiveness for not only religions reasons, but also for a healthy state of mind. This trait that I express so effectively would give on the notion that I believes everyone deserves to be forgiven and not put to death because of a poor personal choice; however, this isn’t the case. In the end, I don’t believe it is my forgiveness that matters.
The final theory in which I can align my moral code with is the Kativan Moral Theory. I believe this theory is an extension of the Theory of Natural Law because of the notion of goodwill. The notion of goodwill is the will to follow the moral law and one’s duty without qualification. This theory declares good without any qualifications is good under all conditions and under any circumstances. I strongly believe in this theory as it basically states that we should always do good no matter what. The promise of a reward as an incentive to promote goodwill is not goodwill. The also applies to actions that are completed out of moral obligation, but not moral desire. There are so many people who only do “the right thing” because there feel like they have to, or for an ulterior motive. I am definitely not one of those people. I always strive to promote peace and goodwill, and not out of a sense of obligation or having something to gain from trying to live this way. I try to live this way because in my heart and soul, doing the morally right thing is natural and not a sense of duty to me.
Although many aspects of the theories I used to explain my moral code seem to conflict with capital punishment, I am most definitely supportive of this criminal penalty. This would probably come as a surprise to those who know me as I am a pacifist and do not encourage or actively participate in confrontation. However, I do not believe that life in prison should be the only option for someone who intentionally took another’s life. If human life is of no value to the offender, his/her life also should hold no value. I am not so unreasonable to believe there are circumstances in which loss of life occurred and death should not be an option for sentencing, but those cases need to be evaluated on the circumstances of the case. In most cases of murder and senseless killings, there are not extenuating circumstances that circumvent the offender from the penalty of death. This is where my self- description of being both a proportional and equality retributivist apply. I don’t believe in the literal equality of the equality retributivists, but I do believe the conviction of certain crimes automatically should equate to a death sentence. In the same respect, I also believe there are crimes that should offer other options of sentencing other than capital punishment. I believe the punishment should be proportionate to the crime, and the offender should face an equally devastating sentence in relativity to the crime committed against the victim(s). I feel there is great justification for the use of capital punishment in today’s society, and I believe valuing the innocent live over the life of someone who didn’t value life is one of those justifications. While advocates for abolishing the death penalty claim it is barbaric and degrading, proponents of the death penalty can argue the same about the offender’s actions.
There are also objections to the death penalty based on the financial costs of a capital punishment trial, but as stated in our text, human life has no monetary value. There are many reasons abolitionists oppose the death penalty and most of these arguments can be contested with an equally compelling fact from the proponents of capital punishment. I believe that there should be a comprehensive set of standards to follow when sentencing death. If such a set of standards existed, perhaps those who oppose the death penalty for any reason exclusive of moral conviction, would not be opponents any longer. As stated in our readings, most all civilization has had the death penalty, and with the rising occurrences of violence and senseless deaths, I don’t believe this is an out outdated practice as some claim. This controversial topic has long been a source of debate, and probably will remain controversial for a long time to come.
Our moral code us supposed to be a “guide” to our moral and virtuous behavior. The majority of people can tell you what they believe, but not why or their morals shaped their beliefs. I have discussed my moral code which I believe to correlate with the following theories: Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics, Natural Law and the Kativian theory. The main concept of my moral code basically states that I need to do everything in my power to exhibit my values and morals. I believe in good over evil, and I believe in goodwill without expectation of anything other than self-fulfillment. My moral code supports and contradicts my position on retaining the death penalty as a criminal sentence; however, the conflict is outweighed by my moral reasoning to support the death penalty. I believe in the value of life and believe those who have a blatant disregard for the value of other lives do not deserve any liberties, even the basic right to life.
