A recent law has passed that restricts abortions to a maximum of 6 weeks into a pregnancy, which is approximately the time frame just before a fetus develops pain-sensing nerves. As suspected, both sides will likely put forth arguments for why this is a good or bad law & neither will be completely satisfied with the result initially. However, both side’s agendas are now satisfied (yet equally failed) to some degree. Pro-Lifers now have the means to limit the occurrence of abortions & fetal suffering entirely. Meanwhile, Pro-Choicers have a guaranteed outlet for receiving an abortion.
This highly divided issue has been assigned a law that does several things in order to achieve the greatest possible degree of happiness amongst the citizenry- I call this ‘utility’. It also creates a middle-ground solution that avoids the problematic occurrence of sophistry. In discussing how utility plays into achieving the greatest degree of pleasure & justice, I, John Stuart Mill, will argue why this law is the perfect approach to the issue of abortion.
Critics of the law contest that neither side will be satisfied by this policy, but by creating a law that satisfies both sides to some degree, a significant degree of virtue is actually invoked. It is my opinion that in order to achieve the ends of happiness and therefore utility, we must seek maximum virtue as a tool to achieve it. I have also pointed out on many occasions that although humanity can agree to some objective truths, we largely disagree about what morality is. In this case, pro-life & pro-choice disagree considerably. As a result, in order to gain the largest degree of virtue, we have to adopt a law such as this one that satisfied both major definitions of morality to some degree.
Everyone law that is written should seek to achieve perfect utility. It can only be achieved by assessing its effects on generating happiness amongst the population. To me, “utility” requires several things, but most importantly avoids pain while striving for the most holistic degree of pleasure or happiness. It requires impartiality & consideration of everyone’s preferences beyond your personal agenda, yet doesn’t completely sacrifice the private realm to achieve this. This law perfectly adheres to these definitions. By eliminating the option to put a fetus that can sense pain through an abortion while still keeping the option available for those who want one, the greatest sense of happiness & least amount of pain is achieved for the largest group of citizens. It is the impartiality of the law that achieves this large degree of pleasure. Finally, the law doesn’t sacrifice any given individual’s private realm at the expense of the citizenry. A full ban on abortion, however, would obstruct the realm of privacy & decrease the number of citizens who achieve the greatest pleasure; the same can be said about a completely unregulated practice of abortions. This middle-ground solution, therefore, has the largest degree of utility because it seeks to make the most voters within the American population happy.
Although I do not intend to argue that certain unchangeable God-given rights exist in the free world such as John Locke or Mary Wollstonecraft might, I do agree that a large degree of rights can lead to greater utility because it derives a sense of pleasure amongst the citizenry in knowing that these liberties exist. Relating this to my previous discussion of varying definitions of morality, we can see how this also closely ties into varying definitions of what is just. Because two major opinions exist regarding what is moral & just, we can rationally conclude that these opinions manifested from two varying rationales on what the utility of abortion is. One side argues that there is a utility in providing options & liberties for women because that increases happiness whereas the other side argues the utility in preserving the future population (and their ability to be happy). So, again, this law expands into the middle and includes both definitions of justice (as well as morality) which maximize utility. To bring this full circle, I believe that society will collapse if the rule of law isn’t followed. So, by creating a law that is broad, we are ensuring that far fewer people will obstruct the law and therefore preserve maximum utility. This ties in perfectly with everything I contend in the third paragraph.
In any case, in light of my argumentation, what this law does best is to expand itself to include tenets from both popular viewpoints regarding abortion. This inclusive structure generates various ways that utility is maximized, including through an invocation of varyin interpretations of morality, justice, impartiality, consideration of avoiding harm or loss of privacy, & several others. All of this leads to an end that, at least on the topic of abortion, provides the greatest degree of pleasure in the public & therefore maximizes utility. I, John Stuart Mill, wholeheartedly endorse this policy in this opinion piece.
Category Archives: Mill
Abortion, Once More
Comments Off on Abortion, Once More
Filed under Mill, Uncategorized
Generalized Abortion Laws Are Inhumane
The subject of this essay is the limit of government exercise of its will over a pregnant individual, and its use of a general decision to decide the common good in all cases. The expectation of happiness for a developing fetus cannot be foreseen; therefore, consideration of the fetus’ happiness is neutral. A heartbeat does not equate to consciousness. We know that this occurs when people have brain stem injuries and have no consciousness, yet they still have a heartbeat and can be removed from life support, comparable to an abortion post-heartbeat but pre-consciousness. The ambiguity of consciousness precludes any generalized rules forcing or preventing abortions on obscure timelines, such as the 6-week law.
