Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Kiera Knightley's stand

One of my first articles for this blog was on Keira Knightley; her dedication to her body and her placement as a role model. She is a beautiful and an impressive woman. She has recently earned even more respect from me.

Publicity photos for her upcoming film The Duchess are being released, but the editors want to digitally enlarge Ms. Knightley's breasts in the posters. Newspapers have reported that "movie bosses wanted the slender actress to appear more curvaceous, but 'she has insisted that her figure stay in its natural state. She is proud of her body and doesn’t want it altered.'" I am impressed that Keira would take this stand, partially because it is not truly that big of a deal and she will not let it slip. She is standing up against the stereotype of beauty, which shifts frequently and violently.

The actress was digitally altered in the advertisements for King Arthur in 2004.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Controversial Argument

Note: In many situations, if I had to admit it, I would consider myself conservative. I believe that people should live with the consequences of their actions. More than that, I believe that as a society we should work to prevent those actions which will require necessary consequences. But even having said all of that, even being pro-life (if I had choose one or the other), I still do not agree wholeheartedly with this law. Make no mistake, I personally feel that is a step in the painfully appropriate direction, but there is a long way to go.

In South Dakota they have passed a law concerning the necessity for informed consent in abortion. Starting now, in order for a woman to obtain an abortion in South Dakota she, and her doctor, must signed a written statement that states (among other things) that:
*the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
*the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with the unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution;
*by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
*a description of all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors to which the pregnant woman would be subjected to, including: (i) depression and related psychological distress, and (ii) increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.

The conservative side of me commends the direct and no-punches-pulled mentality of this law. I can respect that they wont sugar-coat the situation; they wont act like it is easy or healthy. That is a good thing, in my opinion. And hopefully it will cause some women to rethink their decision, especially in the case of those doing it for selfish reasons.

On the other hand, it is a poorly written law with many things left unconsidered. For example, how can you acknowledge that the fetus is a living human being without acknowledging the process as murder? If you believe it is a living human being, and you decide to halt its living, then that is murder. The definition of it, in fact. So that leaves a huge loophole gaping open. Is this a gateway law to considering abortion as murder, or is this a confused halfway attempt?

Many people could argue that this is just a "mean law" to make women feel guilty about doing what they have "the right to do". I want to understand that point of view, but for me personally it would be like saying it was mean to put criminals in jail. An almost arguable point that comes down to this: they made a choice. Consequences must be paid.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me; far from it. I just want to spark debate and conversation. This is an issue that affects women and families everywhere in one way or another. What do you think?