Monday, April 22, 2002
I realized that while I believe in an individual's right to bear arms, the debate itself isn't especially dear to my heart. So, with approximately 24 hours left, I changed my paper's topic to abortion. I think I'm doing a decent job of describing the "Pro-Choice" position, though I'll admit that I'm attempting to debunk it within the paper by placing the arguments for abortion, including all (pro-abortion, neutral, Pro-Life) terms and definitions, ahead of what will be a much longer section of arguments abortion. I rationalize it in my own mind by recognizing that since abortion is generally legal in the US, the Pro-Life position has to prosecute their case and provide proof, while the pro-abortion side can simply sit tight and point to Roe v. Wade (1973).
Oh, and by the way, there's no sound reason why Bush and Congress haven't passed a Partial-Birth Abortion bill. There was an almost veto-proof majority when Clinton was in office, and it should still be passable, where it would be signed by Bush. I don't think I'll vote for any Republican House, Senate, or Presidential candidates until this ban is enacted. Not that I'd vote for Democrats, but I'll probably just do some write-in votes (if you don't vote, you need to shut your mouth about the government, and since I can't do that, I have to vote in order to have a clear conscience).
Oh, and by the way, there's no sound reason why Bush and Congress haven't passed a Partial-Birth Abortion bill. There was an almost veto-proof majority when Clinton was in office, and it should still be passable, where it would be signed by Bush. I don't think I'll vote for any Republican House, Senate, or Presidential candidates until this ban is enacted. Not that I'd vote for Democrats, but I'll probably just do some write-in votes (if you don't vote, you need to shut your mouth about the government, and since I can't do that, I have to vote in order to have a clear conscience).