Furthermore, since there is no immediate happiness that exists within an unconscious being, the immediate happiness of the mother and others involved are the secondary concern, while the primary concern is society as a whole— the happiness of the community. If a couple is forced to birth a child that they do not want or cannot afford, this will cause psychological and emotional distress to the couple and very possibly transfer an economic burden to the community. I have noted that “to bring a child into existence without a fair prospect of being able, not only to provide food for its body, but instruction and training for its mind, is a moral crime, both against the unfortunate offspring and against society; and that if the parent does not fulfill this obligation, the State ought to see it fulfilled, at the charge, as far as possible, of the parent,” (On Liberty, Chapter 5).
According to the government’s own research, any pain the fetus might potentially experience during an abortion does not exist until at least twenty weeks; therefore, this aspect of consideration for the pain of the fetus must in the least require that expectant mothers have fourteen more weeks (twenty weeks, rather than six) to execute an abortion and must be weighed against the pain of others. As for the mother, how would one know the variance in potential pain from the sixth to the twentieth week? There is no relative proof that waiting fourteen more weeks causes a mother more pain. In fact, it provides more time for a mother to consciously decide about the potential of emotional happiness or pain that the pregnancy could produce for herself and her family. I maintain that each person “is the proper guardian of [his/ her/ their] own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual” (On Liberty, Chapter 1). Also, many women are unaware of their pregnancies until about five weeks in or beyond. I repeat that “independence is, of right, absolute. Over [himself/ herself/ their-self], over [his/ her/ their] own body and mind, the individual is sovereign,” yet there is no consideration for the sovereignty of an expectant woman who does not even know she is pregnant and needs to make a choice about ending her pregnancy according to the law (On Liberty, Chapter 1).
It is impossible to make generalized laws about abortion because each particular case has its own endlessly fluctuating variables. I have before asserted that the “potential aggregate of qualities in the individual must be fostered as an antidote to the ills of a drab social uniformity,” meaning that our individuality expresses in “differences of conduct and practice, in diverse displays of spontaneity and energy, and in distinct styles of living” which explains the inherent variability that makes generalization of the law inhumane (On Liberty: Individual, Society, and State). Blanket rules about when birth can no longer be terminated do not agree with a hedonistic-utilitarian model because each situation requires holistic consideration.
Comments Off on Generalized Abortion Laws Are Inhumane
Filed under Mill
Public Transportation and Prop A
An infrastructure with an emphasis on public transportation will promote the greatest long-term happiness for a society—specifically Austin, Texas. What leads me to this conclusion are several qualifiers. An ideal society is a society in which happiness is experienced by the greatest number of people. A virtuous society is a means to a happy society, so there is utility in virtue. While there are countless means to happiness, virtue in this community is desired, so I will consider it to be a part of the end similar to happiness. In this same way, money is desired in our community. It is a means to reach the end goal of happiness. Expanding on the statement by Wilhelm Von Humboldt in our chapter Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being, Harriet Taylor and I came to the conclusion that the development of individuality had utility, and thus the suppression of that development was harmful within historical context. For the purpose of this exercise, an infrastructure system which provides all of these qualifications for a happy society would be considered ideal.
In the majority of large cities in the US public transportation is more cost-effective than car ownership and maintenance. Because Austin is the 11th largest city in the US, it qualifies as a “large” city. The decreased cost of mobility can afford many who otherwise wouldn’t have the capability the option to travel across town, which can increase work opportunities or experiences. Poverty is a hindrance to development, so public transport may help in this regard as well. If a public transit program were implemented through referendum with the knowledge that public transportation would provide these benefits, it could be said that the initiative is virtuous. So, public transport is worth pursuing in theory, but what about in practice?
