|
|
 |
|
 |
Member since: December 29, 2009
|
|
|
|
>>>Obviously, they were exercising their RIGHTS at the expense of others rights!
It's worth pointing out that anytime you exercise your rights by making a decision concerning a public resource, that action will, in some manner, be done "at the expense of others".
It's not the "rights" that need to be the focus of discussion, it's the "relationships". As long as the discussion is focused on "control" and "legality" there will be no middle ground reached; those terms require selfishness as a focus and no one acting so selfishly will ever accomodate anyone else. There needs to be a better framework for discussion; a way to build a foundation that allows for a variety of options to realistically and practically be considered. Right now, that foundation does not exist.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
While I am not a supporter of this amendment as reflected in this article (although further research is warranted given how incredibly slanted this article is--was the editorial staff asleep or are they really this non-objective?), I think the bigger problem reflected here are the incredibly self-centered viewpoints of the people interviewed. Everything revolves around them; nothing and no one else counts.
Shane Hood, is "embarrassed" by the amendment and then advocates allowing the killing of the child the woman carries whether "...it is a person...or not". It's not about a balanced perspective towards life; it's about one life being worth less because it is dependent on another.
Amanda Simcoe states that the argument is really about abortion. But people are only upset about abortion because it ends a life--the majority of the time because of inconvenience, not any life-threatening issue. The argument is also about the value of that life, not just the woman's ability to make a decision. Her claim "...Are you really so arrogant to think that your personal beliefs are more important than anyone else's," could be applied to her own belief that she has the right to kill a child simply because it is dependent on her.
She goes on with ""a fetus becomes a person when it is capable of surviving outside the womb" doesn't make a lot of sense when one looks at that idea in depth. Infants and small children are as dependent for survival on their parent(s) when they are born as when they are in the womb. The fact that they can survive outside of the womb even before their "due date" arrives is also completely ignored by her.
Overall, this article is far too slanted to actually be more than a forum for women upset over the ammendment in question. While I recognize the need for the option for an abortion to remain legal (the simple fact is that there are tragic circumstances in life that require choosing one person to live and another to die), I am fully in support of not allowing abortion simply to avoid the inconvenience of children (or "abortion on demand"). The life or lives that women carry within them are valuable and that should be recognized legally.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
I always find it rather humorous that people who like to consider themselves "free thinkers" (which is funny in itself) have such a medieval mindset when it comes to Christianity and other religions.
Speaking as a Christian, we don't do good things because of the "threat of Hell". It is our relationship with Christ that inspires us to do good.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
