Need Some Practice

I am going to GSP this summer and I need to get back into the whole "debate" thing so I can own some fools when I go up there. This is an assignment for an online class I submitted yet is based off Antonin Scalia's dissenting view of the Roe vs. Wade decision.

Through many of the cases Antonin Scalia has seen, the one that seems to make him the maddest is the issue of abortion. Scalia was a dissenter in this case and his minority opinion is a very strong one. We all agree that woman should have equal rights as men. We should all be defined to have liberty. Scalia argues that through certain arguments, woman have gained the right through their “liberty” that Scalia doesn’t think exists.

            Scalia reaches two conclusions on why he doesn’t believe woman have the right to abort their fetus: 1) The Constitution absolutely says nothing about it 2)The longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed. Basically Scalia has argued that through many different other legal hearings and petitions, the Supreme Court somehow included “liberty” as the right to destroy the life of a younger one. However, Justice Scalia’s argument strengthens here. Just because abortion is personal, intimate, a person’s choice, and so on which all have been stated why it should be legal, so many other methods that are personal are considered illegal. No one has the right to homosexual sodamy, polygamy, adult incest, and suicide which are all just as intimate. Why the later list I created is considered a crime but abortion is not. Shouldn’t we have the right to kill ourselves because we have the liberty to do so. IT is considered “personal” and “concerns a particularly important decision” which have been stated in Roe vs. Wade. Thanks heavens those methods are considered criminal though today. Why isn’t abortion?

            To the end, Scalia strongly disagrees with the idea of abortion. He believes the waters we are dabbing in referring to our evolving Constitution interpretations are weakening America as a whole. He is quoted at the end saying, “We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining,” and I wholeheartedly agree.

The middle of the summary I had to write on Scalia's arguement has refocused an arguement of mine on abortion. What he relates abortion to was I thought very intelligent and does create a hypocrysy in our laws.

"However, Justice Scalia’s argument strengthens here. Just because abortion is personal, intimate, a person’s choice, and so on which all have been stated why it should be legal, so many other methods that are personal are considered illegal. No one has the right to homosexual sodamy, polygamy, adult incest, and suicide which are all just as intimate. Why the later list I created is considered a crime but abortion is not. Shouldn’t we have the right to kill ourselves because we have the liberty to do so. IT is considered “personal” and “concerns a particularly important decision” which have been stated in Roe vs. Wade. Thanks heavens those methods are considered criminal though today. Why isn’t abortion? "

I was actually dissappointed in myself when I didn't come to the conclusion earlier. So tell me? Why is a personal choice like suicide considered criminal but abortion is not? Another double-standard?

Here Comes the Left
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Wednesday, Nov 22, 2006
Emboldened by the Democratic victory earlier this month, the far-left is rising like Dracula at midnight. Just days after the vote, the San Francisco Board of Education voted to ban Junior ROTC in the city's high schools, tossing more than 1,600 students out of those clubs. The Massachusetts legislature refused to allow a vote on gay marriage, even though more than 170,000 Bay State voters signed a petition demanding to be heard on the subject, and a Vermont press group honored Judge Edward Cashman, the guy who sentenced a brutal child molester to 60 days in jail. Don't kid yourself; while the majority of Democrats are moderate, there is a fanatical subdivision of the party that is off-the-wall secular-progressive (S-P) and bent on radically changing America. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told the press he was glad the Board of Education waited until after the election because "cheap-shot artists like O'Reilly and Fox would have exploited (the vote)." Not exploited, mayor, reported. I coined the term "San Francisco values" and well understand they have little to do with democracy. How nutty is the San Francisco Board of Ed? We're fighting a lethal worldwide terror movement and these people are telling high school students the U.S. military is bad, that's how nutty. By the way, the ACLU is MIA in the JROTC controversy. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Board of Ed had banned a gay high school club? S.F. values strike again. The far-left in Massachusetts is almost as bad. Gay marriage was imposed in the Commonwealth by three judges who found a loophole in the state Constitution. Marriage was not expressly defined as between a man and a woman. Presto, traditional marriage has company. But my question is this: If marriage is a Constitutional right, which it is not, why can't polygamists get legal? How about triads? Why can't you marry your mom? If one alternative lifestyle, homosexuality, is granted license to marry, you have to include other alternative lifestyles as well. That's equal protection under the law, is it not? But the secular-progressive movement doesn't care about the Constitution. It wants a brand new America where the people don't call the shots—the "enlightened" minority sets the agenda. So get ready for more of this kind of thing. The state of Vermont has already left the building. It elected Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist, as junior Senator. Compared to Sanders, Patrick Leahy, the other Vermont Senator, is Dick Cheney. By the way, in case you went to public school, a socialist is someone who believes the government has a right to seize private property and do whatever it wants with it. Apparently, Vermonters are down with that, as well as with judges who give child predators the same amount of jail time as bar brawlers. This is the first secular-progressive state to drop all pretense and declare itself Havana-friendly. Wait, that might not be fair. Even Fidel harshly punishes child rapists. If you think I'm exaggerating, you're wrong. The far-left feels liberated, and it sees daylight. Expect these people to make a strong power run, led by S-P mom Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House. Let's recap: No tolerance for the military, no voting on controversial issues, and let's ease up on those adults sexually brutalizing children. Welcome to the land of the secular-progressive. Have a nice day.

I read this article and decided to post it. I thought it was really good in expressing the views of some of the far-left. Honestly, he makes a good point when talking about the ACLU not protecting the JROTC group, because if it was a gay rights group in school and this happened, the ACLU would be all over this. America needed change, but damn this is bad.

Also, I want a Wii so damn bad. Actually, I want Zelda so damn bad, I loved Ocarina of Time.