Not Black & White

I know that abortion is a very delicate subject, but I don't think it's as black and white as this blog makes it seem. I agree with the fact that there are a lot of women being careless with having the option of abortion and I don't think abortion should be used as a way out of taking responsibility for your actions. I completely agree that it's a little ridiculous that in Texas all a girl under 18 has to do is "tell" her parents. There really are better options such as adoption, which is a great alternative for anyone, especially someone under 18.

Having said that, I do disagree with the author about making ALL abortions illegal. I say this because there are circumstances where it should be a choice. What about women who are raped and get pregnant? Are they supposed to carry a child they didn't want in the first place and give it up for adoption in the end? Let's not forget the women who might potentially die from having a child or even the child itself might die in the end. Do these women not get a choice at all?

I see the point being made here, abortion is murder, and it shouldn't be optional for everyone just as way out. I just think there were other points that should have been taken into consideration before coming to the conclusion of banning all abortions.

Intention & Interpretation

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” As everyone knows (at least should know) this is our second amendment to the Constitution. Some say this means it is a universal individual right to bear arms. Others disagree arguing it does not guarantee the individual the right to bear arms, giving the right only to any militia.

I think sometimes one little word can change everything. For example if the Founders had put the word “and” in the statement, it wouldn’t really be much of a question these days what is was they meant. It would be clear that the militia and the individual have the right to bear arms. However, they didn’t put that word in there, so we are left to determine what is was they intended. I think maybe they meant for it to mean both the militia and the individual. If they meant the whole statement only for the militia, why did they use the word people and not militia in the second half of that sentence? The whole phrase would make just as much sense either way.

I don’t think the Founders intended for everyone to run around like the Wild West wielding pistols and shotguns. Instead, I believe they wanted every American citizen to have the right to protect themselves and their property when necessary. I think this should be common sense and we as a society have to learn how to apply what the Founders meant to today’s world. For example, a concealed handgun license is a great way to do this. It’s not intended for people to go around shooting everyone whenever they feel like it. It’s meant for self-defense and defending others, when necessary.

Lower the Drinking Age????

In the blog, Change the Legal Drinking Age, legal drinking age is yet again brought up to be lowered from twenty-one to eighteen. To argue this, the point is brought up that by the time an American citizen turns eighteen they can do basically everything except drink, calling the government a hypocrite. I am on the fence with this one. I get that it’s a little silly that we have soldiers under the age of twenty-one that can go fight for our freedom, but they can’t come home and have a beer. I personally have a problem with eighteen being old enough to do much more than drive and feel the legal classification of being an adult should in fact be raised from eighteen to twenty or twenty-one. Having the drinking age at twenty-one does not make the government a hypocrite, it just means that they realize that eighteen is not a mature enough age to handle alcohol responsibly.

Another argument is that lowering the drinking age to eighteen will cause binge drinking and other underage drinking problems to decrease. According to the blog, “at the age of eighteen you would begin to learn how to be responsible about drinking instead of learning how to sneak alcohol into your dorm room and behind the police’s back.” Lowering the drinking age is not going to magically make eighteen year olds responsible. One reason binge drinking is a problem in colleges is that students have little to no parental or any other type of guidance to tell them no. This article from the Science Daily website states there is no study that shows lowering the legal drinking age would improve binge drinking or the overall health of the public. It seems that the main problem with binge drinking and other underage drinking issues is with colleges. I think if these students could show more responsibility and not drink and party all the time, maybe more people would be willing to consider fighting for lowering the drinking age.