Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice

In the United States, pro-life groups favor greater legal restrictions on abortion, or even to complete ban it. They argue that a human fetus is a human being with a right to live, so abortion is like murder. On the other hand, pro-choice groups argue that a woman has certain reproductive rights, especially the choice on whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. The Government will never ban Abortions. They don’t want to deal with outcome of this reality. The Supreme Court would most likely shoot it down as being unconstitutional. I personally think abortion should be legal. I don't like it, but I think abortion is tragic and horrifying.

One of the most common reasons why some women want to have an abortion is simply because they are afraid it will affect their current lifestyle. Such as, not wanting to stop work or schooling, and because of financial or relationship instability. If someone who couldn't afford to raise a child was to get pregnant, should we then force them to raise it? That child will most likely have to lead a life in poverty, which is not going to be a good life. Rape is a very credible reason for why abortion should be allowed. If a woman is abusively/forcefully impregnated, she should be allowed to get an abortion. Having to live with the scaring fact that she was raped is tragic enough. She shouldn’t have to wake up to the outcome of a child to remind her every day of the horrifying event.

Let’s say abortion is illegal, how do we enforce that? How do you even begin to control and regulate that?  Some women that still want an abortion would go the "back alley" way, which would lead to infection and possibly death of the mother. Does a woman become a ward of the state the second she becomes pregnant? It seems to me that what we would be saying is that the second a woman becomes pregnant, her body is no longer her own. That's leading us down a very dark path indeed. It sets a model that says other people can decide what should happen with your body. At the end of the day, it’s the woman's body, it’s INSIDE her body. I am taking the pro-choice stance. I would not deny a woman her right to choose.

Commentary on a Classmate's Blog

In a World of Political Shenanigans: The Military

I disagree, military spending is not really a question of whether it's too much, just right, or not enough. As with all federal government agencies, the issue is wasteful spending. Military spending is only one part of the systemic problem in the federal government. To simply latch onto military spending as the federal spending issue is very narrow-minded. If the funds are stopped for battling terrorists, it will not stop the other countries from attacking us. Unfortunately there are many places in the world that want to see America burn. Take North Korea for example. This Communist country has been threatening the United States of America for quite some time now. This is a little country. They know they do not have the capabilities to attack America where we are right now; they’re not dumb. With all of our weapons and soldiers, it would be suicidal. If we were to stop and cut funds, it would only make us weak. Spending money on the war against terrorism is very important, now and forever, as America is an ever-growing nation and this society is just getting more and more advanced. We have come a long way since our conservative ways. The United States of America is known as Land of the Opportunity and Free, offering rights as well as freedom to its citizens; freedom of speech, freedom to wear certain clothes. Everything was fought for. You have to fight to get what you want, to get where you want to be. We live in a world where things do not just come easily to you. In school, we are fighting to be the best student. In work, we are fighting to do the best job. Everywhere around us, we are at war. And it is because of war that we are able to continue the lives that we have, be free and have human rights.

“If we truly want our country to be great then we need to prioritize where money is being spent because spending so much military defense is just protecting our right to remain stupid”, Ashley Arnerich said in her comment, which is a great example of pure ignorance. There have been countless soldiers who died on the battlefield to help make America free. So you’re saying those men and women died “protecting our right to remain stupid”? And then you brought up the 9/11 attacks as if we as a nation saw a tragedy like that coming. If we did, don’t you think we’d do everything possible to prevent it from happening? Isn’t that where military defense would come in? Did you expect us not to take action and go to war after that horrible event? If education is your argument, then blaming military spending isn’t the way to go. What good is intelligence if we do not use it to protect ourselves? Many people don’t go and get a college education simply because they can’t afford it. The use of programs like ROTC allows for people to earn a degree while receiving financial support from the military. Let’s not forget the education opportunities that the G.I. bill provides.  Don’t argue that they spend too much money because Medicare spends $800 billion per year and does that provide for the common defense of our nation? No. Does that create jobs? No. War is not a good thing, do not get me wrong. Although, fighting against terrorism is very necessary. It does not matter what we do in life. Nothing will matter if we are not armed. Countries will come and destroy us at any possible chance they get.

