Pro-life or Pro-choice and everything inbetween

After reading both of the articles I have side with the NARAL. The main reason that I side with them is that they have more concern for each individual woman. Their concerns lie with women turning to hazardous methods to terminate the pregnancy, women who have low income and will not be able to support a baby, and women who are ill-informed about a medically safe abortion. I do not believe abortions are always the right answer, but my opinion doesn’t really matter. That is why I am prochoice. The choice to have an abortion or not will only affects the life of that woman, so it should be her choice. The other website, National right to Life, seemed to clump all women and babies into the same category. They speak about the health risks for the woman and baby, and that is pretty much it. Yes abortions can be dangerous, but the woman should be able to decide if she is willing to take that risk. Why are these people who are strangers to the woman concerned with her health?  Why do they care about the unborn child? They will never know this child. I wonder if they would be willing to take the child. If they care so much about every baby being born they should open up and adoption agency. To me it seems as if they are just preaching their opinion, they have no legitimate argument. The NARAL has valid arguments. They want to get rid of the bans on safe abortion. These bans are making women chose unsafe methods of terminating the pregnancy. They want to help the women who are already in poverty prevent bringing a child into poverty and setting the women further back. I think that The NARAL is the “winning” side because they are not preaching an opinion, they are leaving the choice to the individual women.

I am an 18 year old girl. I am prochoice. I believe that girls under the age of 18 need their parents’ consent to get an abortion. I believe that girls 18 and older do not need their parents’ consent but their parents do have to be informed of what procedure the woman is going to have. I think that the parents should be involved in the process of getting an abortion because it will affect their lives to. When you are under 18 years old you need moral support. I can’t imagine how it would feel to be in a situation where I was considering getting an abortion, but I can assume it is very difficult. Our parents know us well and want what is best for us. They will always want to protect us. They also have lots of life experience that can help in making the decision or recovering after decision has been made. Getting an abortion is serious business; young women need their parents looking out for them. For women 18 and older they can legally make their own choices, but I think their parents have to be informed about what there daughter is about to do so that they can help her heal mentally and physically. Everyone needs support. Even if the parents do not support the decision they will be informed on an important  procedure that their daughter is taking.

                Although the father is incapable of understanding what it is like to be pregnant, they want what is best for their daughter and should be informed. Having your father informed about having an abortion can be extremely awkward, but they have the right to know because they are your parents.  I think that the father should be informed but if the daughter is 18 or older they do not need his consent.

                When reading the Illinois state laws on abortion it is clear who is writing it. Every fact that is presented is shown in a negative light. The pro-choice movement is the host of the site. They do not agree with the state’s laws surrounding abortion.  Although I do not like some of the laws regarding abortion in Illinois  I understand why they are in place, such as “Illinois law restricts young women's access to abortion services by mandating parental notice.” Like I said earlier, I believe that parental consent should only be necessary for women under the age of 18. But I understand why this law is in place. They are trying to protect women who are seeking a medical procedure. There are risks in any medical procedure along with mental grief. I believe this law is attempting to help women. I do not think that the law requiring spousal consent to get an abortion is trying to help the woman. This law to me is just another way for the state to keep abortion unobtainable. The spouse could have ill intentions for wanting to have a baby. I think that it is outdated to need a man’s approval.  Women are strong and independent. We do not need a man to make our decisions for us.

Eating Eggs

This bog was inspired the book I am reading, Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, and my breakfast. My sister left to go back to school this afternoon. My parents prepared a big family breakfast for her. We had bagels, eggs, fruit, and hash brown potatoes. I had some of everything.  Breakfast was more like brunch. In the morning, before brunch, I had time to write another blog. I blogged about the internal struggle Foer and I have about which animals can be eaten and which can’t. All inspired by his book. I sat down with my family and began to eat. My thoughts were still among the blog I just wrote. I looked down at my plate of eggs and felt no guilt because the eggs we eat are not fertilized. I am 100% confident that there are no embryos in my eggs. I did not take any lives by eating this breakfast. Then I started to think about how long people have eaten eggs. I was assuming for a very long time. I’m sure the early settlers ate eggs. Then a stomach curling thought came into my head. The technology to produce unfertilized eggs has not always been around…did people used to eat the chicken embryos? I find that so disturbing. They were literally eating under developed baby chickens! My question is when did this stop? When did people decide that it isn’t right to eat chicken embryos? Why did people stop? What was the ultimate determining factor? I would not eat a chicken embryo. That is a chicken that has not even been born. Why would I eat meat? That is from animals that were alive! Why don’t I feel as disgusted as I did about the unborn animals, than I do about the born ones? When did one become okay? To anyone who reads this……would you eat a chicken embryo?

