Melanie E. Woldt
June 28, 2007
Composition II
Week 7 Blog Entry
Gay Marriage: Should it be legal or not?
“Marriage is essentially a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring.” This is stated by Lisa Schiffren in her essay “Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron.” Why? Why does it have to be just between a man and a woman? Why can’t it be between two guys? So two guys love each other….who cares? If they want to get married, then by all means, they should get married.
Thomas B. Stoddard, in his essay “Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal,” says “And it [marriage] can no longer be argued—if it ever could—that marriage is fundamentally a procreative unit.” Marriages are NOT about making babies and raising kids together. Sure, some people want that, but not everybody does. Marriages are about two people totally in love with each other that they want to be together for all eternity. If the person you happen to fall in love with is of the same sex, why should it matter?
Many argue that it is against their religious beliefs to see two people of the same sex legally married. In fact, that’s what I believe. I believe that it is against my religion as it does say it is a sin in the bible, but I believe that a homosexual couple should be allowed to marry. I just don’t believe that they should be married by a priest, or a pastor, or anyone else of religious nature, but I believe that they can certainly be married by a judge. As it does conflict with the religious views, it doesn’t make sense to me to have a religious patron marry the couple.
People can lead perfectly normal lives as homosexuals, so why should it matter if they are legally married to each other? The way the debates go, it makes homosexuality sound like one giant contagious disease. Sure, I don’t agree with it, but that doesn’t mean that I should prevent two people from being happy. The world needs more happiness in it.
I am a bit of a romantic. I believe that every person needs to have someone to love and needs to be loved in return. I am so much of a romantic that at the end of a great movie, if the villain does not have a significant other, I feel really sorry for that villain. I am not saying that homosexuality is a villainous act; I am just saying that every body needs to have somebody.
Everybody needs to have somebody to get up and live for. If that just so happens to be the love of your life gay spouse, so be it. To be ridiculed for whom you love or who makes you happy is not the way things need to be. Society needs to be more accepting of homosexual relationships and the first step in that is to legalize gay marriages.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
United States Vs. Holmes
Melanie E. Woldt
June 28, 2007
Composition II
Week 6 Blog Entry
To Live or Die, That is the Question
Benjamin Cardozo was correct when he wrote “When two or more are overtaken by a common disaster, there is no right on the part of one to save the lives of some by killing another. There is no rule of human jettison.” I believe that every life is precious and should try to be saved. I believe that killing off a few people in order to save your own life and others in the boat is similar to playing God. We are not qualified for that. To choose who to kill off and who to save is not the answer to saving as many as possible. If the situation called for someone else to die in order to save more lives, then why didn’t the person whose brilliant idea it was die instead of killing off others?
I believe that there could have been a way to save more people. Perhaps the crew could have rethought of a better plan before the ship went down. Who is to say? But no matter the circumstance, killing off others in order for you to live is not moral. It is ethically irresponsible. It violates so many ethical social rules.
I would hate to live the rest of my life out knowing that I was living on a potentially stolen life. Who is to say that that was when you were meant to die? Killing another person in order to for you to survive is stealing that other person’s life line. It is wrong. Other than living through the stolen life, it would be a cursed life you would live. Everyday, you would feel guilty knowing that you could have done something helpful instead of adding fuel to the fire, so to speak. That guilt would gnaw at you every waking moment. It would torment you in nightmares each night. Knowing that you deliberately left someone to die is bad enough, but knowing you helped end that person’s life, would kill you. Why go through a stolen, tortured life? If someone ‘needs to die in order to let someone else live,’ then why not die yourself? Granted, giving up isn’t the best plan either, but at least then you would be remembered as someone who tried to make a difference. Not to mention the fact that killing is illegal. Why would it suddenly be legal in extreme circumstances? It is still a broken law.
June 28, 2007
Composition II
Week 6 Blog Entry
To Live or Die, That is the Question
Benjamin Cardozo was correct when he wrote “When two or more are overtaken by a common disaster, there is no right on the part of one to save the lives of some by killing another. There is no rule of human jettison.” I believe that every life is precious and should try to be saved. I believe that killing off a few people in order to save your own life and others in the boat is similar to playing God. We are not qualified for that. To choose who to kill off and who to save is not the answer to saving as many as possible. If the situation called for someone else to die in order to save more lives, then why didn’t the person whose brilliant idea it was die instead of killing off others?
