Abortion

Abortion is one of the hottest topics debated in the world nowadays. By definition, an abortion is the conclusion of a pregnancy through the removal of the fetus from the womb, which directly results in its death. There are many reasons why this can happen, ranging from spontaneous occurrences (miscarriages) and pregnancy complications to intentional termination. Naturally, as with anything that deals with life, abortion is a sensitive subject. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court declared abortion a “fundamental right” in Roe v. Wade. To this day, the debate over its validity as a practice encompasses arguments ranging from practical, moral, medical to religious aspects. The debate concerning the legitimacy of abortion has two primary sides, to be specific the pro-choice camp, which believes in the validity of an abortion, and the pro-life camp, which defends the right of the unborn and seeks to establish the invalidity of choice in an abortion. It’s a tough subject, but today I bring you some of the arguments in support of abortion.  

No individual, regardless of gender, should be denied the right to fight for his or her own life. Societies and laws are built around this very framework. Extremists of the pro–life argument are in some cases so focused on the fetus that they put no value to the mother’s life and do not indeed consider the practicality of the fetus. What on the off chance that a specialist was confronted with a circumstance where the fetus was not reasonable and in case it was not prematurely ended, the mother would die? While the decision will always be difficult, the choice is not ours to make, and as such we have no right to deny somebody his or her own choice.

While most arguments highlight abortion as the termination of life, they tend to be argued entirely focusing on the life of the unborn child. As with everything, there are components around a pregnancy that can lead to complications for the woman. Not all women are given the blessing of complication free pregnancies. Cases where complications within the pregnancy lead to essentially higher risk to the woman’s life are more frequent than we wish they would be. To deny a woman the choice to abort a pregnancy when her own life is associated to constraining her to do illegal abortion and let her life be in danger.  

Statistics shows that an estimated 49% of pregnancies in the United States are unintended. These numbers essentially demonstrate that the circumstances encompassing pregnancies are not restricted to cheerful families who have planned and intentionally attempted to have children. A large percentage is in fact unplanned for. Naturally, a woman or couple who face the circumstance of an unplanned pregnancy may not have the right condition to raise a child properly. Some cases indeed appear that they are incapable to financially or medically see the pregnancy to its full term. 

In conclusion, I would say that women should have the right to decide about their pregnancy based on their circumstances.  

https://abortion.procon.org/

Are Immigrants bringing crime to the U.S.?

I agree with my classmate’s opinion about immigrants. Recently, public figures have claimed that immigrants are “killers” and “rapists,” bringing crime to the U.S. That is simply wrong. Of course, there are people who are committed crimes, but most immigrants who come to this country work hard to take care of their families and themselves. Study after study has shown, however, that immigrants regardless of where they are from, what immigration status they hold, and how much education they have completed are less likely than native-born citizens to commit crimes or gotten to be imprisoned.
Studies have consistently found that immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans and that there is a negative link between levels of immigration and crime rates. Other studies have in fact found that crime rates are lowest in states with the most noteworthy movement development rates, which state with a bigger population of undocumented migrants tend to have lower crime rates than states with littler offers.
Some people also claim that immigrants are taking job opportunities away from people born in the U.S. Immigrants actually help to create new jobs. Beyond buying U.S. and local items, which make a difference make employments, immigrants often start their own businesses. Thus, states with large numbers of immigrants report lower unemployment rates for everyone. Immigrants also have a big contribution in the U.S. economy by paying taxes.

“Immigrants collectively pay between $90 and $140 billion each year in taxes, and a recent study found that undocumented immigrants alone pay approximately $11.64 billion in taxes each year. Moreover, undocumented immigrants nationwide pay an estimated 8 percent of their income in state and local taxes (their effective state and local tax rate), which is higher than the effective tax rate of the top 1 percent of all taxpayers in the U.S.” 

As my classmate mentioned in his blog, most immigrants come to the U.S. to change their lives, not to bring crimes.

https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/myths-and-facts-about-immigrants-and-immigration

Gun Control

These days, gun control is becoming a big controversial issue. People have been hotly debating this issue for several years. Those who are on the side of gun control support their argument by pointing out the importance of a good background check and the uselessness of semi-automatic weapons for individual use. On the other hand, those who are against this issue mention the importance of the gun for self-defense and hunting. Although most of the American people believe that guns are part of their hunting culture and important for self-protection, making a good background check and taking the military weapons should also be taken into consideration.       

I believe that the background check and the ban on military weapons are the two most important requirements of gun control that I strongly support. Even though the peoples of America have a tradition of hunting which requires a gun, military-style weapons should not be there as a choice by any means. 

I also understand that the gun control law should not be taken as a way to disarm good gun owners, but it is just to make sure that those guns are used only in the right place by the right person. It is important to make a good background check before letting everyone have it. In addition to this, it is also very important to train new owners on how to use the gun properly. And as if the guns are only for individual use, military level weapons should be banned. Although guns are important for certain uses, they could also be used for violence. So, having this in mind would be much better if there is a good gun control law to easily distinguish who is appropriate to own it, and what kinds of guns are important for this certain level. So, the government has to come up with a law to protect the people of America from unnecessary gun-related violence. 