Opinionated essay on the topic of euthanasia
Euthanasia is often associated with putting an animal “to sleep” in order to control the overpopulation of stray animals, or to put an animal out of pain and misery in a humane matter. The act of killing an animal on the grounds of mercy is widely accepted and except for animal rights activist, there isn’t great controversy on the topic of animal euthanasia. Yet, replace the word animal with the word human in reference to euthanasia, and controversy and conflict arise. Why is mercy killing acceptable for animals, but not humans? What makes the animal more deserving of mercy killing than human? I do not dispute the justification in euthanizing an animal, but I do dispute the arguments that seemingly state humans don’t have the same rights as animals to have their lives ended in a peaceful and pain free method.
Topics of public controversy are typically based on differing personal values and morals and become a source of conflict when the government tries to interfere and police morality and ethics. An example of this is the legality of physician assisted suicide; it is illegal in forty-six of the fifty states, so in order to comply with governmental relations on a solely personal decision, a terminally ill patient would have to travel to Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, or Washington to do so. Forcing someone to seek medical care in a state other than their home state because of policies and laws in an infringement on the personal liberties guarded American citizens. The government doesn’t cross personal boundaries by forcing adult citizens to vaccinate against contagious diseases, nor does it force us to seek medical care to maintain optimal health; but the government will overstep its boundaries by taking away the freedom to die how we choose. This seems illogical and contradictory. Instead of a blanket ban on physician assisted suicide, the government has the capabilities and resources to develop and enact strict guidelines and regulation to pertaining to physician assisted suicide. In Oregon a physician must answer two questions bearer any consideration of physician assisted suicide: Is the patient terminally ill and is the patient mentally competent. Oregon leaves the distinction of “big decisions” (those that change the course of life) and “little decisions” (those that don’t alter the course of life) to the patient and his or her doctor. Patients have the right to choose between “big decisions” and “little decision” throughout their whole life, so why should they not be afforded the same right at the end of their life?
Suicide, intentionally ending one’s own life, can be another form of euthanasia. Obviously, the literal meaning of euthanasia differs slightly the literal definition of suicide, but the differences aren’t as important as some opponents of euthanasia movement would have the supporters believe. The goal of euthanasia, physician assisted suicide or unassisted suicide is the same in the end; peaceful and pain free departure from this world. Instead of trying to empathize and understand why the person ended his/her life, the mental health stigma is applied even after death. It isn’t comprehensible to some people that a victim of suicide didn’t have a mental health illness, but a physical illness in which they suffered immensely.
Physicians take an oath to treat patients to the best of their ability and to abide by the ethical standard outlined in the oath. Those who oppose physician assisted suicide also use the argument that a physician is breaking his/her oath by assisting in the intentional death of the patient. Some opponents of physician assisted suicide, such as those in our readings fear the role of the doctor will change if this is legalized. Instead of primarily making sound medical decision based on years of education and experience, physicals will be required to make what they believe to be a morally sound medical condition. This isn’t entirely true, as not all doctors will use their personal morals to make a sound professional decision. It is quite possible to feel one way personally and remain open minded and neutral in the professional realm of one’s job. This happens quite often, not only in the medical field but also in other scenarios when one has to put morals aside and think of the greater good.
In preparing to write this essay I asked several people their views on assisted suicide, and if opposing is religious belies the sole reason for opposition. Only one person opposed any and all forms of intentional death and that was my eighteen-year-old son. His opposite is mainly used on his religious beliefs, bur mores he doesn’t believes that euthanasia is ever a valid option to consider, and he is definitely and unequivocally opposed to a doctor assisting in a suicide. He believes that a doctor’s job is to heal, and if he/she can’t heal or cure a patient, they can make them comfortable without killing them. Asking for the opinions of others confirmed my presumptions that euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, and suicide are strongly supported relative to a terminal illness and relentless pain. There are those who oppose euthanasia because of religion and moral reasons, but also there are those who oppose the right to die because of presumptions of how this will affect society as a whole. IF opponents can make numerous presumptions (as did the authors in our text) without facts to back them up, then proponents of euthanasia also can make presumptions of what they will face on the road to their death. Again, why is one set of presumptions acceptable but the opposing presumptions are not? I personally could not take my own life because of my personal religious beliefs and convictions; however, I most certainly support others having the choice to end their lives as they see fit.
Celeste Sabin 