On this year’s ballot is Proposition A—a $7.1 billion transit proposal that is highly contested. It would “build the city’s first light rail lines, create multiple new rapid bus routes, install a downtown tunnel system, and provide $300 million for affordable housing and to address housing displacement.” An opinion piece in the Austin American Statesman by Jim Duncan claimed that this proposal’s goals are unrealistic, that the debate over this proposition was stacked in favor of the proposition, and that the improvements are geographically imbalanced. I’m mainly interested in two of his concerns. In the debate, he claims that there were only “transit supporters, central city residents”, and “car haters”. The formation of this proposition may not be created in ideal circumstances if the debate weren’t argued thoroughly on both sides. He also makes the case that most of the improvements would “serve central Austin residents and businesses and provide access to the airport.” I would need clarification to see if this would violate the utility of the proposal, as he doesn’t say whether less people are served or just certain areas are excluded. What leads me to support this proposition are this: the proposition is a referendum of public opinion. It’s passing will bring happiness to the largest amount of people. If not, then the proposition will not be considered. Additionally, the $300 million allocated to affordable housing will benefit the community by encouraging individual development in addition to the benefit of affordable public transportation. While some may play up the tax burden of Prop A, the average of 4% increase in homeowner’s tax is a “bargain” even by Jim Duncan’s standards. It is my understanding that the passing of Proposition A would provide the greatest long-term happiness for Austin.
Comments Off on Public Transportation and Prop A
Filed under Mill
Abortion Restrictions
If we look to our laws in society we must look to see what produces the greatest outcome. Not in a structural sense, but rather to see what has worked and what has not. We can look towards history and the current effects of our laws to see how we can bring the greatest happiness to our people assuming that is the goal of the government and the laws it produces. I have deemed this the greatest happiness principle. Under this principle, we can better create common ground and thus conversation, hopefully, a productive one.
Under this perspective, I write about the recent law concerning restrictions of abortions after the first 6 weeks. Firstly, I will do away with any categorical definitions of whether one has a right to their body, or if the unborn has a right to life. Such definitions restrict the conversation allowing for no common ground. Also these definitions allow for sentiment which is fair as long as we look at the underlying utility. In order to reasonably evaluate such a law we must look at what similar laws have done and the outcomes.
Laws restricting abortion will indubitably have negative consequences for women. These consequences are not short-lived, but more importantly long term. Simply put, “Women who received an abortion were 50 percent more likely to set an aspirational plan and achieve it.” Also, concerning the health of the women, they report more serious complications from birth than they do from abortions with “six percent of women who gave birth compared to 1 percent of women who received an abortion reported a potentially life-threatening condition…”. Such risks do not only put the women at risk but leaves the man/woman potentially without a partner. Branching further, these risks stretch to the children. Without proper financial support, kids will be left in poverty and without opportunity.
With these concerns in mind, we look towards the utility of abortions weighed with their outcomes. The utility of abortion provides pleasure to the woman assuming it is her choice. Furthermore, it provides pleasure to society as a whole if it can keep children from poverty, men/women with spouses, and more women alive. In doing so, we can create a society that builds and has better opportunities instead of one that crowds and overfills opportunities. With education, we can have a greater capacity to live and see the world. These effects can create a greater society, a happier one. These effects are not realized today, but looking at statistics and effects of the consequences of these issues it is clear we need to allow for greater freedoms when it comes to abortions.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2019/05/414551/more-states-restrict-abortions-research-points-negative-health-outcomes-women
Comments Off on Abortion Restrictions
Filed under Mill
Utilitarian View on Abortion
A major issue plaguing the world of politics today is that of abortion. Just so everyone is familiar with the exact meaning of the word, abortion can be defined as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” (Merriam-Webster) Abortion is allowed in all states, but at what point do we draw the line? Is there a line to be drawn? Should there be a law restricting abortion to six weeks after pregnancy? In order to answer this, you must look at the consequences and see what policies would lead to the greatest happiness.
Examine the facts. I believe that abortion, even after six weeks, should be allowed because it can ultimately benefit society. Look at the argument that out world is overpopulated. If people around the world are starving as it is, it is not in our best interest to bring more lives into the world and prolong the issue. Think of a child that is unable to be cared for properly by their guardian and becomes a ward of the state and therefor burdens society. Children raised in broken homes are more likely to turn to a life of crime and drug addiction which costs the states money, and costing states money through that child staying in prison or a rehabilitation center is not in the state’s best interest. Think of the mother. Telling half of the population what they can and cannot do with their bodies does not seem to allow for the greatest capacity of happiness. If a mother is simply not ready to have a child, she shouldn’t be forced to do so not matter how far along she is. If the mother’s life and the lives of other people are negatively affected by this child being born, what right do they have to be miserable? If a mother was rapped and a child is conceived as a result, it could be in the mother’s best interest and award the most happiness to erase the painful memorythrough abortion.
