There were a lot of interesting articles on the front page alone today. Skimming through before reading, I found a handful I'd like to read, including the HPV vaccine being acceptable for young boys and China's initiatives towards clean water. The one most interesting to me though was a new amendment stirring and a few states that would make an embryo a human, adding more conflict to the abortion debate. In Mississippi, what would happen is the "personhood amendment" would make a fertilized egg a human being, therefore rendering abortion and certain birth control methods illegal. Those who oppose the the amendment claim that it is a dangerous mix of criminal law into medical care, which has the potential to cause great harm. Those in favor see it as an "inspired moral leap." In the coming days, many Mississippi residents plan to protest, either by handing fliers out against the amendment or speaking for it.
In this next paragraph, I typically give my thoughts and opinions on the issue at hand. While I do have firm beliefs in the abortion debate, i don't think this is the time or place to share them. Instead, I'll talk a bit about the style of this article. The summary lede and to-the-point headline work very well in favor of this piece. The topic is controversial enough, so once the reader is in, I think he or she will most likely continue to read it. Throughout the article, I noticed a bit of a theme. While the reporter displays both sides, you can see a bit that he is not in favor of the new amendment, calling it "far-reaching" and often citing "doctors and women" as being against it, as if there are none of either in favor. With such a hot button issue, I excepted opinions to shine through and I'm interested to see the aftermath in Mississippi, no matter what the outcome of this amendment is.
No comments:
Post a Comment