We should take advice from the ancient rhetors who spent a lot of time preparing for writing and speaking (72). So many individuals and groups are quick to present their opinion, but are lacking a relevant argument. The author of the article, “CAN A FETUS FEEL PAIN?” reminds the public of a concept that is so basic, which supports this notion. There is nothing wrong with people trying to discourage others from participating in activities that oppose their viewpoints. But, when it comes to actually creating laws based on these highly debated topics, it must be based on facts (97). Do our lawmakers actually strictly rely on facts, or do they allow their personal ethical values to play a role in their decision making?
On page 77, the authors make a very interesting point. I used to believe that when or if a couple chooses to get married or procreate that it was a personal issue. The authors state that there is definitely ethical aspects included in these decisions as well because they affect many other people (77). I quickly realized that teachers and a few other professions are held to higher moral and ethical values as opposed to many career choices. As a teacher in a rural, conservative district I have witnessed the reactions of parents and school employees to situations that would fall under these topics. Members of the community may not accept or approve of a teacher living with his or her girlfriend or boyfriend before marriage. I know of another teacher who pulled her daughter out of a classroom of an unmarried pregnant teacher. She did not want her impressionable teen daughter to be influenced by this teacher’s choices. Are there any situations in our society that are strictly private, or are we judged for every decision that we make?
When reading about applying the stasis theory to the first amendment in regards to hateful speech, a current controversial issue comes to mind. Reverend Terry Jones of Florida plans to burn copies of the Quaran on September 11 to mark the 9th anniversary of the terrorist attacks. This act of burning the Quaran is protected by the first amendment; however, despite the legality of this issue, many view it as distasteful. An article published by the Associated Press displays concerns of politicians, military leaders, and ambassadors. They are concerned with the backlash that this act may fuel in regards to anti-US hatred.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning
According to an article on msnbc.com, Rev. Jones feels as if his first amendment rights are being threatened and plans to follow through despite the negative responses.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39048161/ns/us_news-security
This is such a sticky situation and raises many questions in regards to rhetoric, media coverage, ethics, and rights. Overall, I am not sure that I want to see how this display of American rights pans out.