Half of the pregnancies every year in the U.S. are unplanned. With a law in places restricting abortions to only six weeks after pregnancy, the amount of unsafe abortions occurring will undoubtedly skyrocket. With this law the lives of mothers are now in jeopardy as we are telling the million + women who get abortions every year that they either must keep the child to term or have a back room abortion. This will lead to elevated levels of stress and anxiety and depression that will be detrimental to their health and well-being. Not having these children gives these women a chance to live their own lives and cultivate their own happiness. They can integrate back into society without the undue burden of a child and live the best version of their lives.
Comments Off on Utilitarian View on Abortion
Filed under Mill
Utilitarianism and Abortion Restrictions
A law has recently been put into place that restricts abortion to six weeks after pregnancy. I believe that this policy is unjust, as it interferes with The Greatest Happiness Principle as it does not promote the most general happiness of society as possible. This is a controversial ruling and thus sparks many different and strong emotions in those who are impacted by it. For this reason, this law should be rationally debated under the conditions of utilitarianism, as it does not require individuals to start off by sharing common ground. I will make the argument that further restructuring the time warranted for abortions ultimately causes more harm to society because of its negative effects, and as a result, it reduces utility.
My philosophy places importance on the potential effects of an occurrence to determine its utility, so I will highlight how this political and social decision will cause more harm than good. In order to make a just decision, it is important to examine the course of history to understand what types of behavior have led to the most utility in the past. I will use the example of Roe v. Wade to demonstrate how our longstanding rights that have persisted across history to aid in our mutual happiness. This landmark ruling was made in 1973 and, over time, has consistently served utility to Americans, to the point in which nearly 75% of the American public is against it being overturned. This supports how a six-week restriction would harm the majority of America’s happiness considering that oftentimes women are not even aware that they are pregnant by this six-week deadline, and would then be unable to obtain an abortion.
I want to make it clear that I understand the strong sentiment on each side of this issue, however, to address those that oppose my assertion. I am not saying that abortion should not be restricted to some extent, but that the restrictions should not be so tight as to harm the pleasure of the majority. With this in mind, I would like those individuals to instead examine the drive of their sentiment, rather than writing off what they believe is right as the end-all-be-all without any rational debate or contemplation.
Along with this, I want to stress the importance of utilitarianism’s emphasis on the pleasure of all, not just the individual. If a reader disagrees with me, they must take into account that the initial internal desire of one should not be considered more important than the pleasure of the rest of the public. This decision should be made rationally by the public, rather than by a small group of people with a limited demographic. Even if the decision does make one happy initially, expediency does not mean that that decision is just. Short term happiness of a few is not what should determine such impactful decisions.
Overall, I understand that some may not agree with my standing, however, my philosophy stands by the fact that that the utility of all should be what is most important. Even if you may still disagree with a ruling that has longer limits for the time in which abortions may take place, if it is enforced, the few who disagree will eventually rationally consent once they realize it is good.
Comments Off on Utilitarianism and Abortion Restrictions
Filed under Mill
Abortion: Does it Harm Society?
Abortion as a right is a two-sided coin: On one side, the mother’s livelihood is typically harmed if she has a child. On the other side, a potential child is prevented from living out a potentially successful future. Which option affects society in the worst way?
First, the circumstances in which an abortion would be performed must be limited. The women who require an abortion for emergency medical purposes should not be considered. If a mother chooses to abort her child in this situation she will live, and the baby will not. If she chooses not to abort the baby, she and the child may both die. Because the second option causes more long-term harm (i.e. death), That would almost never be a reasonable action to take.
If, instead of the procedure being medically necessary for the health of both parties, the mother simply did not want to have a child, there are a few other factors to consider: The main factor that is relevant to society are the income and marital status of the mother. Most women who have abortions are single and of low to average income. It is important to note that the necessity of an income is diminished if one’s spouse participates in raising the household income. This way, a woman can have a child and not have a job, but still maintain the least harm due to her spouse’s income.
