Legislators: S.D. Abortion Ban to be Introduced Again
My first article is from the Christian Post out of South Dakota on January,28, 2007. Even as a conservative newspaper, it seemed to give equal criticism to both stances. The article was a summary of the proposed bill that would ban most abortions in South Dakota, with the exceptions for rape, incest, and in life or death situations. The opinions in conflict were those of whether the bill should be put on the ballot yet again. Last November, it was shot down by the voters, pro-life believers say they are not ready to give up the fight. The new bill would not try to get abortion completely outlawed, just legalized under certain circumstances. Because it was a governmental issue, the facts presented in the arguments were voters percentages (56 percent were against banning abortion). The author did a very good job of trying to remain unbias in this situation. With the facts at hand, he couldn't really fudge the results. Abortion in this article was presented as more of an opinion manner, not one that would necessarily be proven with facts.
Young Pro-Lifers Emerge as New Anti-Abortion Force
This article published on January 23, 2007 in the Christian Post located in South Dakota, is what a subscriber would be expecting out of a religious newspaper. There is only one argument presented by Michelle Vu, Abortion is never okay. In this article, Senators and Pastors who use patriotic and bible views to present their arguments. They uphold the belief that anything, including adoption, is better than abortion. Pastor Luke J. Robinson, rests heavy on population numbers quoting, "Over 500,000 babies were aborted last year in the African community- a number of unborn lives that could have populated the whole city of Fredrick." He leaves out the numbers of how many lives were saved by abortion because of the health risks brought upon by high risk births. The data the interviewees present aren't very reliable, anyone can spit out numbers, but there is no information on where he is getting these digits from. I wouldn't say that he was very reliable. Also, I'm curious on what that has to do with younger supporters of the pro-life stance. Curious, they didn't interview one young person. Only men, old enough to have children.
Abortion Foes Should Rethink Target of Pickets (January 22,2007)
This editorial, published in the Palladium-Item newsgroup, out of Richmond, Indiana, was a letter I choose to include on sole basis as a reply to the previous article. Instead of spitting out numbers, the writer, Frances Peacock, chooses to use political ideology to prove the legitimacy of pro-choice. He brings up the idea, that instead of protesting against abortion, especially at places like Planned Parenthood, we should take a look at the people who are using these types of facilities. Those who protest are usually from a totally different background, probably middle aged and middle class citizens. What happens if one can't afford health care? Is it their fault, or is it the government's? So instead of challenging the government, challenge their policy making- which make it more difficult for those who need birth control and contraceptives to get them. This article uses views of policy making to legitimize his stance on abortion. Even though he does not address the problem directly, he just uses his information from the government to make an argument about why we are even arguing. He makes those who protest seem silly.
Alleged Bid to Abort Leads to Baby's Death (January 25,2007)
This article published in the Boston Globe was extremely disturbing. The article surrounded the act of a young Dominican woman taking a prescription drug, Cytotec, which prevent ulcers, to abort her baby. The debate is whether it was a illegal abortion or homicide. The baby was between 23 and 25 weeks along in her pregnancy. In Massachusetts, abortion is legal until 24 weeks. In Latin American cultures abortion is almost always illegal. Therefore, practices like this one are very popular. Abreu, the mother, is now facing homicide charges for the premature death of her daughter Ashely. The facts from this case are presented in scientific data of blood and other test results. The real facts behind this article is again based on opinion. This becomes a debate looking at the governments policies on health care and the availability of contraceptives. The writer does a very good job on presenting very fair arguments on both sides of the debate.
Participants In the March for Life Outside the Supreme Court on Monday.
This article published on January 22, 2007 in the New York Times, is a recap of the march on 7th street in the mall and outside the Supreme Court. The article tells about the thousands who showed up to support the rally for Pro-Life. The article also includes that the president was telecasted from Camp David in support of the rioters. There are no facts in the articles. All the participants arguments are those of opinion, and mostly with religious bias. The question that this article brought up, was how can the government enter on a side of religious supporters? Where is the separation of church and state? Does the government have the right to make this sort of decision when the main facts are opinions? Wouldn't our rights as American citizens be the right to have our own opinions and make our decisions based on those ideas? No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion. As a woman, it is our right to control our bodies and anything we harbor in it.
