UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 1 to Reflections on Ethics 52
It is not right to assume what another human thinks with such little evidence.

by Shelby

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

I think that whoever wrote this page probably has a very narrow minded approach to the way he/ she structured his/ her page. I am not saying that the facts do not line up or that there was not enough evidence to support the main idea of the paper, I am simply stating that defining the opinions of others is wrong.

"Those legislators who passed this bill and the Governor who signed it into law are nothing more than hypocrites. They don't give a damn for the most vulnerable and most helpless." (Last paragraph of article)

The word hypocrisy is defined by answers.com as: "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness."

It can not be reasonable assumed that ones actions are a true reflection of their beliefs as there are many actions that have multiple meanings. The banning of all abortions could have in fact been at the best interest of the child and maybe, just maybe, the state legislators did not consider the alternative negative ramifications such as affecting the poor in such a terrible way. I had personally not considered these ideas.

It is not right, nor reasonable, to assume what another human thinks with such little evidence. It is also very outlandish to state such malicious things about a person you do not know.

I understand this issue has many terrible side effects but try considering an approach of ignorance on the legislators; part rather than outright hypocrisy or cruelty.