Exit Exams

This is my comment on this post by Joann Pham.
I agree with this article. In public schools, too much emphasis is placed on standardized tests and not enough on actually learning.It is also true that a one size fits all test cannot determine if someone is ready to graduate highschool or not. Intelligence cannot be measured by a standardized exit exam.

What Same-Sex Marriage is Really About

     The most common argument for legalizing same-sex marriage is, “If two people love each other, why are they not allowed to get married?” While there are many reasons for and against legalizing same-sex marriage, the government should not make its decision based on the argument that people who love each other should be able to get married.

     If we define marriage as two people committing to each other, then gay marriage is completely legal and practiced. There is nothing stopping two people of any gender who love each other from committing to each other, living together, and having a family together. But what people are pushing for is government sanctioned marriage, where the union of two people would be recognized and rewarded by the government. That is the distinction most people don’t understand.

     We need to understand why the government sanctions traditional marriage. It is not because a man and a woman love each other. The government does not care if two people love each other or not. The whole argument about gay marriage is really not about love or equal rights. It’s about what benefits the government. The government supports traditional marriage because traditional marriage benefits it. The government recognizes traditional marriage because it produces children and is the most favorable structure for raising future citizens. Studies show that the best environment for children is an intact, traditional family. Children who grow up in such an environment are much more likely to be profitable for the government when they grow up, and therefore, the government promotes the thing that would produce such citizens. While there are certainly many families with same-sex parents who have the same results, and many traditional families who do not have the same results, the government will go with what is most consistent. Traditional marriage receives government benefits because it benefits the government. While no one is contesting that one person’s love is not equal to another person’s love, in the eyes of the government, traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are not equal because one produces future citizens and the other does not. (Although there are always exceptions to every rule.)

The Sonogram Bill

This is my critique of this article by Gypsy King. I am responding to a few of her arguments concerning the Sonogram Bill.

1: The State cannot tell a woman what to do with her own body

This is true. But we are talking about two bodies here, two completely genetically unique bodies. The state imposes many regulations on what we can and can’t do to someone else’s body.  

2: There are legitimate reasons why people get abortions; these people should not have to go through a sonogram

Less than 10% of abortions are performed to save the life of the mother, or due to rape/incest, or anything like that. The overwhelming majority of abortions are convenience abortions. If we decide that the 10% should be allowed to have abortions with no restrictions, does that mean the 90% should be allowed to as well? Should we overturn a law because there are exceptions to it? If we did that, we would have to overturn every law because there are always exceptions to every law.

3: The Sonogram law is unnecessary because women walking into an abortion clinic already know what they’re doing.

Do they really know what they’re doing? Then why do many women change their minds after seeing a sonogram? And what exactly do they see that makes them change their minds? What is your opinion about those women?

4: Your word choices

You said that having an abortion is a “traumatic” experience. If abortion is not the taking of an innocent life, why should it be “traumatic?” You also said that “Forcing doctors to give a description of what the embryo/fetus looks like and turn up the volume so they can hear the fetal heartbeat is disgraceful and unnecessary.” What about a woman hearing her child’s heartbeat is disgraceful? Would you be opposed to this same procedure if the woman was not seeking an abortion?

My critique comes down to this: Why should women not be informed about what is in their bodies? Why should they not see a sonogram? What are you afraid that they might see?

Legalizing Abortion?

Abortion is an extremely controversial issue that the government is constantly being pressed to deal with. Many people think that abortion should be legal because it is a purely religious issue. That is not true. Abortion has nothing to do with God or religion. The government should take it’s stance on abortion based on the answer to a scientific question: When does life begin? Let’s take a look at three common arguments in support of abortion.

1. A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body.

This is an absolutely true statement; women should be in control of their own bodies. But a child in a woman’s body is not part of her body. A fetus is an entirely separate human being. If they were the same body, they would have the same DNA. No baby has the same DNA as its mother. Also, a good half of fetuses are male. Can you honestly say that a male fetus is part of a female body?