WATCH: Beto Reiterates Anti-Gunner's Talking Points On AR-15s (And It's Absolutely False)

Beth Baumann, an Associate Editor for Townhall, On Mar 17, 2019, wrote "WATCH: Beto Reiterates Anti-Gunner's Talking Points On AR-15s (And It's absolutely false)"about the anti-gun speech given by Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke. The author mainly focused on Beto’s thought about the AR-15. As Beto explained the AR-15 is mainly manufactured for military purposes. He also added how harmful it is and why it should not be used or sold for civilians to use it anymore. however, the blogger looks like, she is not buying Beto’s anti-gun explanation for his supporters. So, she labeled his thought as a false narrative. The blogger brings a twitter post to support her idea. The twitter post was a picture trying to disprove the anti-gunners exaggeration of the damage of the assault rifles.

As we can clearly understand the ideas given above, both sides have a strong reason to support or go against it. As there are “good” gun owners who need free gun ownership rights, there are also people who have a fear of the increase of violence regarding less gun control. So, the government has to come up with a compromising law. Considering the importance of guns for self-protection, hunting etc., it is understandable to let peoples own a gun. But, to make sure that those guns are used only in the right place by the right person, it is important to make a good background check before letting everyone have it. In addition to this, it is also very important to train new owners on how to use the gun properly, and individuals should not allow using military level weapons.  And any military level weapons should be banned.

What Trump Got Wrong, and Right, on North Korea

On February 28 2019 The New York Times published an article "What Trump Got Wrong, and Right, on North Korea" by The Editorial Board. Since the breaking news regarding President Trump and Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, abruptly ended their second summit meeting on Thursday after talks collapsed there are a lot of opinions around. I happened to read this Editorial Board opinion on Feb 28, 2019, and want to share the opinion and my critique about it as well.

The editorial board starts by saying “The summit meeting in Hanoi revealed the hazards of his personal approach to diplomacy. There’s no sugarcoating the failure of President Trump’s second summit meeting with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un.” I believe this "summit" was nothing more than a show-up, but the consequences of a stalemate are dangerous. North Korea's nuclear program development continues, and our negotiating power is more weakened.

President Trump told reporters “Sometimes you have to walk,” in Hanoi as two days of talks intended to put curbs on North Korea’s nuclear program came to an end. The editorial board suggests that it was a self-possessed, sensible reaction from a president who seemed to be in a rush for any deal that would give him at least the appearance of a foreign policy victory. However, I find it unbelievable that U.S. and North Korean officials had not come to at least a modest agreement prior to the failed Trump-Kim summit. This indicates, President Trump clearly is not negotiating from a position of strength and the failure in Hanoi demonstrates again the administration’s unwillingness or inability to prepare adequately for high-stakes meetings. I think, they set up this summit just because he badly wanted foreign policy to win, instead he fells.

The Editorial Board also discussed “the outcome in Hanoi, Vietnam, demonstrated the hazards of the personal diplomacy with authoritarian leaders that has become Mr. Trump’s stock in trade. From Vladimir Putin’s protestations of innocence on election meddling to Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s denial that he had the journalist Jamal Khashoggi murdered, and this time he said Mr. Kim denied having known about the condition of Otto Warmbier, the American college student who died of brain damage after he was released from a North Korean prison in 2017, “and I will take him at his word.” Mr. Trump has shown that he trusts despots over his own government. I also strongly agree with this idea, and it is really hurting to hear these from the President.

Finally, the Editorial Board asks what will happen next and remark that there is a good sign the President discussed the outcome in a calm and measured tone. The Secretary of State also expressed hope that the two sides will get back to work out with this complex problem. That suggests a willingness on the American side, at least, to continue working-level negotiations, which are the only way to achieve an agreement on complex issues.

Trump Declares National Emergency to Build Border Wall

I have been following the News about the argument between Congress and President Trump. The News that gets my attention on February 15, 2019, Trump Declares National Emergency to Build Border Wall By Peter Baker the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times.

Finally, President Trump has declared a national emergency in order to fulfill his campaign promise. Congress has given the president the power to decide and failing to define crucial terms, legal standards and accountability rules. Congress has allowed Trump to abuse the powers and let him crush democratic institutions. It has been known for weeks that this was a possibility and the lawmakers did nothing.

According to the New York Times, Mr. Trump both accept the new bill and then declare a national emergency. Will he try to reprogram the money approved by Congress for other emergencies such as disaster relief, flood control, housing for military families? It is very confusing for me how can he do both actions. This declaration of a national emergency is, of course, pathetic, and it is a real national crisis that will damage the democracy of the country and will be irreversible unless we see Democrats and Republicans put our country first and stop him. Trump declaration of emergency is only to fulfill his campaign promise and fund for the wall. As American, it is the craziness of the move and the danger of using power to get his own way. Since Trump came to American politics, he has done a lot of things in his own direction and nobody can stop him from doing what he wants to do. We do not even know what next. 

Introduction Poste

Hello...