On March 11, 2015 The New York Times published an editorial titled, Republican Idiocy on Iran by The Editorial Board. They voiced how disgraceful and irresponsible it was for 47 Republicans Senators send out a letter to Iran's leaders . The letter undercuts President Barack Obama's efforts to negotiate a nuclear agreement with those same leaders. It is clear that their stance on the subject of the letter was the latest shot to blow up the negotiations with Iran. Stating that, "Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them."

There are raising questions whether these 47 Republican Senators are violating the Logan act, which was passed in 1779, it forbids any U.S. citizen acting without official U.S. authority from influencing disputes or controversies involving the U.S. and a foreign government. The Republican senators are indeed trying to influence the negotiations to keep the Obama administration from reaching an agreement lawmakers are already calling a bad deal. The authors of this editorial believe that the best way to restrain Iran from developing a bomb is through negotiating a strict agreement with tough monitoring. The Republican's actions make an  Iranian bomb and military conflict more likely.

I don't think that the 47 Republican Senator's actions were to bash Obama. I do agree that it was irresponsible of them. In my opinion I believe there should be a common agreement before any action is taken. Reckless actions can result in harmful consequences. But then again they were being ignored by President Obama so they took it into their own hands to make their point clear.

In an editorial published on February 23, 2015 by The Washington Post titled, The Insiders: Why would anyone think Obama doesn’t love America? Plenty of reasons. Last week former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani claimed that President Obama "doesn't love America" at a fundraiser for potential Republican Presidential candidate Scott Walker. Author of the editorial Ed Rogers starts off with questioning Giuliani's comment about President Obama. "Is it possible that a reasonable person could think President Obama doesn’t love America?", he asked. YouGov's latest research shows that Americans do tend to think that Barack Obama does, in fact, love America. 47% say that the president loves America, while 35% agree with Rudy Giuliani that the president does not. Rogers describes himself as a "sufficiently intimidated, mostly tame Republican", where as you read the editorial you can sense. He tends to lean towards supporting NYC mayor Giuliani's comment but conveys his message to the audience in a neutral tone so he doesn't offend anyone. He points out the flaws of Obama's decisions while in office. Roger states, the fact is that a lot of Republicans do believe that Obama doesn’t clearly and consistently demonstrate his love for America in a way that they can always relate to. Many reason such as:  Obama is quick to let America’s enemies have their way, the Obama administration warned people about the prospect of an attack at the iconic Mall of America, yet the president won’t even put the words “Islamic” and “terrorist” together, Obama also has a famously strained relationship with the military. These reasons can point us to why someone would think that Obama doesn't love America.

This editorial is aimed at the people of America. We can assume that our President automatically loves his country because I mean come on he's the President. But his actions may contradict and make us question how much he really loves his country. This editorial doesn't Bash Obama as a president. Ed Rogers does a pretty good job at pointing out some flaws and makes one's mind question weather Obama's action was appropriate for the cause.

I agree with Ed Rogers in this editorial. There are the numerous odd incidents that cumulatively give us a picture of a president who doesn’t really care. I have a grandpa that is an ex navy seal and a boyfriends that is active duty army and I don't hear the end of it on how much they dislike Obama. As a president it's hard to please everyone. Truth is you can never please everyone. Do I think Obama loves America? Absolutely. Does he have a weird way of showing it? Yes indeed. There are plenty of reasons that suggest Obama might not love America but he is the President and I do believe his actions are for the common good.

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, the New York Times published a news article titled, Funding Is Still Elusive for Homeland Security.  There is a crisis with funds for Homeland Security. A bump in the road has been met as Congress fights over immigration matters in the agency's annual funding bill. Without action by Feb. 27, the department's budget will shut off. There is controversy over what would happen if Homeland security shuts down. Some believe it would have a very limited impact on national security. I believe Airport security checkpoints would remain staffed, the Secret Service would continue to protect the president, the Coast Guard would stay on patrol, immigration agents would still be on the job. People would still do their job because once the shutdown is over they'll being receiving their pay. Despite the what ifs, The government should do its best to prevent such thing from happening.

This article is important to read because we as citizens are effected by crisis like these. Even if we don't feel the consequences directly, it will effect us in the long run. It is important to get the word out so that more people are aware of this issue and we can find a solution to it. With more problems being solve we can focus on moving forward to better the nation.