Chapter 2: Eating Animals

After completing chapter two, all or nothing or something else, I am leaning more towards considering being a vegetarian. Foer describes his struggles with his affection for animals. He had always hated dogs. He never wanted one and was not amused by anyone’s. Then Foer fell in love with a dog, and it became his pet. He could not explain how the switch was flicked from hate to love. I connected with this immediately because it was similar to me experience with my first dog. After my family decided to get a dog we spent around two years researching dogs. We went to dog shows and read books. We had finally settled on an English bulldog. I was far less than pleased. I thought they were ugly, mean, and downright unappealing. I could not understand why anyone would want one at all. But after we adopted Buddy, and I took a few days to get over my fear, I was head over hills in love. I know how Foer felt; there is no explanation for the change of heart. It just happens. After examining his relationship to dogs, he started to reflect on other animals. Foer started to talk about pigs and cows. Both of these animals have the same exact intelligence capacity that dogs have. They are capable of having individual personality’s, which is usually what separates dogs from other animals in our minds. We picture dogs as more advanced, or more compatible with us, but other animals have these exact same qualities. I, like Foer was horrified by the thought of eating a dog. I eat bacon and hot dogs on a regular basis. I started to feel so guilty. My dog, pearl, and English bulldog looks like a pig. She is short, fat, and snorts. She is basically no different than a pig. So why aren’t I horrified by eating a pig? When did I make the distinction between what animals I eat and what I don’t? How were these distinctions formed? The questions I am asking myself are nearly verbatim the questions that Foer was asking himself. I wont eat pearl, will I eat babe?

Poor Pets

Whenever I stay home sick it is my dog’s responsibility to take care of me. Both of my parents work during the day so when my sisters or I are sick, we are all alone. The only type of dog my family has ever owned are English bulldogs. My first bulldog, buddy, lived to be ten years old. My current bulldog, Pearl, is almost two years old. I stayed home from school yesterday because I was sick. As usual my dog laid with me the entire day to make sure I was okay. I was playing with my dog and thinking a lot about her. Bulldogs are fat, short, and have a terrible respiratory system. Of all dog species they have one of the shortest life expectancies. I was thinking about how a bulldog would act in the wild. Where would they live? What would they eat? How would they survive? I couldn’t answer any of these questions. I could only see these dogs as pets. I do not think they could survive on their own in the wild. Then I started to think about all house pets. Could they survive without being dependent on humans? What is the concept of a pet? Why do we have animals living in our houses among us? Is it right to own another being? Is it right to make these animals dependent on us? I love my pet, but I am questioning whether owning a pet is right. We have taken wild animals and domesticated them. All house pets are like broken horses, forced to obey and act against their nature. Did we make a mistake when we started to own pets?

Deadline

As much as I would like to believe that justice is blind, I don’t.  Our society has a picture in our heads of what a criminal looks like and for most people it is someone who is black. If the majority of people being arrested are black then suspects in future crimes that are black will be unfairly prosecuted. There is a bias no matter where or what the case is. In some locations it is better than others, but it is always present. If our country makes it look like black people are committing more crimes they will believe that black people will commit future crimes. It is unfortunate that our justice system works this way because there is no way to determine whether someone is discriminating or not, many innocent people could be put in jail or executed, and real criminals could be left on the streets.  I wish the justice system could be blind, but I don’t see how it could be.
I think our country is pro death penalty because we blow up our crimes to be huge new topics. Whenever there is a bad crime the entire country knows about it. When there is so much pressure to find the criminal and punish them for their actions, people will support the death penalty. If there wasn’t such a large spotlight on the justice system I don’t think as many people would be in favor of it. I think our society makes everything a little more dramatic than it actually is, so their responses are more dramatic then they should be.  I also think many people believe it will bring them closure for their loss. Unfortunately it wont. When that life is lost your loved one’s does not come back. Our society supports the death penalty because our society supports revenge.
To the families of the victims at the clemency case I would say, I am sorry for your loss, it must be extremely painful and sad, but taking the life of this person will not bring you any peace. It will not bring back your loved one. I truly believe that taking the life of another person will not help you grieve. At the end of the day nothing has been accomplished. That empty spot in your heart is still missing, and one more person has lost their life. I would encourage the victim’s families to watch the confessions of the other victims families who are opposed to the death penalty. Emit Till was brutally lynched, but his mom is opposed to the death penalty. Those who are opposed could explain to the victims in the clemency cases why death isn’t the answer.  I believe there is no room for revenge in the justice system.

