The Abortion Debate

Written by Peter Kennedy

One of today’s most controversial topics,repparttar abortion debate pitsrepparttar 148608 rights of a mother againstrepparttar 148609 rights of a fetus. The most common, clear-cut stances onrepparttar 148610 issue are “pro-choice” and “pro-life,” which hinge on legal and moral considerations. Another common viewpoint is a more blended pragmatist view, which states that abortion should be prohibited except for specific cases.

"Pro-choice" advocates stress a woman's right to choose whether and when to terminate her pregnancy. In their view, a woman should have absolute control over her own body and, by extension, overrepparttar 148611 survival ofrepparttar 148612 fetus within her. The "pro-life" camp argues that life begins at conception and any termination of pregnancy afterrepparttar 148613 formation ofrepparttar 148614 embryo is equivalent to murder.

One may deem abortion immoral, but does that necessarily mean it should be illegal? As with many moral debates, there is an underlying and perhaps more significant legal debate raging, especially inrepparttar 148615 United States. Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that is still relevant today. The Court voted 7-2 to overturn all state laws banning abortion. The Justices concluded that such laws violate a woman's constitutional right to privacy. Since then,repparttar 148616 moral debate has taken on political significance.

People say — and do — the dumbest things

Written by Kenn Gividen

People say — and do —repparttar dumbest things by Kenn Gividen

When Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector exercised his right to free speech last week, he prompted a quick response from Robert Bork. Known for beingrepparttar 148025 first Supreme Court Justice nominee to be, well, “borked,”repparttar 148026 judge was in no mood for Spector’s silliness. “I know Specter,” he retorted, “andrepparttar 148027 truth is not in him.”

What prompted Bork’s remark wasrepparttar 148028 Senator’s suggestion — make that accusation — thatrepparttar 148029 judge “had original intent, and if his original intent stood, we’d still be segregatingrepparttar 148030 United States Senate with African Americans on one side and Caucasians onrepparttar 148031 other side.”

Both remarks were made Sunday on CNN’s Late Edition.

While Spector’s right to free speech is a highly valued freedom is without question. Butrepparttar 148032 right to speak freely falls short of excusing some ofrepparttar 148033 asinine excesses and down right abuses that often accompany that right.

It’s one ofrepparttar 148034 of living in a free society. People haverepparttar 148035 right to say — and do — dumb things. And they exercise that freedom liberally.

Columnist Morton Marcus, for example, may have out-trumped Spector. While musing inrepparttar 148036 aftermath ofrepparttar 148037 Supreme Court’s recent eminent domain decision, he wrote that private property is “a privilege conferred byrepparttar 148038 government.” That, of course, would have come as a shock torepparttar 148039 founders of nation whose sacrifices providedrepparttar 148040 framework for private ownership. It also irked Ross Bell, a Wayne County Libertarian. In response to Marcus opinion, Bell quipped, “Welcome torepparttar 148041 USSA.”

Then there wasrepparttar 148042 incident atrepparttar 148043 University of Georgia’s School of Journalism, reported inrepparttar 148044 Athens Banner-Herald.

John Soloski’s expressed concern for a co-worker’s safety — coupled with a compliment for her appearance — got him in hot water for sexual harassment. The compliment on his part turned to a complaint on her part and Soloski was found guilty. Atrepparttar 148045 time, she didn’t act offended, he claimed. The event took place at a fundraiser forrepparttar 148046 school whererepparttar 148047 “offender” is dean.

Another recent abuse of free speech occurred in Victorville, California.

Bethany Hauf, a 34-year student atrepparttar 148048 local community college, requested permission to write a term paper. The subject? The effect of Christianity onrepparttar 148049 development ofrepparttar 148050 United States. Her professor, apparently unacquainted with free speech or common sense, granted permission. But he added one stipulation: “No mention of big ‘G’ gods, i.e., one, true god argumentation.”

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use