People take different stances on the issue, supporting their opinions with various justifications, such as the need for equality and natural competition. Although it was created to help advance the position of disadvantaged peoples, some view affirmative action as an unfair, and even prejudicial, force in our society.
While the Johnson administration institutionalized affirmative action, the struggle for equality actually began a century earlier with the passage of important legislation. In the late 1860s and early 1870s, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments respectively abolished slavery, guaranteed African Americans citizenship and voting rights. The 1866 Civil Rights Act helped to ensure property rights for African Americans. However, in 1896, the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court Case justified segregation, declaring that African Americans could be “separate but equal,” spurring the rise of prejudicial and racist Jim Crow laws.
Started by Lyndon Johnson’s Executive Order 11246, affirmative action was conceived to provide equal advantages to all peoples, and to address past governmental injustices by providing support for groups that have been historically discriminated against. Many people would argue that it is our government’s prime responsibility to correct inequities and to create a more just society.
Many take the view that affirmative action is more of a patch than a cure-all. Opponents of affirmative action argue that affirmative action shares the same purpose as the concept of slavery reparations: it punishes the majority for the misdeeds of earlier generations. Further, while affirmative action may seem to make society more egalitarian, its critics argue that the policies are anti-meritocratic and are, actually, a manifestation of “reverse-racism.”
The affirmative action debate lends itself to some important questions, such as: Does the government have a responsibility to correct social inequities? Does affirmative action accomplish its objective of creating a more just society, or is it a manifestation of “reverse-racism”?
About the Author: OpineTree encourages debate on today’s most controversial political topics, including abortion, affirmative action, cloning, the death penalty, euthanasia, gay marriage, gun control, health care, social security, stem cells, as well as other debate topics. Go to http://www.opinetree.com/affirmativeaction.html to join the affirmative action debate.
Distribution source:www.webmasterinfoandcontent.com Html Publisher
The Abortion Debate
By Kenny Du
One of today’s most controversial topics, the abortion debate pits the rights of a mother against the rights of a fetus. The most common stances on the issue are “pro-choice” and “pro-life." These two viewpoints hinge on legal and moral considerations. Another common viewpoint is a more blended pragmatist view, which states that abortion should be prohibited except for specific cases.Html Publisher
"Pro-choice" advocates stress a woman's right to choose whether and when to terminate her pregnancy. In their view, a woman should have absolute control over her own body and, by extension, over the survival of the fetus within her. The "pro-life" camp argues that life begins at conception and any termination of pregnancy after the formation of the embryo is equivalent to murder.
There is an underlying and significant legal debate raging, especially in the United States. Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that is still relevant today. The Court voted 7-2 to overturn all state laws banning abortion. The Justices concluded that such laws violate a woman's constitutional right to privacy. Since then, the moral debate has taken on political significance.
There exist other viewpoints in addition to the clear cut “pro choice” and “pro life” positions. For example, some pro-choice advocates believe abortion is no longer morally permissible after the second trimester. Similarly, some pro-lifers allow abortion in extreme cases, such as rape or incest. Roughly two percent of pregnancies occur under these conditions.
The abortion debate introduces a larger, overriding question: When must the government intervene in citizens' personal lives, and when must it avoid doing so?
About the Author: OpineTree encourages debate on today’s most controversial political topics, including abortion, affirmative action, cloning, the death penalty, euthanasia, gay marriage, gun control, health care, social security, stem cells, as well as other debate topics. Go to http://www.opinetree.com/abortion.html to join the abortion debate.
Distributed by:www.webmasterinfoandcontent.com
The Death Penalty Debate
By Kenny Du
While the death penalty has been utilized for centuries, we continue to debate the morality and efficacy of this punishment. Many people argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to potential murderers, terrorists, and other violent criminals. However, others find the death penalty completely incompatible with the ethical standards of modern civilization. Although some states have since outlawed the practice, the US remains one of few democracies to maintain the capital punishment.
The term “capital punishment” originates from the Latin word “caput,” which means head. Capital punishment, therefore, was a punishment reserved for serious crimes that warranted decapitation. Such serious crimes, referred to as capital offenses, are generally limited to treason and murder in the U.S. However, in different legal systems of foreign countries, the death penalty may be given for a lesser crime, like robbery. The most common modern methods of execution are electrocution and lethal injection. These methods are seen as more humane than previous methods, which included use of a firing squad, burning at the stake, crucifixion, decapitation, hanging and gassing.
Even with these more “humane” treatments, many people have trouble justifying the taking of human life – no matter how heinous the crime. Opponents of the death penalty argue that it is immoral. They ask, “How can the government condemn killing by killing?” To these critics, the death penalty is the ultimate betrayal of human rights and it has no place in our society. Furthermore, they argue, criminal proceedings are fraught with human error, causing innocent people to be executed. Finally, opponents of the death penalty argue that capital punishment is not an effective criminal deterrent.
Supporters of the death penalty assert that capital punishment deters violent crime. In addition to the question of deterrence, supporters of capital punishment argue that such retribution is morally justified. In many cases, especially involving murder and terrorism, execution is the best remedy, because it will guarantee that a monstrous person will be incapable of harming society. Finally, from an economic standpoint, executing a criminal will be less expensive than the seemingly limitless access to appeals in the U.S. courts.
The death penalty debate calls into the question the role and boundaries of the justice process. Should the government have the right to kill? Is the death penalty morally justifiable?
About the Author: OpineTree encourages debate on today’s most controversial political topics, including abortion, affirmative action, cloning, the death penalty, euthanasia, gay marriage, gun control, health care, social security, stem cells, as well as other debate topics. Go to http://www.opinetree.com/deathpenalty.html to join the death penalty debate. Distributed by:www.webmasterinfoandcontent.com