Chapter 1: Eating Animals

This week I completed reading the first chapter of Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer. The first chapter is the author letting us know who he is. He talks about his battle with vegetarianism. He spoke about his beliefs on food, family, and identity. He also explains to the reader why he wrote this book. The first chapter was so compelling because I learned so much about the author. I got a brief timeline of his life and he is very straightforward about his opinions. I was originally interested in this book because it reminds me of my sister. One day out of the blue she decided to be vegetarian. My family all believed it would last around two weeks, it has been three years. I respect vegetarianism but I don’t quite understand it. This book, in 19 pages, has already helped me understand more.  I look forward to the future chapters where he goes in depth about his experiences. I am interested to know how I feel about his decisions. Will I agree with them? Will I understand them? Will this book turn me into a vegetarian? Many of the topics that were brought up in the first chapter made me stop and think. One that I have continued thinking about is the idea of food as a source of memories. Foer says “Within my family’s Jewish tradition, I came to learn that food serves two parallel purposes: it nourishes and it helps you remember.”(12) I am Jewish. I do not keep kosher but I do eat Jewish foods and know the meaning behind them. For example, apples in honey on Yom Kippur represent the sweetness of the New Year. I had never heard the concept of food being a way to remember and tell stories. What does that mean? Food makes me think about stories. Every time I eat mandarin oranges I think of how my grandma would always give me them and let me watch frosty the snowman in her basement.  The food didn’t tell the story, it reminded me of it. Is that what Foer means?  I am fascinated by this book and will continue to search for the connection between food and memories.

The Death Penalty

After the arrest of the accused there is a arraignment. This is the first time that the accused will hear their charges and be able to make a plea in front of a courtroom. This is the first place where the rights of the accused are protected. They are told exactly what they are being accused of and they are allowed to plead their case. Next there is a hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to prosecute the accused. If enough strong evidence is found there will be a hearing of a grand jury, there they will determine whether the evidence is compelling enough to charge the suspect with a specific crime. The rights of the defendant are being protected because the evidence against them is being carefully analyzed for strength and validity. Finally the prosecutor must announce their intentions to seek the death penalty. This is the final aspect that protects the accused because they know what the prosecutor’s intentions are so they can make their case against it.
    I do not believe that the system we use to enforce the death penalty insures that only the guilty are convicted. I think there are a lot of grey areas where people could slip through. For example eyewitnesses may have false memories, feel pressure to describe a certain suspect, or lie. Also there are people who give the police information hoping to get something out of it. Their intentions might not be right and they could endanger an innocent person. Finally most of the case is based off of evidence found at the crime scene. That evidence can be tampered with or staged. Our steps to enforcing the death penalty are not the most accurate, but I don’t see how they could be more accurate. There isn’t really a way to decide if someone is lying or telling the truth. It is also hard to determine if the evidence is genuine or designed to look a certain way. I think that our system that enforces the death penalty is as good as its going to get. There will always be a large margin for error.
I do not feel that any way of murdering someone is humane, but I would say the most humane are hanging and lethal injection. Hanging has a series of probations that it takes to ensure a quick painless death. They measure the weight of the inmate and the length of the rope. There is always potential for error that could result in a long painful death, but they do their best to make it quick and painless. Lethal injection is also somewhat humane because there is also a small margin for error. The inmate is strapped down and put to sleep. Then they inject the chemical that paralyzes the entire muscular system so the inmate dies of respiratory and cardiac failure. They try their best to make it quick and painless. I think that gas chambers, firing squads and the electric chair are cruel and unusual because there is a large margin for error, the death of the inmate can be extremely slow, and the death of the inmate can be extremely painful. If we are trying to be humane we should not torture the inmate.
After looking through the state-by-state death penalty information what  statistic I found the most interesting was the women.  In almost every state I looked at there were 0-2 women executed. The only one that I saw that surpassed that was Texas with 10 women executed. It made me think a lot. Why are women executed far less then men? Do women commit less crime? Are women better at hiding from their crime? Is it easier for a woman to plead innocent? There has to be a reason behind the small amount of women executed and I am curious what it is.
I do not think any of the crimes listed deserved the death penalty because I do not believe in the death penalty.  I think that death is the easy way out. It happens and then you are done. Any criminal who committed the crimes listed in the document deserves a lifetime in jail. In jail they will settle into a boring, strenuous, lifeless routine. The only thoughts they will have are regret and guilt. Spending your life in jail is miserable and the strongest form of punishment. Sentencing the death penalty is relieving someone of the punishments of jail.
The chart on Illinois current death penalty information reveals that the state of Illinois no longer has the death penalty but it does not give a clue as to why.  I would assume that the death penalty is no longer used in Illinois because the process takes to long, all types of executions are cruel and unusual,  and the murder rate is not high enough to need a death penalty punishment as a warning.
After looking at the fact sheet I stand by my opinion that the death penalty is the wrong answer. Executions are bad for the economy. They are extremely expensive and the taxpayers paying for the death penalty may not support it. The evidence is also solid that race is a large determining factor in utilizing the death penalty. This is an unfair and illegitimate bias that our justice system is using. Only one third of the population supports the death penalty. The death penalty is not the majority opinion in the United States; we are a democracy so we should be able to end it. The death penalty information sight is against the death penalty and so am I. The evidence I found on their sight has made me more secure in my beliefs.