Walalahoi,
I have observed with amazement the ignorance with which some of us have approached the issues raised from the constitution we will be voting for in August. It is clear that many of us do not understand what kind of document a constitution is and that it is a document that has to be read together.
Many documents that address life in its entirety can be misinterpreted. Examples here are documents like the Bible, Qur'an, and even the constitution we are currently examining. However, these documents have provisions in-built that will address the misinterpretation. Let us take for example the article that addresses abortion in the constitution we will vote for. It is indeed true as many among those against the constitution claim that this article may be misused by medical practitioners to allow illegal abortions. This, however, cannot be a weakness of this constitution.Our current constitution prohibits killing or stealing but people still steal or kill and many have gone to court and have even been acquitted of guilt in crimes they actually committed; that is not a weakness of the constitution when it states unequivocally that stealing and killing are outlawed. In the spirit of the document, abortion is illegal and a medical practitioner is under obligation from a host of positions, this law and his profession's code of ethics to act properly and act in ways that do not bring his profession into disrepute. Even in the context of this article, the qualified medical personnel is permitted to allow abortion only where life is threatened. There are ways available which can prove, in court, that in a particular situation, life wasn't threatened and that the practitioner in question, acted improperly. In this case, the practitioner will be liable for prosecution. When a law does this, it is good law.
What has happened is that, because of the close examination that the constitution has received, many of us are now treating it as an academic document - splitting hairs. It is worse when the church in whose docket matters of morality, or is it immorality, lie, comes out to oppose a constitution on the basis of clauses like this one of abortion or the matter of homosexuality. We have thousands of cases of illegal abortion and sexual immorality involving leading churches which the church has not lifted a finger to address. Or is it that the church dogged by immorality is protesting the unequivocal outlawing of abortion?
I have observed with amazement the ignorance with which some of us have approached the issues raised from the constitution we will be voting for in August. It is clear that many of us do not understand what kind of document a constitution is and that it is a document that has to be read together.
Many documents that address life in its entirety can be misinterpreted. Examples here are documents like the Bible, Qur'an, and even the constitution we are currently examining. However, these documents have provisions in-built that will address the misinterpretation. Let us take for example the article that addresses abortion in the constitution we will vote for. It is indeed true as many among those against the constitution claim that this article may be misused by medical practitioners to allow illegal abortions. This, however, cannot be a weakness of this constitution.Our current constitution prohibits killing or stealing but people still steal or kill and many have gone to court and have even been acquitted of guilt in crimes they actually committed; that is not a weakness of the constitution when it states unequivocally that stealing and killing are outlawed. In the spirit of the document, abortion is illegal and a medical practitioner is under obligation from a host of positions, this law and his profession's code of ethics to act properly and act in ways that do not bring his profession into disrepute. Even in the context of this article, the qualified medical personnel is permitted to allow abortion only where life is threatened. There are ways available which can prove, in court, that in a particular situation, life wasn't threatened and that the practitioner in question, acted improperly. In this case, the practitioner will be liable for prosecution. When a law does this, it is good law.
What has happened is that, because of the close examination that the constitution has received, many of us are now treating it as an academic document - splitting hairs. It is worse when the church in whose docket matters of morality, or is it immorality, lie, comes out to oppose a constitution on the basis of clauses like this one of abortion or the matter of homosexuality. We have thousands of cases of illegal abortion and sexual immorality involving leading churches which the church has not lifted a finger to address. Or is it that the church dogged by immorality is protesting the unequivocal outlawing of abortion?
From: otieno sungu <sunoti@yahoo.com>
To: mlalahoi@googlegroups.com
Cc: kubesto@gmail.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 11:40:12 AM
Subject: Re: JUST A THOUGHT
Note: Forwarded message is attached.
No comments:
Post a Comment