I believe that there could have been a way to save more people. Perhaps the crew could have rethought of a better plan before the ship went down. Who is to say? But no matter the circumstance, killing off others in order for you to live is not moral. It is ethically irresponsible. It violates so many ethical social rules.
I would hate to live the rest of my life out knowing that I was living on a potentially stolen life. Who is to say that that was when you were meant to die? Killing another person in order to for you to survive is stealing that other person’s life line. It is wrong. Other than living through the stolen life, it would be a cursed life you would live. Everyday, you would feel guilty knowing that you could have done something helpful instead of adding fuel to the fire, so to speak. That guilt would gnaw at you every waking moment. It would torment you in nightmares each night. Knowing that you deliberately left someone to die is bad enough, but knowing you helped end that person’s life, would kill you. Why go through a stolen, tortured life? If someone ‘needs to die in order to let someone else live,’ then why not die yourself? Granted, giving up isn’t the best plan either, but at least then you would be remembered as someone who tried to make a difference. Not to mention the fact that killing is illegal. Why would it suddenly be legal in extreme circumstances? It is still a broken law.
Having never been in such extreme a circumstance, I do not know if I would be trying to save only my life or trying to save the lives of others. I do not know if I would be terrified out of my mind, I do not know if I would be able to do anything other than try to save my own life. But I can hope that I can reach out and help someone else instead of letting them hurt for me. I can hope that if I ever do get into such a situation, that I can live up to my personal morals.
Gay marriage: What is the purpose of marriage?
The Gay marriage debate is often framed in view of two different views on the purpose of marriage. One side says that the most important function of marriage is procreation, the creation of children between a man and a woman. Another side says that marriage is a public declaration of a spiritual, emotional bond between two people. I believe that marriage is a right that should not be based on the ability to create children, but on the simple promise between two people to love each other until death. My dad is a Lutheran pastor who has worked as a chaplain at major hospitals in Chicago and Yankton. When a person is admitted into intensive care, only immediate family is allowed access. My dad often counseled couples, both gay and lesbian, who had been committed to each other for decades but were separated at the time of death. It is a human need to say goodbye to a loved one as they die, but since in the eyes of the law they were not married-they were barred from the room. My dad began his chaplaincy against the concept of gay marriage, but after seeing the heartbreak over and over again he now supports equal marriage rights for all people regardless of sex.
The primary argument for gay marriage is that the institution of marriage is a human right. Thomas Stoddard quotes the 1967 supreme court ruling that " 'marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man' (and, presumably, of women as well). The freedom to marry, said the court, is 'essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness' " (551). In other words, marriage is a human right protected by the United States Constitution. Lisa Schiffren disagrees saying, "Marriage is essentially a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring" (554). Schiffren's narrow definition excludes many heterosexual couples. In Schiffren's world an infertile woman would have no need for marriage. Marriage would be pointless for any man with a vasectomy. Any senior citizens who fall in love shouldn't bother with marriage since they are past reproductive age. Today no person gets married for the sole purpose of bearing children. People get married for love. Love is blind. Love knows no boundaries. Love joins two people regardless of age, race, class or sex.
The secondary argument is about the legal and social benefits of marriage. Our society views a married couple as family, whereas two people living under one roof are simply roommates. The most heart breaking example of our society's discrimination is in the ICU. Stoddard relates the story of Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski (551) who were separated by the courts after a drunk driver struck Ms Kowalski. Their situation is unique only in that it was remedied in the courts. Many couples have no legal alternative when death strikes quickly. Marriage would legitimize the union and allow the sick, injured and dying person comfort from their spouse. Schiffren does not address this issue in her essay. She does mention that the government benefits "exist to help couples raise children" (555), but does not consider the adopted children of homosexual couples. In fact, if the purpose of marriage is to raise children, then the legalization of homosexual marriage would provide thousands of loving homes for all the unwanted children of heterosexual couples in foster care.
In the end, marriage is a human right protected by the constitution for all Americans. The legalization of homosexual marriage would allow loving and committed couples, regardless of sex or orientation, the social and political rights that heterosexual couples now enjoy.
