I first began my abortion search at the NARAL-Prochoice America website. It is a website dedicated to advocating women’s choice regarding abortion. The website describes how the Pro-Life supporters are making access to abortions much more difficult and targeting the abortion doctors. The pro-life supporters are trying to keep abortions legal and improve on the safety of the procedure. The Pro-choice website included sections on Birth Control, Sex Education and Healthy Pregnancies. This shows that they are trying to inform the public on these issues so that they can avoid being in a situation of needing an abortion.
I then looked at the National Right to Life website. This website was dedicated to showing the effects of abortion on both the baby and the women. In addition, it is trying to end abortions once and for all. I think that the biggest problem with the National Right to Life website is that they don’t say anything about how to avoid having an unplanned pregnancy in the first place it simply states the facts and implications of an abortion. The facts are important and shocking regarding the procedure but the website seems impersonal. I noticed that The Pro-Choice website was much more organized and user friendly. The Pro-Life site didn’t convince me because it is focused too much on the facts and the legality rather than preventative measures and the personal touches that the pro-choice website included.
Based on the CQ Researcher: Abortion article, the pro-life side is growing and the next generation is becoming increasingly pro-life. I find this information quite shocking and contrary to what I have heard from my peers. Most people that I have talked to have pro-choice views. But nevertheless the pro-life following is the majority in the United States (but not by a lot). I don’t think that the pro-life website reflects their growing interest. The pro-choice website is clearly a better quality than the pro-life website. Neither website changed my opinion on the topic. I still believe that women should have the ability to make that decision on their own.
I think that parents should be notified if their daughter (a minor) is seeking an abortion because the daughter is still legally under her parent’s supervision until she is 18 years of age. In addition, if there were complications with the procedure the parents should know the risks ahead of time. This would be an extremely emotional time for any women and having to experience this as a teenager would be even more difficult. It would be important to have ones parents supporting them and comforting them during this time. I do believe that the parents should be informed and involved with the process, but, the parents shouldn’t have to sign a consent form for the abortion. If the daughter chooses to have an abortion after assessing all of her options then the parents should oblige to their daughters decision. For, the parents may have to live with the baby for a year or two but the daughter will have to try and raise the baby for the rest of her life. This is a life altering decision that should be made by the person whose life it is changing. Therefore the final decision should be the daughters.
I definitely think that the father of the baby should be notified if the woman decides to have an abortion. The baby is as much his as it is the womans. I don’t think that he should have to sign a consent form if the couple isn’t in a committed relationship because then there is no guarantee that it will work out and then the girl would be left with a baby she can’t support. I think that having a requirement for the father of the baby sign a consent form for the abortion could lead to problems in certain cases.
describe your thoughts on Illinois' positions on the abortion.
After reading and analyzing the Illinois Abortion Laws I have come to the conclusion that even though abortions are allowed legally, there are so many laws and regulations on abortions that it is very difficult to actually get the procedure done. I think that there obviosly needs to be some regulations in place but it still needs to be accessable.
Are there Illinois laws that you agree or disagree with?
Is there anything in Illinois law that you would change?
Monday, December 13, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
The Death Penalty
I think that Clifford Boggess should not have been executed because by executing him they are giving him what he wanted. After all of the pain he has brought to the two families and the communities that were affected by the murders he doesn't deserve to escape that easily. His punishment should be life in prison because he wouldn’t be a threat to society and it would force him to think about the destruction he has caused. By having the death penalty Clifford Boggess could escape the things he has done on Earth and in most cases the murderers aren’t afraid of death so it isn’t an effective punishment.
Some may think that Clifford Boggess has changed during his time in prison but I don’t believe that. I do believe that people can change but I don’t think that Mr. Boggess truly can. He killed two people simply to get money to pay for school. This thought would never have crossed an emotionally stable person. He did have a troubled background but that is no excuse for his actions. Clearly he has some serious problems and that is never going to change. I think that he turned to religion simply because he was afraid of what was going to happen to him after he died. I don’t think that Boggess had anything to contribute to society in terms of his artwork or his religion. But, I do believe that he could contribute to society by allowing doctors to study his brain and the brains of other murderers to see what triggers these extreme responses. By having the death sentence we cannot explore these problems.
I think that the families were definitely relieved after his death, but I also believe that they would have been just as relieved if Clifford Boggess had spent his life in prison. Unfortunately, their loved ones didn't have the opportunity to decide when they would die, so, Clifford Boggess shouldn't either.
Some may think that Clifford Boggess has changed during his time in prison but I don’t believe that. I do believe that people can change but I don’t think that Mr. Boggess truly can. He killed two people simply to get money to pay for school. This thought would never have crossed an emotionally stable person. He did have a troubled background but that is no excuse for his actions. Clearly he has some serious problems and that is never going to change. I think that he turned to religion simply because he was afraid of what was going to happen to him after he died. I don’t think that Boggess had anything to contribute to society in terms of his artwork or his religion. But, I do believe that he could contribute to society by allowing doctors to study his brain and the brains of other murderers to see what triggers these extreme responses. By having the death sentence we cannot explore these problems.