The main debate/controversies over my topic is extremely obvious- Is abortion a right or a right to kill? Then in there lies the debate whether the government should have any interference in the debate because of the fact that religion is a key player on the side of Pro-lifers. For the most part, the writers did a very good job staying unbias in a very controversial subject. The only exceptions were the article in the Christian Post and in the New York times on the marching and protesting. But at a Pro-life march, you aren't going to be able to find interviewees that are in favor of what they are taking a stand against. I feel like you cannot trust anything on such controversial debates because the abortion issue is one based mostly on opinions. No matter what newspaper or magazines publish these types of articles, biases will be somewhat present, even with what the subject of the article is. If you look in a very liberal newspaper, you will probably find views that will favor pro-choice, in a Christian conservative newspaper you will find pro-life articles. The key is reading both and not fully believing everything you read all the time. I think we are very influenced but what we read and what positions are being written about. As readers we will tend to agree with the articles that target us as a reader, concerning our race,religion,age and sex.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
What is Family? Reading 1
The first reading, by David Popenoe, on the decline of the American family, was by far the most controversial reading for this week. Popenoe caused a lot of disturbances in the Anthropolgy world. Other authors like Stacey and Cowan, found his ideas off the wall and without true background data. In his writings he focuses on the change of the makeup of the family as the decline of the great era of the nuclear family. Even though times have changed, like our world and cultures, he focuses on the beauties of the 1950s where the "traditional" roles of the family flourished. The family, in Popenoe's opinion is at his best when there is one dominant figure, the man, and at least one dependent individual, such as the wife and children. The fault of today's world, in his opinion, is the role of the women. Women are supposed to be subordinate. A family cannot function with the woman outside the home. Her duty is to raise the children and be an anchor at home, while the husband brings home the bread.
Cowan's argument is that Popenoe really has no idea what he is talking about. The reading by Cowan uses statistics and known facts to prove his argument. He completely denies all of Popenoe's arguments because he claims they are based on opinion, not facts. Cowan says that the family has been in decline since the beginning of time. Government and society have shaped a world where it is impossible for the traditional role of the family to stay the same. Families have been interfered with, where he argues they should be left alone. Government should play no role in the hands of a family. He feels differently that Popenoe because he feels the equality of women is not a negative thing. He sees gender equality as a positive change in our ever changing society. Independent women are good role models for their daughters in future generations. A group of individuals should not be oppressed to preserve a traditional way of the family.
Stacey argues, 'What is traditional?' Is there a certain way a family should act? Is their a certain, distinct framework of a family? Stacey says no. Traditional changes with the way of the world. We must modernize to keep up with the world. He claims that Popenoe is too focused on what he feels what was, but yet again not based on fact. He cannot base an entire idea on the way he was raised, or how his own family acted. He argues that the family hasn't always been the only strong institution, like Popenoe claims. Individuals have always looked inside their family, as well as outside for support and love. Today, the definition of family is always changing with homosexual relationships and cohabitation. Can friends be considered part of the family? Who is to define what family means to a person?
Both authors feel like Popenoe is dwelling on a past that never existed. He is obsessed with the idea of a nuclear family. A type of family that could never exist in present day society. Divorce has always been present in history. It is present because of tensions in a relationship. Tensions brought upon by society pulls that have never been present in past societies. Divorce happens. Studies have shown, unlike what Popenoe claims, that a marriage continuing on hostile terms is actually harder on children than the divorce itself. To stay together would only cause heartbreak for all involved.
The debate surrounding the American family, is what is actually going on with it. Is it truly declining, or is it just changing with the times? Some would claim the lower birth rates and higher divorce rates are the results of families falling apart. Really though with social pressures and governmental interference, are these statistics just proof that there is something else in the decline? Such as morals. Should we be so concerned with trying to keep families from changing, or should we move with the tides and make it possible for people to survive through divorce, breakup, or other social curses?
Popenoe claims the decline of the family is proven by lower birth rates. But honestly, the cost of children has multiplied. It is not financially sound to have multiple children, if you don't have the money to afford them. Families are trying to give their children decent lives. He also feels since the nuclear system failed, families have failed. Not true. Families have evolved making it possible to function with oppressing a group of people. He also applies this theory to time spent together. We are living in a fast paced world, families cannot always spend time together. Is this the parents fault, or is it the fault of the society we exist in. Women and children need their independence. Without making their own place in this world, they will not be able to survive outside the family.