Suzannah Bryan
The primary argument for gay marriage is that the institution of marriage is a human right. Thomas Stoddard quotes the 1967 supreme court ruling that " 'marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man' (and, presumably, of women as well). The freedom to marry, said the court, is 'essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness' " (551). In other words, marriage is a human right protected by the United States Constitution. Lisa Schiffren disagrees saying, "Marriage is essentially a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring" (554). Schiffren's narrow definition excludes many heterosexual couples. In Schiffren's world an infertile woman would have no need for marriage. Marriage would be pointless for any man with a vasectomy. Any senior citizens who fall in love shouldn't bother with marriage since they are past reproductive age. Today no person gets married for the sole purpose of bearing children. People get married for love. Love is blind. Love knows no boundaries. Love joins two people regardless of age, race, class or sex.
The secondary argument is about the legal and social benefits of marriage. Our society views a married couple as family, whereas two people living under one roof are simply roommates. The most heart breaking example of our society's discrimination is in the ICU. Stoddard relates the story of Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski (551) who were separated by the courts after a drunk driver struck Ms Kowalski. Their situation is unique only in that it was remedied in the courts. Many couples have no legal alternative when death strikes quickly. Marriage would legitimize the union and allow the sick, injured and dying person comfort from their spouse. Schiffren does not address this issue in her essay. She does mention that the government benefits "exist to help couples raise children" (555), but does not consider the adopted children of homosexual couples. In fact, if the purpose of marriage is to raise children, then the legalization of homosexual marriage would provide thousands of loving homes for all the unwanted children of heterosexual couples in foster care.
In the end, marriage is a human right protected by the constitution for all Americans. The legalization of homosexual marriage would allow loving and committed couples, regardless of sex or orientation, the social and political rights that heterosexual couples now enjoy.
Suzannah Bryan
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Taking a Stand for Gay Marriages
Michelle HornerBlog Post #7June 27, 2007
What’s the Deal with Gay Marriages?
I was brought up with the mentality “do what makes you happy.” How are we supposed to do this if people are restricted on their basic freedoms by the government? Marriage has been around as long as time it seems. One of the Ten Commandments forbids adultery. In the Christian view, marriage is one of the most holy sacraments. My question is when did the government begin to take religious views on its laws, namely the law of marriage? If all humans are equal, then why does it matter if I want to marry a woman or if my good male friend wants to marry his one true love, who just so happens to be another man. Marriage is marriage, and the law should say so.
The major opponents to the legalization of gay marriages offer seemingly great arguments, yet they have some large flaws. For example, in Lisa Schiffren’s essay “Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron” she states that “in traditional marriage, the tie that really binds for life is shared responsibility for children” (Barnet 554). She claims that any marriage that does not involve procreation should, in essence, be nullified in the legal sense. This is ultimately a flawed point of view. Schiffren does not take into account that in many states it is legal for any person to adopt children which is a good alternative for homosexuals who want children. She also fails to recognize one of the major reasons that people get married. People are married to join souls and to live happily with one another as life partners. It would be extremely outrageous to require those who get pregnant to marry the father to uphold the integrity of marriage, or to require those who are married to stay together just because they have children together. It is also ludicrous to have those who have chosen to devote their lives to one another and get married but later find out that they are infertile have their marriage nullified. What about the older generation that has been married or widowed that finds new love and wants that to be recognized, yet the law refuses to allow it because the female is too old and can’t produce more children. This position would be completely outrageous in practice.
There are many reasons that homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to the issue of marriage laws. In his essay, Thomas B. Stoddard used an analogy to compare the issue we deal with now, gay marriage, with the older issue of race. He argued that it was “as recently as 1967, before the Supreme Court declared miscegenation statues unconstitutional, sixteen states still prohibited marriages between a white person and a black person” (Barnet 552). This analogy fits perfectly with the issue of gay marriage rights. What was seen at the time as a perfectly legal and morally correct law can now be viewed as an utterly discriminatory law that was rightfully overturned. Why must we go through such a long process to do the same thing with the discrimination against homosexuals’ right to marriage?
Our law has prided itself on maintaining equality for every individual. We have been battling for years to maintain a proper balance in our society following the slavery and segregation of African-American’s, now we are arriving at a new crossroads. This crossroad is one that is hurting the concept of marriage law. Two people who promise to devote their lives to one another should be able to do so legally, regardless of the sex of their partner. We need to learn from our past mistakes and end this discrimination. We must allow people to marry who they love. In the words of Thomas Stoddard, “government has no legitimate interest in how that love is expressed” (Barnet 552).
