Pro Abortion Posters

This week in class we watched a movie on the pro-life movement can “Unborn in America”. In the movie it followed a group of students that were putting up huge boards on college campuses with pictures of aborted babies and the holocaust and connecting the two. I agree they have the right to put the boards up just like the pro-choicers have the right to do the same. Eve though they are graphic and not pretty picture they can still put them up. However, I took huge offence to the fact that the pro-life people were connecting the Holocaust to abortion. They are NOTHING alike or than the fact that they are killing something, which is also debatable.
During the Holocaust Hitler killed everyone and everything that wasn’t like him. He didn’t only kill Jews. He killed black people, the disabled, etc too. His idea was to purify his land. He believed by getting rid of them his land would be perfect and pure. Abortion is nothing like that. People get abortions because htye know they can’t live with or support another living breathing thing in their life. The child wouldn’t have a good life if they were to be born and they don’t want the child to have to go through that. Hitler was able to support the people he killed but thought they weren’t worth it and he was better without them. The two really have nothing to do with each other and it is very offensive that the pro-life people could even consider putting these kinds of things up in college campuses where peoples families have been apart of the horrors of the Holocaust and it is a terrible history for a lot of people.

Abortion is a choice.

Abortion is and should remain a choice. Anything would be way too much control coming from the state. The state should not have control over your body and what you do with it. I find it really interesting that a huge majority of the people that are deciding weather or not it stays a choice and debating the issue are men. I don’t think something like that should be put in a man’s hands to be able to decide that for women. Some people say that even after an abortion the woman usually isn’t happy that she killed her baby. Just because someone couldn’t support the baby, or because she was raped, or for whatever reason they got rid of it doesn’t mean they necessarily wanted to lose their child. I also don’t think that parents should automatically have the right to know if their child is having an abortion. If a girl is having an abortion she usually isn’t proud of it but feel that she needs to get it. She doesn’t want to be told weather or not what she is doing is right or not or be yelled at. It should be her choice and he mistake to fix, not her parents. I also think that it would be stupid to make a law requiring the fathers consent. First of all, they aren’t the ones that have to carry it with them for 9 months and deliver it. Second of all, if a woman was raped, how would she get that consent. Its not like she can go up to the man who raped her and can say will you sign this so I don’t have to have your baby? Therefore, the father should not have to sign a consent form. They also shouldn’t have to be notified that the woman is getting one. If the woman doesn’t want the man to know out of fear, embarrassment, etc. then she shouldn’t be required for him to know. That is a total invasion of privacy on the states part.
After looking at two websites, NARAL- Prochoice America and National Right to Life, I remain prochoice. I found the NARAL website to be very organized and to the point. It had a very direct point it wanted to get across. While it was to the point I found that it had a lot of information and it even gave information on how to prevent a pregnancy in the first place. It also was organized in what it believe was the problem and their solution for the problems. I found the Nation Right to Life website to be a little disorganized and a little unprofessional. It didn’t have both sides to it and it wasn’t necessarily trying to go against pro-choice but was made to inform pro-life people. It is interesting how they had a whole section on “when does life begin?” But that’s not the same for everyone. There isn’t one correct answer for that and this website seemed to only have one answer for everything. That is why I liked the NARAL website better. It was supported or gave information that wasn’t only one answer and supported their points in more than one way.
In Illinois there is a law that a woman is not allowed to have an abortion after 12 weeks. I don’t think that a woman should be able to say last second that they want and abortion. After 12 weeks the baby is pretty far in development and I don’t think they should be able to get rid of it. Getting an abortion like that isn’t only killing a breathing thing but it is also bad for the woman’s health who is getting the abortion. I don’t agree with the law that states that one parent has to be notified if their child that is under 18 is getting an abortion. I don’t think it is really up to them and I don’t think that it is their right to know. Even though it is their child it is her body. If she is old enough to make the mistake than she is old enough to fix it. Also if a young woman is raped and doesn’t want her family to know this law makes her required to which and be misleading and embarrassing.

Thanks Giving=Food... But why?

Thanks Giving is a time when families come together and eat turkey and other food that is bad for you until you just can’t eat anymore. But no one really knows why. I found this out while watching WDHS at school. It is interesting because when I thought about it I knew I had been told only 100 times when I was younger in social studies class. But apparently I didn’t care and/or I wasn’t listening. After WDHS showed a bunch of students trying to tell them what Thanks Giving is and why we celebrate it they showed a historian that proceeded to tell us why we celebrate it. Funny thing is I and all my friends still don’t know. For some reason we can remember everything else in our crazy lives and the stories behind a lot of the holidays but we just can’t remember Thanks Giving. I wonder if it is because we just don’t care or something else. It’s probably because all we know is there is food and lots of it and that’s about all we care about.