Personally, I would take the side of Stacey in this debate. We need to focus more on how to make situations better for families, than try to change them. We need to except change as a way of life. I come from a family that has been divided by divorce. I feel it would have been extremely unhealthy for me to have seen my parents fight day after day. Going through what we have been through as a family has only made us stronger. Being raised by a single mother, I have earned an amazing role model. I feel I am ten times more independent because of how I was forced to grow up. If my parents divorce impacted me in any way, it was a positive one. I have learned to make the best out of my situation and how to be a strong person. I hope I can disprove statistics and have a wonderful marriage and family someday. I would hate to think that because my parents could not make things work, I will never be able to have a functional relationship.
Cowan's argument is that Popenoe really has no idea what he is talking about. The reading by Cowan uses statistics and known facts to prove his argument. He completely denies all of Popenoe's arguments because he claims they are based on opinion, not facts. Cowan says that the family has been in decline since the beginning of time. Government and society have shaped a world where it is impossible for the traditional role of the family to stay the same. Families have been interfered with, where he argues they should be left alone. Government should play no role in the hands of a family. He feels differently that Popenoe because he feels the equality of women is not a negative thing. He sees gender equality as a positive change in our ever changing society. Independent women are good role models for their daughters in future generations. A group of individuals should not be oppressed to preserve a traditional way of the family.
Stacey argues, 'What is traditional?' Is there a certain way a family should act? Is their a certain, distinct framework of a family? Stacey says no. Traditional changes with the way of the world. We must modernize to keep up with the world. He claims that Popenoe is too focused on what he feels what was, but yet again not based on fact. He cannot base an entire idea on the way he was raised, or how his own family acted. He argues that the family hasn't always been the only strong institution, like Popenoe claims. Individuals have always looked inside their family, as well as outside for support and love. Today, the definition of family is always changing with homosexual relationships and cohabitation. Can friends be considered part of the family? Who is to define what family means to a person?
Both authors feel like Popenoe is dwelling on a past that never existed. He is obsessed with the idea of a nuclear family. A type of family that could never exist in present day society. Divorce has always been present in history. It is present because of tensions in a relationship. Tensions brought upon by society pulls that have never been present in past societies. Divorce happens. Studies have shown, unlike what Popenoe claims, that a marriage continuing on hostile terms is actually harder on children than the divorce itself. To stay together would only cause heartbreak for all involved.
The debate surrounding the American family, is what is actually going on with it. Is it truly declining, or is it just changing with the times? Some would claim the lower birth rates and higher divorce rates are the results of families falling apart. Really though with social pressures and governmental interference, are these statistics just proof that there is something else in the decline? Such as morals. Should we be so concerned with trying to keep families from changing, or should we move with the tides and make it possible for people to survive through divorce, breakup, or other social curses?
Popenoe claims the decline of the family is proven by lower birth rates. But honestly, the cost of children has multiplied. It is not financially sound to have multiple children, if you don't have the money to afford them. Families are trying to give their children decent lives. He also feels since the nuclear system failed, families have failed. Not true. Families have evolved making it possible to function with oppressing a group of people. He also applies this theory to time spent together. We are living in a fast paced world, families cannot always spend time together. Is this the parents fault, or is it the fault of the society we exist in. Women and children need their independence. Without making their own place in this world, they will not be able to survive outside the family.
Personally, I would take the side of Stacey in this debate. We need to focus more on how to make situations better for families, than try to change them. We need to except change as a way of life. I come from a family that has been divided by divorce. I feel it would have been extremely unhealthy for me to have seen my parents fight day after day. Going through what we have been through as a family has only made us stronger. Being raised by a single mother, I have earned an amazing role model. I feel I am ten times more independent because of how I was forced to grow up. If my parents divorce impacted me in any way, it was a positive one. I have learned to make the best out of my situation and how to be a strong person. I hope I can disprove statistics and have a wonderful marriage and family someday. I would hate to think that because my parents could not make things work, I will never be able to have a functional relationship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)