Over the time that elapsed from my last post, there were two new debates presented by the Independent party blog; accept nuclear proliferation and overturn Roe v Wade.
The argument over whether to accept nuclear proliferation is basically about how much nuclear proliferation we should allow. In plain language, this debate is over whether or not we should allow non-nuclear countries to acquire nukes. Some questions being debated are: Will nuclear energy prove indispensable for meeting our future energy needs without causing massive climate change? And will the proliferation of peaceful civilian nuclear energy make nuclear weapons proliferation impossible to stop?
The other issue being presented/debated was that of whether or not to overturn the famous supreme court case, Roe v. Wade. The case Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the point at which the fetus becomes "viable". The article presents 20 provactive questions that spark some good thoughts. Some of these questions include Does the Constitution grow and change over time? Can it protect rights that nobody intended it to when it was ratified?, What would be the political effects of overturning Roe?, etc.
Personally I think that Roe v. Wade should stay intact because I believe that a woman has the right to do what she wishes with her body. In the case of nuclear proliferation, I don't think that the United States has the right to interfere in other countries affairs but I understand the threat that the other countries pose when they possess these weapons.
Links to other articles about topics:
2 comments:
About the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I think that one more reason about it is that the U.S. does not want nuclear weapons to fall in the hand so of "crazy people" (Kim Jong Il) of a country that could use it as a threat to the U.S. One of the articles cited in the blog says that if Al-Queda could get nuclear weapons they would us them as their "religious duty", which is a bit scary when you think about it. As far as the Roe vs. Wade, I totally agree with you. But I can see why the government would have a problem with the moral contraversy of killing someone/something(depending on views) that cannot defend itself.
Love the political cartoon!
Post a Comment