In a typical scenario in which a mother has a low-income job and is single, she has the option to either abort or go through with her pregnancy. If she chooses to abort the child, she will not have to leave her job. This means she can continue moving up in said job, have more income later, and ultimately contribute more to society because of this. However, her child will be prevented from potentially adding greatly to society. This child could have been a president or a homeless person, regardless of how likely one thing or the other is, anything was possible until nothing was.
But say the mother chose not to abort her child. She is then left with two other options: give up the child or keep it. If she chooses to keep the child, she must then give up her job and live on welfare. Additionally, children born to low-income, single mothers are much less likely to succeed. This is the greatest harm. The mother, child, and society all suffer from this option.
Alternatively, the mother could give up the child to a relative or put them up for adoption. In this case, the mother can continue to work and contribute to society as she would if she had an abortion, and society would benefit from this. However, the child would still be less likely to succeed and contribute to society apart from both of their biological parents. Others in society must also give the child opportunity to succeed, which hurts society. This option seems to have the most utility though, because the mother, child, and society all benefit more than in an abortion.
Based solely on utility, Abortion is the best option unless all the typical, low-income, single mothers choose to give up their child. The likelihood of these options happening in a society should determine what laws are made in that region. If the proposed single, low-income women are less likely to give up their children after birth and instead live on welfare, abortion has more utility. Conversely, if they give up their child, abortion has less utility for that society.
Comments Off on Abortion: Does it Harm Society?
Filed under Mill, Uncategorized
The Rights of the Unborn
The arguments either for or against abortion generally stem from one singular point of contention: at what point does a fetus become classified as a human being. For if the unborn child is in fact a human, then killing it is no different than murder. Performing this harm upon the child brings into effect a clashing of utilitarian principles, which only heighten the issue. On one hand, causing physical harm to another must not be allowed to occur. On the other, based strictly on what is best for the greatest number of people, abortion may be the more utilitarian act.
The only time a government should have the power to restrict the actions of an individual is when they directly cause the harm of another or others. Though this could often be left up to interpretation as to what ‘harm’ entails, physical harm to another human meets the criteria without a doubt. There is no question as to whether or not the aggressor is merely offending or being ethically incorrect towards another individual; killing is objectively wrong and not up to interpretation. Therefore, for a government to mandate that abortion is legally wrong, contingent on the classification of a fetus as a human, would be morally and ethically permissible.
The most fundamental principle of utilitarianism is that whatever does the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people is inherently right. This becomes an incredibly difficult concept when it comes to abortion because what is best for the greatest number of people may cause harm to another. In many instances in which abortion is an alternative, the parents or parents of the unborn child may benefit more from an abortion than the unborn child. These benefits may come in the form of a lack of a financial burden or in the simple lack of preparedness. Raising a child is an extremely difficult task and not everyone is suited for it at any given time. For this reason, an abortion may be better for more people than keeping the child, making it the most utilitarian decision.
The issue of abortion is an extremely difficult one as there is no clear-cut right or wrong. Though one cannot harm another, whatever is best for the greatest number of people must be followed. However, in this specific instance, the right of an individual not to be physically harmed trumps the benefits of what may be a majority. For this reason, abortion is wrong and the government has the right to regulate it in order to protect the rights of the unborn.
Comments Off on The Rights of the Unborn
Filed under Mill
Magicians and Heretics and Illegal Immigrants
There is a justified malaise growing within American citizenry over the willfully continued practice of its government to separate migrant children from their parents, incarcerate them in a manner suitable for criminals post conviction, and treat their health and wellbeing with an ambivalence that has resulted in the deaths of three children under 9 years of age, the youngest being not quite 2 years old. https://nbcnews.to/2AJyHn1
While it is fair and responsible for a nation of laws and citizenship to enforce both, the controlled scope of what constitutes enforcement of the law is a civil responsibility as well as a utilitarian obligation. Additionally, it is imperative to consider whether adherence to a policy which produces such results as the untimely death of children is in fact an efficient countermeasure to its intended exigency. To ignore the means and the ends, or to allow the ignoring of, is an irresponsible turn towards social and actual tyranny. This is a tyranny where the prejudices of a ruling group becomes the legally vindicated abhorrence of its supporters who in turn prop up the laws of the ruling group. This confirmation circle precludes rational policy decisions that best serve the civilization and instead distill a majority opinion into law. Majority in this case is meant to read as the opinions of the deciding group in the nation and not meant to imply that they hold a true numerical advantage. As this relates to the separation of children from parents at the border, as of yet, there are no discernible desired effects upon illegal migration to the United States as the result of these tactics. Instead, methods of this ilk resolve to be compulsory at best, to discourage would-be immigrants who would not be willing to lose their children perhaps forever. Where people cannot be reasoned with or instructed, compulsion may well serve the best course for their tutelage, as long as said compulsion is the best manner with which to best help them who cannot best help themselves. This is not the case in modern times concerning the peoples who, though often destitute, are not savage and incapable of reason.
