Last Saturday marked the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, the highly controversial case which made abortion, in some situations legal. Norma McCorvey, called Jane Roe in court documents to protect her privacy, falsely said she had been raped in an attempt to obtain an abortion for her third pregnancy. At the time, Texas law allowed abortion in the case of rape, however Norma was denied due to lack of evidence and no police report. Norma then gave up her claim of being raped, hired an attorney and sued the state of Texas. Her case eventually wound up on the docket of the Supreme Court, leading to one of the most controversial decisions in American history.
Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun said that the implied right to privacy in the Constitution is “broad enough to encompass a women’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy”. The court’s decision made abortions legal in the first trimester without restrictions.
In the coming weeks, we will look more in-depth at this case and study how the court came to their decision. Supporters feel that a woman should have the right to choose, have reproductive freedom and maintain right to privacy. Opponents say there is no Constitutional foundation for supporting abortions, that life begins at conception and that there is a moral issue at stake.
Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about abortion. On one hand, my faith makes me think abortion would not be a choice for me. On the other hand, I think it’s easy to say you feel a certain way when you haven’t been in that situation before. I would never want to pass judgment on someone. It’s a tricky situation and one I am grateful that I don’t have to face. So my question to you this week is “Do you favor or oppose the Supreme Court’s decision making abortions within the first trimester legal? Why or why not?” Guys, I want to hear from you too! Abortion is not just a female issue – it takes two to make a child. Answers are due no later than Tuesday, February 1st, 2011.
P.S. The State of the Union was on last night! Am I the only one who was excited? Probably, but I hope you watched it all the same…stay tuned for a recap on next week’s blog.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Does America Make Homegrown Terrorists?
By now, we all know of the Arizona shootings that took place on January 8th, 2011, in which a gunman killed six people and wounded thirteen others at an event for Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Representative Giffords survived a single gunshot wound to the head. At the time of this writing, it is reported that she is able to open her eyes, move both of her legs and one of her hands, however she has a long road of recovery ahead. One of her staffers, three retirees, a federal judge and a nine year old girl were all killed. The suspect, Jared Lee Loughner, was taken into federal custody at the scene, after being tackled by onlookers as he struggled to reload.
The attack raise questions about the tone of America’s political discourse. Sarah Palin has received a lot of heat after news outlets reported that she had targeted Gifford’s district using a crosshair image on her website. Representative Giffords had warned Palin that her use of violent imagery would have “consequences”. For her part, Palin issued a statement expressing sympathy for the victims and stating she does not condone violence and that “acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own”. She went on to say that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.” The term “blood libel” set off another firestorm of controversy with leaders from the Jewish community saying they found the use of the term offensive.
Now I am sure that Sarah Palin never intended for anyone to shoot Representative Giffords or anyone else for that matter. However, there is no denying that America’s political discourse seems to have taken a very nasty tone. It is one thing to disagree with someone and discuss why you disagree, in fact, having open political debate is one of the things that make our country so great but where do you draw the line? Is it acceptable to use violent imagery, threats and derogatory comments about people’s race, religion or gender? On the other side, when you start censoring people, or condemning people for every speech they make you take away the very liberties America stands for.
So my question to you this week is, “What do you think about the state of America’s political discourse? Do you think it’s acceptable for political leaders to say whatever they want about other candidates/ office holders? Should these people be censored in some way and if so, how should we go about it?” Answers are due no later than Tuesday, January 24th, 2011.
The attack raise questions about the tone of America’s political discourse. Sarah Palin has received a lot of heat after news outlets reported that she had targeted Gifford’s district using a crosshair image on her website. Representative Giffords had warned Palin that her use of violent imagery would have “consequences”. For her part, Palin issued a statement expressing sympathy for the victims and stating she does not condone violence and that “acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own”. She went on to say that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.” The term “blood libel” set off another firestorm of controversy with leaders from the Jewish community saying they found the use of the term offensive.
Now I am sure that Sarah Palin never intended for anyone to shoot Representative Giffords or anyone else for that matter. However, there is no denying that America’s political discourse seems to have taken a very nasty tone. It is one thing to disagree with someone and discuss why you disagree, in fact, having open political debate is one of the things that make our country so great but where do you draw the line? Is it acceptable to use violent imagery, threats and derogatory comments about people’s race, religion or gender? On the other side, when you start censoring people, or condemning people for every speech they make you take away the very liberties America stands for.
So my question to you this week is, “What do you think about the state of America’s political discourse? Do you think it’s acceptable for political leaders to say whatever they want about other candidates/ office holders? Should these people be censored in some way and if so, how should we go about it?” Answers are due no later than Tuesday, January 24th, 2011.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Like, Comment, Share!
Some of you, who know me, know that I’ve never been much of a technology person. I don’t have a smart phone, I don’t use GPS and I don’t post pictures online. For years, my friends have been encouraging me to set up a Facebook account, and recently I finally took their advice. Now I have all of these “virtual friends” that I feel pressured to keep up with. I know who is where and what they are doing every second of the day. I’m not sure I need to know these little details, but I’m slowly getting more accustomed to checking in with family and friends via Facebook. Sigh.
Although I haven’t seen the movie The Social Network yet, I did read that Time magazine named the creator of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg their Person of the Year for 2010. The twenty-six year old, created Facebook in 2004 while still a sophomore at Harvard. Today he is worth an estimated $6.9 billion and Facebook has over 550 million users. Every sixty seconds there are over 1.7 million actions performed on Facebook and their membership rate grows at about 700,000 people every day! In fact, 1 out of every 12 people on the planet has a Facebook account. That’s right…the PLANET! This means, according to Time magazine, “In less than seven years, Zuckerberg wired together a twelfth of humanity into a single network”.
That really got me thinking. We now live in a global community, with access to resources that our parents and grandparents could’ve never imagined. The world is literally at our fingertips. So my question to you this week is, “If money were no object, how could you use technology to better your community, school or planet?” Answers are due no later than Tuesday, January 18th, 2011.
Although I haven’t seen the movie The Social Network yet, I did read that Time magazine named the creator of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg their Person of the Year for 2010. The twenty-six year old, created Facebook in 2004 while still a sophomore at Harvard. Today he is worth an estimated $6.9 billion and Facebook has over 550 million users. Every sixty seconds there are over 1.7 million actions performed on Facebook and their membership rate grows at about 700,000 people every day! In fact, 1 out of every 12 people on the planet has a Facebook account. That’s right…the PLANET! This means, according to Time magazine, “In less than seven years, Zuckerberg wired together a twelfth of humanity into a single network”.
That really got me thinking. We now live in a global community, with access to resources that our parents and grandparents could’ve never imagined. The world is literally at our fingertips. So my question to you this week is, “If money were no object, how could you use technology to better your community, school or planet?” Answers are due no later than Tuesday, January 18th, 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)