What’s the Deal with Gay Marriages?
I was brought up with the mentality “do what makes you happy.” How are we supposed to do this if people are restricted on their basic freedoms by the government? Marriage has been around as long as time it seems. One of the Ten Commandments forbids adultery. In the Christian view, marriage is one of the most holy sacraments. My question is when did the government begin to take religious views on its laws, namely the law of marriage? If all humans are equal, then why does it matter if I want to marry a woman or if my good male friend wants to marry his one true love, who just so happens to be another man. Marriage is marriage, and the law should say so.
The major opponents to the legalization of gay marriages offer seemingly great arguments, yet they have some large flaws. For example, in Lisa Schiffren’s essay “Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron” she states that “in traditional marriage, the tie that really binds for life is shared responsibility for children” (Barnet 554). She claims that any marriage that does not involve procreation should, in essence, be nullified in the legal sense. This is ultimately a flawed point of view. Schiffren does not take into account that in many states it is legal for any person to adopt children which is a good alternative for homosexuals who want children. She also fails to recognize one of the major reasons that people get married. People are married to join souls and to live happily with one another as life partners. It would be extremely outrageous to require those who get pregnant to marry the father to uphold the integrity of marriage, or to require those who are married to stay together just because they have children together. It is also ludicrous to have those who have chosen to devote their lives to one another and get married but later find out that they are infertile have their marriage nullified. What about the older generation that has been married or widowed that finds new love and wants that to be recognized, yet the law refuses to allow it because the female is too old and can’t produce more children. This position would be completely outrageous in practice.
There are many reasons that homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to the issue of marriage laws. In his essay, Thomas B. Stoddard used an analogy to compare the issue we deal with now, gay marriage, with the older issue of race. He argued that it was “as recently as 1967, before the Supreme Court declared miscegenation statues unconstitutional, sixteen states still prohibited marriages between a white person and a black person” (Barnet 552). This analogy fits perfectly with the issue of gay marriage rights. What was seen at the time as a perfectly legal and morally correct law can now be viewed as an utterly discriminatory law that was rightfully overturned. Why must we go through such a long process to do the same thing with the discrimination against homosexuals’ right to marriage?
Our law has prided itself on maintaining equality for every individual. We have been battling for years to maintain a proper balance in our society following the slavery and segregation of African-American’s, now we are arriving at a new crossroads. This crossroad is one that is hurting the concept of marriage law. Two people who promise to devote their lives to one another should be able to do so legally, regardless of the sex of their partner. We need to learn from our past mistakes and end this discrimination. We must allow people to marry who they love. In the words of Thomas Stoddard, “government has no legitimate interest in how that love is expressed” (Barnet 552).
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The Trouble with Title IX
Irving on Title IX
Brenda Porter, June 26, 2007
John Irving begins his essay about the federal law Title IX with a great title, “Wrestling with Title IX.” What makes it so interesting is the fact that Irving is a member of the National Wrestling Hall of Fame, and the essay focuses on facts surrounding the decline of programs for wrestling at the college level due to the enforcement of Title IX. The title itself also primes the tone that there is controversy surrounding the issue, and controversy is always a great motivator to keep me interested.
The basis Irving is making here is that Title IX is confusing due to two different rulings of Title IX, and the interpretation and enforcement of the current Title IX is producing nothing but biased gender quotas. This thesis is given in the second paragraph giving direction to the rest of the essay. It is clear what side of the issue Irving is on.
The purpose is to persuade the audience to side with Irving on the issue that Title IX is failing in its purpose to equalize gender in college sports. College sports and gender equality are both relevant issue in today’s society and compel further investigation. This gives validity to Irving’s topic.
In the following paragraphs facts including information about the 1979 law and the revised 1996 amendment to it give a foundation so that an informed conclusion can be reached. Irving provides empirical data about gender quota formulations used for determining percentages of allowed sports categories and participation in them. By doing this he is able to show the prejudice in the math reiterating the fact that the way the law is written and enforced is unfair towards males.
The tone of Irving’s argument is passionate enough to be intriguing, and his dissatisfaction with current legislation and the feminist attitude surrounding it incite agreement. He is definitely drawing lines over what is fair and unfair with this law.
