Abortion

After looking at both sides of the argument, I am still left wondering why this is even an argument. The pro-choice website is all about the terrible things that the pro-life activists are making women go through in order to have the right to choose while the pro-life website is all about the terrible things that doctors do to "unborn babies". While I do agree that third week trimester abortions are dangerous, inhuman, and should be outlawed, I believe that anything before that is simply a women's right to choose and that is it. I believe that the pro-life side of the argument is winning the debate because of the emotional toll they put on women. They make women feel guilty about having the right to make choices over their own body. The pro-choice website provides options to stop unwanted pregnancy in the first place, which is the root of the problem. If every female had access to affordable birth control then the number of unwanted pregnancies would go down, thus the number of abortions would be decreased. If abortion becomes outlawed it will not solve the problem it would rather create women seeking abortions in more dangerous ways. It is simply a women's right to choose.
I do not believe that the parents need to be notified of an abortion when their child is under the age of 18, unless the child is in serious danger. I believe that parent notification will scare children into taking rash decisions to dispose of their fetus, thus putting them in harms way. If their is parent notification then they still should not have the right to consent to it, because no one should have to tell a women that they must have a baby. I also do not believe that father should be notified or allowed consent. The father is not the one having the child, they are not the ones to go through nine months of physical and emotional pain. I believe that as soon as we allow men to make choices about women's body's and give them that control, all of the work that women have gone through to achieve equal rights are no longer there. Ultimately it should be left up to the woman seeking the abortion because it is simply her choice, it is clearly a difficult choice that takes an emotional toll but the choice only involved herself. If our government takes about women's right to choice they are instantly putting us below men and controlling us, therefore the woman getting the abortion should be the only one that has to consent.
Illinois abortion laws I believe are reasonable except for the mandated consent law from parents and spouses. As stated before, it is a woman's right to choose, it is not her parents or spouses but simply hers. Illinois also makes abortion expensive to some people, which is very contradicting. Many women choose to not have their unplanned pregnancy due to affordability but creating abortion to be so expensive leaves women out of safe and secure options. I also do not agree with the idea of not being allowed an abortion after just 12 weeks, 12 weeks is still very early in the pregnancy. Many women do not find out that they are pregnant until 6 or 7 weeks into so only have 6 weeks to think about options is not a lot of time. I agree with Illinois providing abortion where it is necessary, such as low income woman. There are still restrictions on woman seeking abortions that should not be there, but for not woman can still have an abortion. These restrictions are created by pro-life activists and are used to scare woman out of abortion, so I do not see these activists as being pro-life. They do not think about the lives of women and how it is damaging them, they are really only thinking about having control over others.

Death Penalty #3

The stages leading up to the death penalty can guarantee that no innocent person will be executed, but the problem is, is that it can be but is not. The court appoints an attorney if the defendant cannot afford one, this allows for everyone to have representation during their trail. This is very fair and creates a lesser chance of executing the innocent, but after they are proven guilty, "the constitution does not require that a defendant be provided with a lawyer representing him throughout the appeal process" (deathpenaltycurriculum.org), because the Constitution does not require this then many defendants do not get the opportunity to prove their innocence or get justice. The courts that are set up for appeal for death penalty cases help protect the innocent from being convicted, but only those who can afford it. This creates a problem with executing more innocent poor people than wealthier people. This creates the stages leading up to the death penalty to not guarantee innocence at all, rather it creates a separation of executions according to socioeconomic status.

The most human method of execution is lethal injection. No other method of execution should be allowed, it is cruel and unusual punishment. I do not know if I agree with the death penalty, but I do believe the process to be as painless and as smooth as possible. While there are flaws to every method, death by lethal injection is the least painless and appears to have the last room for error. I do believe though that the injection should be given by a qualified doctor to increase the success rate. All of the other forms of execution are forms of torture, and that is cruel and unusual punishment for our government to support the torture of a prisoner. The method of death by firring squad, hanging, electric chair, gas chamber, are not guaranteed to be a quick and painless death and the result of error is much more torturous than the government should be allowed because it causes them excruciating pain where lethal injection puts the prisoner to sleep.

While looking at the state by state data there was defiantly a trend in deaths and number of death row inmates according the regions. The southern part of America has many more executions than anywhere else. I think this is an issue that needs to be looked at seriously because having the government sentence someone to die should not be used for any other purpose than to get justice. I believe that some of these states may be abusing their power. Many states in the northern east part of our country do not even have the death penalty and if they do their number of executions is very low. The other thing I noticed was that the number of black people executed in the south is much higher than the number of white people executed in the south, where everywhere else in the country the number is much more even.

