In my previous blog entry I sort of touched on the abortion subject; not so much about whether or not it should be illegal, but about how the privileged born babies should get the right nutrients in their early stages of life. Well I am now commenting on abortion, and the post that my classmate Megan made about pro-life/pro-choice.
I have to agree with her that abortion should continue to be legal, and that her reason behind it is exactly how I feel as well. A woman has every right when it comes to her own body, why would any individual want that right taken away from them, or to take that away from a person? It is just not right. Not all pregnancies go as planned or expected, things happen, mistakes get made, etc, etc...
For a woman to make the personal decision of whether or not they will keep their baby is a HUGE, HUGE decision. It takes lots of thought, consideration, planning, and evaluating what the life will be like after the baby is possibly born.
-Can I financially support a child?
-Will I have time for he/she?
-Will the father be involved?
-Do I have support from my family/the fathers family?
-Was the baby conceived because a man and woman truly loved each other and were planning this?
-Was it a teenage mistake?
-Was the woman raped?
-Is the woman healthy enough to deliver a baby?
-Will the baby be healthy?
A child forever changes lives..
For the people that argue adoption is an option; why are there so many orphanages and children without parents? Why bring one more life into that sad arrangement that they will forever hold against the parents that made them and could not keep them?
So many emotions run through me when this subject gets brought up. Abortion sucks. It does not make a woman feel good about herself, and I do not know any person that truly "wants" an abortion. They make that hard decision for a reason, a personal reason where they are looking out for the best interest of the baby..Not because they are being selfish and don't feel they can live up to their situations they might have put themselves in. It takes a strong and smart woman to be able to decide what the right thing to do is before bringing an innocent child into a life they cannot provide for it.
It would be morally wrong for the government to make abortion illegal. It is not their decision, it is the woman's. Abortions will not stop being performed, so we might as well keep them legal and performed in the right atmospheres where it is safe and not against the law.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Every year there are hundreds of deaths and costly illnesses that develop and get the best of babies all around the world. However, we can reduce this number and the amount of money spent on saving them by pushing the importance of breast feeding a new born for their first six months of their lives.
The media and society has always had an uphill battle against saving unborn babies lives. The solution to saving those certain lives has been pushed with the idea of adoption or abstaining from abortion. What if that’s not the only way to save lives?
For the babies that get born into this life, breast feeding is proven to save more than 900 lives per year compared to babies that get bottle fed with formula. Maybe that should be the more realistic change that can be made and given more effort towards; breast feeding. Surprisingly, it is not just mothers that can help make the difference, but the government as well.
For instance, with the new health care changes taking place it is required that certain large businesses must offer private places for a working mother to be able to breast pump. This should help increase the number of breast feeding working mothers in the U.S. because they will now be aloud a time and a place to take care of their personal business while at work.
On April 1, a new provision enacted by the Joint Commission, a hospital accrediting agency; hospitals may be evaluated on their efforts to ensure that newborns are only fed breast milk before being sent home. If nurses can help a mother and baby build a bond and get used to breast feeding before being released, it only makes sense that the number of breast fed babies will increase.
These are both good ways the government is getting involved, but there can of course be more ways than just those. It is so important for a child to get the nutrients that is only available from breast milk; it creates anti bodies that help a child fight diseases and make them healthier, but also saves a family money by not buying formula or having to pay for doctors visits that could have been prevented with the natural milk from a mother.
The government needs to continue to educate our society of the importance of breast feeding, and find ways to make it easier for a mother to feed their child in the most natural form, whether they are working or not. We need to try and change "work" or being too "busy" from being a reason that breast feeding gets neglected.
The media and society has always had an uphill battle against saving unborn babies lives. The solution to saving those certain lives has been pushed with the idea of adoption or abstaining from abortion. What if that’s not the only way to save lives?
For the babies that get born into this life, breast feeding is proven to save more than 900 lives per year compared to babies that get bottle fed with formula. Maybe that should be the more realistic change that can be made and given more effort towards; breast feeding. Surprisingly, it is not just mothers that can help make the difference, but the government as well.
For instance, with the new health care changes taking place it is required that certain large businesses must offer private places for a working mother to be able to breast pump. This should help increase the number of breast feeding working mothers in the U.S. because they will now be aloud a time and a place to take care of their personal business while at work.
On April 1, a new provision enacted by the Joint Commission, a hospital accrediting agency; hospitals may be evaluated on their efforts to ensure that newborns are only fed breast milk before being sent home. If nurses can help a mother and baby build a bond and get used to breast feeding before being released, it only makes sense that the number of breast fed babies will increase.