The determination I come to, Irving is valid in his views. I agree with what he says concerning the misuse and misinterpretation of Title IX. The way the information is presented as well as the way it is presented, add not only conviction but also substance to Irving’s side of the issue.
Brenda Porter, June 26, 2007
John Irving begins his essay about the federal law Title IX with a great title, “Wrestling with Title IX.” What makes it so interesting is the fact that Irving is a member of the National Wrestling Hall of Fame, and the essay focuses on facts surrounding the decline of programs for wrestling at the college level due to the enforcement of Title IX. The title itself also primes the tone that there is controversy surrounding the issue, and controversy is always a great motivator to keep me interested.
The basis Irving is making here is that Title IX is confusing due to two different rulings of Title IX, and the interpretation and enforcement of the current Title IX is producing nothing but biased gender quotas. This thesis is given in the second paragraph giving direction to the rest of the essay. It is clear what side of the issue Irving is on.
The purpose is to persuade the audience to side with Irving on the issue that Title IX is failing in its purpose to equalize gender in college sports. College sports and gender equality are both relevant issue in today’s society and compel further investigation. This gives validity to Irving’s topic.
In the following paragraphs facts including information about the 1979 law and the revised 1996 amendment to it give a foundation so that an informed conclusion can be reached. Irving provides empirical data about gender quota formulations used for determining percentages of allowed sports categories and participation in them. By doing this he is able to show the prejudice in the math reiterating the fact that the way the law is written and enforced is unfair towards males.
The tone of Irving’s argument is passionate enough to be intriguing, and his dissatisfaction with current legislation and the feminist attitude surrounding it incite agreement. He is definitely drawing lines over what is fair and unfair with this law.
The determination I come to, Irving is valid in his views. I agree with what he says concerning the misuse and misinterpretation of Title IX. The way the information is presented as well as the way it is presented, add not only conviction but also substance to Irving’s side of the issue.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Wives and the Short End of the Stick & Judy Brady Essay
Wives and the Short End of the Stick….
Brenda Porter, June 25, 2007
Judy Brady’s essay, “I Want a Wife,” is a fairly accurate description of what it means to be a wife. Although the essay was published over thirty-five years ago, most of the points Brady makes still hold true today. The essay is sarcastic in style, but the statements made about what a husband expects of a wife and her duties are realistic. All anyone has to do is watch the television show, “Wife Swap,” to see the similarities to Brady’s essay and the relevance it has to today’s society.
The most interesting part of reading this essay was the fact that it was written in a sarcastic style to bring attention to how the daily hard work wives do does go greatly unappreciated. Every point made by Brady I found myself thinking how true it is. Most men today and in generations past expect wives to take care of the house, children, cooking, cleaning, laundry, appointments, perform sexually when called on, not to complain, and look as good as possible while doing all of it. Basically reiterating everything Brady said because it remains valid today as it did thirty-six years ago.
Brady may seem at first glance to be downing marriage life, but in fact she is bringing to light what we should be cherishing in wives. She is letting us know that wives are great, selfless, and sacrificing people who do whatever is needed for the one they love. The point is to show that to be a wife is to be dedicated to the needs of others just because you love them and want nothing but their success.
Also, even with statements referring to the husband easily disposing of an unacceptable performance of a wife by obtaining a “new” wife, Brady really is promoting keeping a marriage together through good and bad times. Once again she uses sarcasm to bring this out by using examples of ungrateful husbands leaving the dutiful wife once he’s gotten all the good out of her and free himself to please himself. Yes, there are men like this out there, but I really think Brady is trying to say that life is difficult and once a man and woman commit to be life partners that it has meaning and value not something easily discarded if one isn’t “happy”.
There have been a lot of things go wrong in marriages in the past and today. There have also been a lot of good things too. The institution of marriage is still one of the strongest values we as a society can have and must continue to pursue. Without it we are nothing but out for ourselves and very lonely in the end. Children can’t grow and thrive without some type example of caring. Without caring for the people we choose to marry and have children with, what legacy are we leaving the generations to come? Where will that leave us?
Brenda Porter, June 25, 2007
Judy Brady’s essay, “I Want a Wife,” is a fairly accurate description of what it means to be a wife. Although the essay was published over thirty-five years ago, most of the points Brady makes still hold true today. The essay is sarcastic in style, but the statements made about what a husband expects of a wife and her duties are realistic. All anyone has to do is watch the television show, “Wife Swap,” to see the similarities to Brady’s essay and the relevance it has to today’s society.