The current information about the death penalty today still leaves me unsure about it. I think there are many flaws and when dealing with someone else's life these flaws are not okay. I believe the idea of the death penalty is reasonable, that under certain circumstances it is the best way to achieve justice. I believe the representation for inmates on death row needs to be better or at least there, defendants that appear to be sentenced to death due to racial motivation need to be looked at closer even without an appeal, states should have a limit on the number of deaths, and lethal injection should be the only method for death. If the death penalty was a better system and was taken as seriously as it is by all states and all people then it could be used as a good method to achieve justice.

Clifford Boggess

Clifford Boggess should have been executed. I do believe people can change, but I do not believe that Clifford Boggess is a changed man. Within hours of his death he still showed no emotion, never once did I see guilt in his eyes or sorrow in his words. The answers that Boggess gave were very detached of emotion. Clifford Boggess committed two murders in cold blood. He knew what he was doing at the time and he premeditated both murders, he carefully chose his victims by picking ones who could not defend themselves Boggess dehumanized himself by ignoring something he loved very much in life, his grandfather. Before his second murder he saw his victims granddaughter and heard her call him papa, and he said he even thought about his grandfather, but according to him it was too late. Boggess had no emotions then and still did not leading up to his final hours. . Boggess said, in rearguards to the second murder that it was overkill "just to be brutal". He even went as far to say that there are things that he enjoyed about the murdered and shows a sense of pride in his work. The video said that Boggess even bragged about the murders to his friends, that does not sound like a man with guilt. I believe that Boggess is using Christianity as a defense for his actions. When writing a letter or regret to one of his victims granddaughters, he showed little guilt but instead put in many Bible passages. I believe that if Clifford Boggess was truly sorry and was truly a changed man then he would not need to force his Christan ideas, but they would rather show through his guilt. Clifford Boggess had done too much damage to deserve a second chance, his murders were out of nothing except cold blood and what's to stop him from doing it again? The victims families had been haunted since the day that their loved ones were murdered by Clifford Boggess. They should not have to live in fear and anger everyday, Boggess has already taken enough from them. While the execution of Boggess does not bring their family member back, it does allow them to have a peace of mind that their is justice for their loved ones.

Bullying

Bullying is an issue that has existed all around the world, in all different age groups, for hundreds of years now. The issues has not gotten any better, but rather increasing worse. Which technology becoming more and more advanced and powerful there are new opportunities and ways to bully other people. I believe that to say a school does not have a bullying problem, is false. Every school has a bullying problem, but the level of severity varies from every school. While I believe that Deerfield does not really have a bullying problem, I could be very wrong. I do not think anyone really has a clue what it is like for someone else to go to school every day. I do not think that public bullying and harassment is an issue at Deerfield, but for all I know some student could be getting harassing text messages and threatening phone calls every night. The amount of bullying that goes on at a school is really unknown.
A young girl named Megan Meier was bullied through MySpace. She was relentlessly made fun of and picked on and no one ever really knew. The story ends with Megan taking her own life. The hurtful words became too much for her to handle. Megan's case was the first cyberbullying case that Missouri had ever seen, this left it in a difficult situation. The court could not charge her predator because there were no laws for cyberbullying, but afterwards the courts made cyberharassment illegal. While the law in continuing to catch up with technology, is it really even helping?
I do not believe that by increasing laws it will slow down bullying. It has always been illegal for teenagers to drink, yet it does not stop them from drinking. So how do we find a solution? In class we watched the show "If You Really Knew Me," it was a crew of people who went to a high school and challenged kids to get to know other students for who they truly are. While it is all tears and hugs on the show, does it really work? I believe it can work, but the question really is, is it going to affect the issue in a long term sense? Can a school really not fall back into its old habits from just talking with other classmates for one day? I don't believe so. In class while we were discussing this I remember someone saying that maybe something needs to happen in order to have a real impact. This meaning maybe there needs to be an incident so powerful that it stops the student body and makes them change. I disagree. In 2006 at Deerfield High School there was a tragic drinking and driving accident, that led to two student deaths. While I was not at the high school I had three brothers who were and I saw the terrible impact it had on them and their friends. I remember them saying that they hope it helps people learn, but does it? Has the drinking problem at Deerfield gotten better since then? No. So how do we create change in a situation that seems to have no solution? I believe the first step is wanting to change. Kids at schools around the country need to want bullying to stop in order for it to stop, and each and every person can make a difference. It is not only the students who need a change or attitude, but the administration as well. It is there job to protect each and every student, this includes the bully. By this I mean it is their job to try and help to bully get better. The administration cannot just give someone a detention for yelling something inappropriate, they must get to the root of the problem. By doing this and the school working with the students we can all make a difference.

