Of coarse, I picked an article that would challenge my original post.
In Christina Valdez's post, "Why Not Give it a Second Look?", written Tuesday, March 6, 2012, she argues that it's the least 'mothers' could do for their unborn child. What is another 24 hours going to hurt?
If a person is decided to get an abortion they have already thought long and hard about the decision they are making. They are well aware that they are carrying an unborn child and they are also aware of the consequences of their actions. But if a 'mother' is deciding to make that decision she likely has a logical reason. 24 hours is probably not going to alter her decision.
Also, yes, Steve Jobs' has played a significant role in the advancement of technology but with out him we would still be advanced. Instead of buying an IPhone, I would buy an Android and instead of buying an IPad or a Mac, I would buy a Galaxy or a Dell. Steve Jobs was only the creator of one brand of technology (Yes, we all love his brand, but if it didn't exist we would love all the others).
Sanchez using an argument listing the, "people we would not have in the world today if abortion took place" is a seriously weak argument. Technically speaking, if abortion had taken place, we wouldn't have a bunch of important people in the world. Barack Obama would not be our President if his mom aborted him or Ben Franklin would not have invented the light bulb if his mother would have aborted him. But in the end, we would have a different President and someone else would have invented the light bulb.
Lastly, and I would like for you to post back and explain this to me, but how in the world would Sanchez's article be directed at cancer survivors?
No comments:
Post a Comment