I think that the families were definitely relieved after his death, but I also believe that they would have been just as relieved if Clifford Boggess had spent his life in prison. Unfortunately, their loved ones didn't have the opportunity to decide when they would die, so, Clifford Boggess shouldn't either.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Students and the Fourth Amendment
Students should be required to undergo random drug tests to participate in extra-curricular activities for the safety of the students and for the optimum learning environment. Students have limited rights in school so their constitutional rights outside of school are not completely applicable inside school. Some may argue that the Fourth Amendment protects students from drug testing, however, this is not entirely true. Participating in extra-curricular activities is a privilege and drug testing would ensure fairness in the sport or activity.
In both the Vernonia v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls cases the court deemed random drug testing acceptable. It isn't an invasion of privacy because most of these activities require a physical at their doctors office prior to participation in the activity. Part of the physical includes peeing in a cup. So, the drug testing would be no different.
Students privacy and Fourth Amendment rights aren't; the same in school. If there is probable cause for the school to investigate a students belongings it is their responsibility to do so. It is better for the school to be over cautious when it comes to the safety of the students. As long as there is probable cause or a suspicion then it is justified for student searches. In the case N.N. v. Tunkhannock Area School District, a girl got her phone taken away for using it during school. After it was confiscated an administrator searched the phone and discovered nude photos of the girl. She proceeded to take this case to court for invading her privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. In this case, the school administrators had no right to search her phone because she wasn't doing anything to make them suspect she is hiding something on her phone. The administration should have a reason for searching a students belongings and texting in school is not a justified reason for search.
There must be some present or suspected danger for a student to be searched. The drug problems in many schools is a justified reason for random drug testing because it is affecting the students health and well being.
In both the Vernonia v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls cases the court deemed random drug testing acceptable. It isn't an invasion of privacy because most of these activities require a physical at their doctors office prior to participation in the activity. Part of the physical includes peeing in a cup. So, the drug testing would be no different.
Students privacy and Fourth Amendment rights aren't; the same in school. If there is probable cause for the school to investigate a students belongings it is their responsibility to do so. It is better for the school to be over cautious when it comes to the safety of the students. As long as there is probable cause or a suspicion then it is justified for student searches. In the case N.N. v. Tunkhannock Area School District, a girl got her phone taken away for using it during school. After it was confiscated an administrator searched the phone and discovered nude photos of the girl. She proceeded to take this case to court for invading her privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. In this case, the school administrators had no right to search her phone because she wasn't doing anything to make them suspect she is hiding something on her phone. The administration should have a reason for searching a students belongings and texting in school is not a justified reason for search.
There must be some present or suspected danger for a student to be searched. The drug problems in many schools is a justified reason for random drug testing because it is affecting the students health and well being.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Freedom of Religion
Religion is an important aspect of our society and should be discussed in school. There was much dispute over whether the words "under God" should be included in the Pledge of Allegiance. I think that it definitely should remain in the pledge but if a student doesn't feel comfortable saying those words they don't need to. It is unrealistic to think that children are never going to hear about other religions . Furthermore, it is even more important to educate them and allow them to make these choices now. We cannot change something every time that someone is unhappy. The majority of people are fine with the pledge so there is no reason to change it.
This is similar to the dispute over the location of the proposed Mosque/ Islamic Center. The Mosque/ Islamic Center is two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York. Most agree that the have the right to build the Mosque and Islamic Center but many feel that it is not an appropriate place for such a building. Many Americans think of the Muslim extremists as a representation of the religion as a whole. I believe that they shouldn't build the Mosque simply because it will cause much controversy and they would probably have more support if it wasn't so close to Ground Zero. I understand that the Mosque wouldn't be seen from Ground Zero but unfortunately the project may become more trouble than its worth.
When people are emotionally connected to a situation it becomes the most difficult to allow for others freedom of speech. In this case, they definitely have the right to build the Mosque under the First Amendment but those personally affected by 9/11 will not feel the same way.
This is similar to the dispute over the location of the proposed Mosque/ Islamic Center. The Mosque/ Islamic Center is two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York. Most agree that the have the right to build the Mosque and Islamic Center but many feel that it is not an appropriate place for such a building. Many Americans think of the Muslim extremists as a representation of the religion as a whole. I believe that they shouldn't build the Mosque simply because it will cause much controversy and they would probably have more support if it wasn't so close to Ground Zero. I understand that the Mosque wouldn't be seen from Ground Zero but unfortunately the project may become more trouble than its worth.
When people are emotionally connected to a situation it becomes the most difficult to allow for others freedom of speech. In this case, they definitely have the right to build the Mosque under the First Amendment but those personally affected by 9/11 will not feel the same way.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
7 Days in September
7 Days in September is a documentary about September 11th. The one portion of the film that shocked me the most was the overwhelming support that the New York community displayed. Everyone wanted to help in any way that they could. I never would have expected the compassion and community from a big city like New York but it was refreshing and heart warming to see. I wish that it didn't have to come down to having a crisis to see this sense of community. I'm sure that The United States will never forget September 11th and we have become a stronger country because of it.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Speech Codes on Campus
It is crucial for colleges to enforce speech codes on campus. Speech codes are colleges’ way of preventing discrimination and harassment on campus. Many student may argue that they are loosing some of their freedom of speech from these codes, but because it is at a university those rights aren’t always guaranteed. It is the colleges responsibility to ensure that all students feel safe and if they dont feel safe punishment must be made. Students should be able to express their freedom of specch to a certain extent but when others start to feel threatened that is when the colleges need to intervene.
The policies and restrictions on free speech at my desired universities are established to make the safest environment possible. I think that it is important for colleges to make additional regulations so that every student feels safe and secure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)