Children, more than any adult, do not deserve the threat of incarceration, illness, or death for crimes they cannot understand and therefore could not have committed. Detaining families found breaking the law by illegally entering the United States, thus restricting their movement and ability to escape American recourse, is prudent execution of border control. In no manner is that endeavor assisted by the threat placed upon the young. In no manner are American ideals upheld and preserved by separating families. In fact, many of the dangers that the influencing parties would seek to avoid by employing these tactics like murder, erosion of values, crime, and general harm to the vulnerable are instead perpetrated in the attempt to prevent.
Regardless of the complicated arguments surrounding the state of the American border, the needs of South American immigrants, or the American need of them, one piece of the puzzle is clear. Three children have died while under the care of one the richest, “freest” nations in the world for no reason at all. The ultimate transgression against the liberty of the smallest of us has been not only employed, but sanctioned lawfully, politically, and perhaps most odious—socially. There may be reasons given for such an act, but currently they most closely resemble the attempted rationalizations of early colonists who, legally, persecuted “witches” or heretics or magicians.
Persecutory discrimination is a perfectly legal frame of mind to have, a perfectly acceptable set of opinions to keep to ones self. However, the transposition of these mental modes into compulsory laws of lethal consequence to the youth is an infringement upon the very tenants the American nation was founded upon, and cannot serve the true rational pursuit of any liberal government, especially one aimed at becoming the paragon from which the world should take notes. It is not enough to simply call one’s nation great, for true greatness is that which lasts past the individuals who would say it. For lasting effect, reflected in the histories of the world, make America think again…and greatness may follow.
Comments Off on Magicians and Heretics and Illegal Immigrants
Filed under Mill
Expediency and Higher Education
It is no surprise that those members of society that have accumulated wealth within the span of their lives would use their influence in order to benefit those that are closest to them by paving for them a direct path to financial success. Throughout the span of the last few decades there has grown an emphasis on higher education, specifically that of 4-year programs at university systems, as the sole path to building a lucrative career in life. I do not suppose to underestimate the value of an educated mind, as it often allows one to open oneself to possibilities perhaps not previously thought by that individual as being in the realm of possibility. However, it seems that the educational system has made a shift from an entity encouraging the process of learning disciplines through personal achievement in order to expand individual scope to an authority which can launch career paths for anyone who is willing to contribute more substantial amounts of their personal wealth.
With a system that values these contributions over merits earned from mental growth, we have created an environment in our workforce that creates exclusivity and very well breeds elitist suppositions that only further the personal gains of a few. Parents with the means to pay large sums of cash can be sure that their children’s futures are taken care of despite not having done the work that less fortunate others would have to put in. It may be an immediate guarantee for those few, but I will argue that it hurts society in the process. These privileged individuals are taking the spots from others individuals that, through learned dedication, could effectively cause positive change for the benefit of society. The indictments of the parents involved is a step in the right direction towards inclusivity, discouraging corruption that impedes progress. However, larger scrutiny towards the institution itself must be pursued in order to achieve a greater momentum to the advancement of human ability and understanding.
This is the purpose of higher education. Cultivating knowledge gained over many generations, across many regions, to further the expansion of the collective human mind towards innovation and enterprise that maximizes possible happiness. But it has become a cycle where the system assures only it’s own happiness while granting the happiness of those that have wealth and status for the highest dollar amount. This type of expediency is truly slowing down the process of progress for society because it creates a bubble in which many cannot enter and therefore cannot prosper.
Comments Off on Expediency and Higher Education
Filed under Mill