These are both good ways the government is getting involved, but there can of course be more ways than just those. It is so important for a child to get the nutrients that is only available from breast milk; it creates anti bodies that help a child fight diseases and make them healthier, but also saves a family money by not buying formula or having to pay for doctors visits that could have been prevented with the natural milk from a mother.
The government needs to continue to educate our society of the importance of breast feeding, and find ways to make it easier for a mother to feed their child in the most natural form, whether they are working or not. We need to try and change "work" or being too "busy" from being a reason that breast feeding gets neglected.
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Los Angeles Times informed me of the upstream battle over chinook salmon. Apparently sea lions have been gorging on the endangered chinook salmon near the Bonneville Dam located close to Portland, Oregon. This dam is where the salmon gather and prepare to swim their way up the fish ladders to spawn. Prime time hunting spot for the lions to get their food, but bad news for the salmon that get eaten.
However, the government made a choice to kill six of the most incorrigible of the animals after attempting to scare them off with noise, rubber bullets, and other harassing techniques that failed to work. Was it right or justice to kill those lions??
The author of the article points out that the government made a right choice in this instance. He proves this was a good choice by stating that, although our fish population has increased more than double the amount of last year, there are still other contributing factors that lessen the population of chinook salmon. Such as loss of habitat, global warming, and migration barriers by dams further upstream. So, we cannot in any way say the threat of this species, that is even listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, is abating.
I believe the intended audience was for the citizens that are seeking protection of our wildlife. Whether it is for the people that think killing the lions was unnecessary, or for the people that believe it was the right thing to do. The author proves why it was a smart decision the government made by using facts, theory, and logic.
The end of the editorial is followed up with what the government has previously tried to do to fix the endangered salmon populations, what they are currently doing, and what they should do.
However, the government made a choice to kill six of the most incorrigible of the animals after attempting to scare them off with noise, rubber bullets, and other harassing techniques that failed to work. Was it right or justice to kill those lions??
The author of the article points out that the government made a right choice in this instance. He proves this was a good choice by stating that, although our fish population has increased more than double the amount of last year, there are still other contributing factors that lessen the population of chinook salmon. Such as loss of habitat, global warming, and migration barriers by dams further upstream. So, we cannot in any way say the threat of this species, that is even listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, is abating.
I believe the intended audience was for the citizens that are seeking protection of our wildlife. Whether it is for the people that think killing the lions was unnecessary, or for the people that believe it was the right thing to do. The author proves why it was a smart decision the government made by using facts, theory, and logic.
The end of the editorial is followed up with what the government has previously tried to do to fix the endangered salmon populations, what they are currently doing, and what they should do.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Continuing Foreclosures
Our recent recession is finally coming to an end, and we are slowly but surely recovering. Everyone has their struggles, but one of the biggest problems currently being faced is one I read about in the New York Times, continuing foreclosures. It was announced that President Obama had gone to Henderson, Nevada and announced a $1.5 billion effort to prevent foreclosures in the five states that are being hit hardest, (Nevada, Arizona, California, Florida, and Michigan). I believe the intended audience was for all of American citizens that are either involved in the same struggle, and can relate; but also to the Americans that are not in that situation and would look down upon the grossly amount of money being put towards helping the citizens that made incorrect purchases they could not afford. The author notes it was good to see Mr. Obama focusing aid where it is needed most, which I agree with, but also follows that statement with the concerns of such a plan. The author argues that the plan only has so much time for it to go into effect with it being effective, and bashes on the administration about whether or not they are aware of what it might do for the nation and not just the specific states. Each of the two big concerns are backed up with evidence showing numbers, and examples of previous problems that have been tried to be fixed, that either turned into a disappointment or success. This plan is aimed towards helping the people that are unemployed and underwater borrowers. Aid is heading in the right direction, but it is up to the administration in whether or not they are willing to set a new course of action!
Monday, February 15, 2010
Shall We Go Green?
We live in a city that has so many outdoor activities to offer, and we all know that the citizens love to take advantage of a beautiful day and hang outside. Its also obvious that Austin can be considered a "hippie" town. We love to be natural, environmentally friendly, and down to earth. What if our awesome city could become among one of the nation's greenest cities? My initial response is, we should do it! But what if it comes at a cost? The Statesman offers an article all about the proposed plan, what it is, the affects of the plan, some alternatives, and the cost of such a plan. I believe it is worth reading because it will affect you, your family, your environment, the future, and how much you will be paying towards an electricity bill. This plan has been in process for two years, and getting more serious as the time passes. The vote has not taken place yet, there is still time to read up and get all the facts you need to know, and make your voice be heard if you feel strong enough about the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