Drug Testing

Drug testing in public schools in unconstitutional. Public schools use the terms "reasonable" to justify searches of students. Drug testing is a search of students, through an invasive process schools take and examine the students urine. Random drug testing does not fall under the term "reasonable" because it is unreasonable to believe that all students are under the influence of drugs. Public schools have no right to "parent" students by checking up on them, especially if the parents do not approve. In the case of Vernonia School District v. Acton, James Acton's parents did not approve of the school drug testing their son, so they said no and for that he was not allowed to participate in sports at his school. The school is not James Acton's parent, his parents are and it is up to them to make decisions for their child. If James Acton gets into trouble with the law, his parents are held responsible not the school, and for that it is not up to the school to make decisions and check up on him. While it is true that in order for James Acton to play a sport for his school, he had to get a physical with his doctor which included a urine test, there is a difference between his doctor testing his urine and his school testing his urine. This is an invasion of his privacy. James Acton's doctor knows the medication that he is on, because his job to watch over his health, this is not the schools job. In a drug test, the person being tested must enclose all the medication that they are currently taking, this in itself is an invasion of privacy because the school does not have the right to make kids tell them the medication that they are on. Students have a right to the fourth amendment while at school and without probable cause drug testing is unconstitutional.

Using the standard of "reasonableness" in schools allows for an search to be valid. School administrators can easily say that a search is reasonable for any reason. It is important for the education system to show students that when they walk through the doors of the school their rights do not go away. They cannot force any unnecessary search on students which, through drug testing and reasonableness, is what they are doing. In a 'sexting' suit that took place in Pennsylvania, a public school took away a students cell phone, searched it, and then handed the student a punishment for her nude pictures. This public school, took a students private property that contained private messages, as the suit said like U.S. mail, and searched them. The principal defended the search as being "reasonable" while in reality it is a huge violation of this students forth amendment rights. She violated the cell phone policy at her school, so school officials took away her personal property but for them to take it a step further by looking through her phone and reading her messages and looking at her pictures is stripping her of her freedoms. Public schools are there for the purpose of educating students and providing a safe learning environment if those two things are not in danger, by the standards of the forth amendment and not by "reasonableness", then school has no reason to play a parent's role in their students lives.

Student Religious Practices

"Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religious-free zones, or requires all religious expressions to be left behind at the schoolhouse doors." While this statement is true there needs to be a fine line between the separation of church and state. If the laws set in the constitution separate church and state, schools must as well. Religion should not be kept out of school completely, but in public schools there should be no religious requirements. As the article states, religion is not a problem is at school if the individual does not disturb their learning process. Another article about school prayer states "This idea that government is forbidden from instructing, guiding or even encouraging people towards any particular form of religious worship is at the core of modern establishment-clause jurisprudence. It is important to note that the violation of the establishment clause is not based on someone’s being offended or being able to avoid the prayers, but instead on the government’s involvement in and active promotion of a religious activity." Ultimately it is up to the students and their parents to practice whatever religion in whatever manner they want, but the school should not have to acknowledge private or individual religion. Public schools already allow time to pray during lunch or free periods, but just as people have the freedom of religion people also have to freedom to not be religious. It is important for public schools to acknowledge all different types of religion and to make sure that their students are educated because as the First Amendment Center states "Nowhere is it more important — or more difficult — to address our growing ideological and religious diversity than in the public schools." Also as stated in the article this issue has been around for hundreds of years and it is very complex. There is no right answer, it is just essential to not only not deny students their freedom to religion but also not force students to practice or to have a religion.

7 Days in September

The images in the documentary "7 Days in September" were devastating to say the least. I have seen a lot of footage from September 11th, but not ones like in the documentary. I have never seen footage so terrible on American soil, it was shocking. I was trying to picture what it would be like to live there, or what it would be like if that happened in Chicago and for me it is hard to see how the citizens of New York were not cowarding in fear all night and day. It amazed me how the city even six months later came together for support and for help. When they showed the cars that were lined up waiting to drop of donated supplies is when the courage of the city really hit me. New York did not let the extremest take anything important from them. Yes, they put their city in ruins but they did not break, instead they stood strong together. It amazes me how people change within a community in times of trouble. While patriotism seems at a loss sometimes it is good to know that there are always people there for support.