The most interesting part of reading this essay was the fact that it was written in a sarcastic style to bring attention to how the daily hard work wives do does go greatly unappreciated. Every point made by Brady I found myself thinking how true it is. Most men today and in generations past expect wives to take care of the house, children, cooking, cleaning, laundry, appointments, perform sexually when called on, not to complain, and look as good as possible while doing all of it. Basically reiterating everything Brady said because it remains valid today as it did thirty-six years ago.
Brady may seem at first glance to be downing marriage life, but in fact she is bringing to light what we should be cherishing in wives. She is letting us know that wives are great, selfless, and sacrificing people who do whatever is needed for the one they love. The point is to show that to be a wife is to be dedicated to the needs of others just because you love them and want nothing but their success.
Also, even with statements referring to the husband easily disposing of an unacceptable performance of a wife by obtaining a “new” wife, Brady really is promoting keeping a marriage together through good and bad times. Once again she uses sarcasm to bring this out by using examples of ungrateful husbands leaving the dutiful wife once he’s gotten all the good out of her and free himself to please himself. Yes, there are men like this out there, but I really think Brady is trying to say that life is difficult and once a man and woman commit to be life partners that it has meaning and value not something easily discarded if one isn’t “happy”.
There have been a lot of things go wrong in marriages in the past and today. There have also been a lot of good things too. The institution of marriage is still one of the strongest values we as a society can have and must continue to pursue. Without it we are nothing but out for ourselves and very lonely in the end. Children can’t grow and thrive without some type example of caring. Without caring for the people we choose to marry and have children with, what legacy are we leaving the generations to come? Where will that leave us?
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Sinking ship
Glen Drew
Week 6
I agree with Cardozo's argument. No one has any special privilege or power to sacrifice people's lives without their consent. In a sinking boat, it's every man (woman) for themselves. You do not throw off half the passengers to save your own neck. The sailors that acted harshly and threw passengers off the boat should be court-martialed and demoted.
The sailors have a duty to save as many passengers as possible. If anything, the sailors should have drawn straws to see who would sacrifice themselves for the passengers. The sailor know the perils of the sea and they are supposed to be strong, upstanding men. A defense for following orders should be brought up in a military court and not a civilian one. They should not be called sailors if they throw passengers off of the boat.
The circumstances surrounding the sinking boat were very grave, but there is no excuse for sacrificing innocent people if it's not absolutely necessary. Some homicide is justifiable, like self-defense or defending your country. Yet the sailors were not being attacked or at war. They simply acted hastily to save their own necks. The big question: Why weren't any sailors sacrificed? This fact alone proves to me that the sailors should be punished somehow.
The facts remain clear that sailors sacrificed the lives of the passengers they were supposed to be protecting. The sailors are better trained and probably more physically fit to survive the harsh conditions of the sea. The passengers were killed unjustly and some of the sailors should be punished for their harsh and selfish actions.
Week 6
I agree with Cardozo's argument. No one has any special privilege or power to sacrifice people's lives without their consent. In a sinking boat, it's every man (woman) for themselves. You do not throw off half the passengers to save your own neck. The sailors that acted harshly and threw passengers off the boat should be court-martialed and demoted.
The sailors have a duty to save as many passengers as possible. If anything, the sailors should have drawn straws to see who would sacrifice themselves for the passengers. The sailor know the perils of the sea and they are supposed to be strong, upstanding men. A defense for following orders should be brought up in a military court and not a civilian one. They should not be called sailors if they throw passengers off of the boat.
The circumstances surrounding the sinking boat were very grave, but there is no excuse for sacrificing innocent people if it's not absolutely necessary. Some homicide is justifiable, like self-defense or defending your country. Yet the sailors were not being attacked or at war. They simply acted hastily to save their own necks. The big question: Why weren't any sailors sacrificed? This fact alone proves to me that the sailors should be punished somehow.
The facts remain clear that sailors sacrificed the lives of the passengers they were supposed to be protecting. The sailors are better trained and probably more physically fit to survive the harsh conditions of the sea. The passengers were killed unjustly and some of the sailors should be punished for their harsh and selfish actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)