Death Penalty Justly Banned

I do think the abolishment of the death penalty was just. To begin with I was never in favor of the death penalty. I see that as the easy way out and there is no real consequence for the person that committed the crime. I also believe there is a lot of discrimination that could be going on in our system and that our system is very flawed and when someone’s’ life is on the line we cant afford to have a flawed system. The problem is that in this case no one can make everyone happy. But isn’t that true for almost any major political decision? In Governor Ryan’s speech when he is getting ready to abolish the death penalty he says, “I suppose the reason the death penalty has been the toughest is because it is so final- the only public policy that determines who lives and who dies... I know any decision that I make will not be accepted by on side or the other.” When he says this policy decides who lives and who dies, it really bothered me. Why should a country that is free, fair, and just even have a policy that should decide that? And just like any policy that is being debated there is always two sides of the policy, those for it and those against. Every policy has them and no one can ever make everyone happy on any policy. Therefore, that really shouldn’t be a factor in anyone decision on any policy.
In his speech Governor Ryan mentions something that Nelson Mandela, former President of South Africa, told him. He said, “United States sets the example for justice and fairness for the rest of the world.” How can the United States be the example of justice and fairness when we kill people like that? We sometimes kill innocent people. I see no justice or fairness in that. I believe that killing someone because the killed someone is a crazy look on justice and really makes no sense to me. I think if the committed the ultimate crime they should have to sit and rot in a room barred from everything and live with themselves for the rest of their lives. Killing them would be unjust, unfair, and would make it a lot easier on them. Governor Ryan also says in his speech, “… The United States is not in league with most of our major allies… These countries reject the death penalty. We are partners in death with several third world countries.” America is supposed to be a developing country. Yet, America is separate from the major other developing countries in this issue. Instead, we are put in a category long with several third world countries that don’t even have a stable government or justice system. As a developing country we should be developing, not using old punishments. In Trop v. Dulles the Court decided that, “the Eighth Amendment contained an evolving standard of decency that marked the progress of a maturing society.” The eight amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” In this case, and this society, the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment. This punishment, in this maturing society is no longer ideal and there is no need for it. The standards of our society has changed so our punishments should too.
Another problem in this issue is the public. The public makes it, “… Easier and more comfortable for politicians to be tough on crime and support the death penalty. It wins votes.” (Ryan, Jan. 12, 2003) Although the politicians might not believe America should have a death penalty the majority of the public believed so. The politicians just want votes. They need them to be in power and if being for the death penalty gets them votes, then they will be for it. Even though the supported the death penalty, “Few, however, seem prepared to address the tough questions that arise when the system fails.” (Ryan, Jan. 12, 2003) Many people in the public don’t understand that our system is anything but flawless. For instance Anthony Porter sat on Death Row for 15 years and about 50 hours before his execution he was let go free. He was accused “beyond a reasonable doubt” of committing a murder. Yet, he was innocent. If our system were perfect Porter would have been found innocent quickly and wouldn’t have gone through multiple courts and multiple trials being found guilty when he was really innocent. In a case that I studied in class, the case of Lesley Gosch, I read about a man that was killed by the death penalty because he was found guilty of the murder of Rebecca Patton. However, I believe this man was innocent. “Gosch lost one of his eyes and his eyesight was so poor in the other eye that he was legally blind… Gosch had lost the distal phalanges of four of his fingers of his right hand as well as the thumb on his left hand, as well as portions of the thumb and index finger on his right hand.” (Death Penalty Information Center, 2000) Supposedly a man that has those disabilities was “beyond a reasonable doubt” able to tie up a grown woman and shoot her by himself. The other problem with this case was that no one came forth to talk until after a $100,000 reward was offered. Even then, only two people with sketchy pasts came forward. I don’t think that Gosch was guilty and he shouldn’t have been killed. Also in a study that I read it said, “In January 2000,…Illinois had released 13 innocent inmates from death row.” (Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in American) If our justice system were so great and flawless we wouldn’t have had to release 13 people. For death row that is a lot of people. Those people had gone through multiple trials and courtrooms and found guilty by multiple people. Then, later, after they had been rotting in jail about to be killed for a crime they didn’t commit they get let free. 13 people are a lot of people to make a “mistake” on. “How many more cases of wrongful conviction have to occur before we can all agree that the system is broken?” (Ryan, 2003)
Another main argument people have is that killing the killers is retribution for the family that they killed. However, killing the person or people that killed their loved ones isn’t going to make them come back. In a video we watched in class about the killer, Clifford Boggess, they interviewed the families of the people that he had killed. After his execution no one said they felt at ease or better that he was dead. They knew it didn’t change anything, he still ruined their lives, and he still haunts them. I don’t think that killing someone would change anything. There are also multiple cases where families had said that the killer being killed didn’t help them and it still bothers them.
Getting rid of the death penalty was a very good idea and just.