2. A fetus is not viable until (insert age); it is not really a baby

Most people say that a fetus is not viable, or not really a life, until it is three months old. Let’s assume for a minute that this is true. So what happens at three months to make the fetus a life? Is there some major change in development? Does the doctor sprinkle fairy dust on it? No. Nothing happens. If a fetus is not really alive at conception, then when does it become alive? When it’s big enough to see easily? When it’s born? Some people point to a particular stage in development, like hearing a heartbeat or developing a spinal cord. But there is no greater stage in development than conception. At the moment of conception, an embryo has all the genetic material it will ever have in its entire life. As soon as an egg and sperm unite, the embryo’s hair color, eye color, and all other unique characteristics are decided and they will not change. If you choose to say that a fetus is not a baby, then what is it? At what point does it become a baby?

3. Don’t impose your morals on other people

When asked what they think about abortion, most people will say something along the lines of, “I don’t like abortions, but I’m not going to stop someone else from doing it.” While this sounds like a nice thing to say, really think about what it means. What if we replace the word ‘abortion’ with ‘murder?’ “I don’t like murder, but I’m not going to stop someone else from doing it.” What if we replace it with Stealing? Cheating? Drinking and driving? Now it just sounds irrational. We have laws because we all agree that there are things we should not do, namely, things that hurt other people. These are things we agree that no one should do, because they harm someone else. If abortion is in fact the taking of an innocent life, then it is wrong for me, and wrong for you, and wrong for everyone. If abortion is really murder, then there should be rules in place to keep it from happening.

Mandating Guns

The blog The Right Side of Austin ran this commentary titled If Obamacare is Upheld, taken from the blog The Truth About Guns. The main premise of the article, written by James Johnson and published on June 19, 2012, is that if the government can mandate healthcare, the government can also mandate guns.

    He begins his point by stating that while the right to bear arms is clearly outlined in the constitution, nowhere in the constitution can one find the right to healthcare. Proponents of the healthcare reform bill, he says, justify it by “an extremely warped interpretation of the commerce clause.” While these statements are true, he could have made his point much clearer by elaborating on how the healthcare bill was declared constitutional. It also would have helped if he had given a rebuttal to the justification of the bill.

    Johnson’s next paragraph points out that, after a decision to uphold the second amendment, crime rates in Chicago dropped substantially. This observation is beneficial to his point, but Johnson should have given citations for this information. The evidence is also not enough. Crime rates dropping in one city will not change a nation’s mind. If he wants to change things, he should utilize the plethora of evidence out there.

    Johnson goes on to say that the fact that “an armed citizenry is the first line of defense” completely justifies a government mandate to bear arms. Once again, he gives no examples or evidence for his point. The point itself is a bit far-fetched. While an armed citizenry may in fact be a nation’s first line of defense, that cannot in itself rationalize a government mandate for every citizen to bear arms.

    I believe that while Mr. Johnson presented a novel idea, he could have been much more convincing had he offered better arguments and more evidence.

School Vouchers

  This commentary from the San Antonio Express News, titled "The Debate Over School Choice," was published on February 22, 2013. In this article, two different people, Kent Grusendorf and Shelley Potter, discuss two different opinions on the issue of school vouchers. School vouchers, would, in short, allow parents to use the tax dollars they would have paid to a public school to pay for a private school tuition. While Kent Grusendorf was in favor of school vouchers, Shelley Potter was not. I will critique Ms. Potter's argument.
    Ms. Potter, being a school teacher addressing the general Texas population, is qualified to write such an article. She makes the vague statement that "...some want to serve the few at the expense of the many..." But she never explains this statement. Next she claims that, under vouchers, private schools would be choosing children instead of parents choosing private schools. This is, once again, an ambiguous statement which she fails to clarify. Ms. Potter's next argument is that tax payer dollars should not go to private institutions because private institutions do not have to reveal their financial records, and, therefore, could do whatever they want with the money. While this is a valid statement, it falls short as a valid argument. It is true that a private school could do what it wanted with the money it receives, but if it is not spending the money on enhancing education, the educational standard would drop, and people would be alerted as to what might be going on. People would not pay to send their children to a sub-standard school when there are better options. After this, Ms. Potter says that allowing children from the same neighborhood to go to different schools would break apart the community. Although this might be true, she offers no evidence or examples to back up her claim. Then she says that, because the voucher system would put less taxpayer dollars into the public school system, it would "withhold state resources from our children." Actually, the government would be providing the same amount of money per student; just under the voucher system, the money would be spread out over several different schools instead of one public school. But it is true that, as parents choose the best schools for their children, the better schools will end up with more money and the lower-standard schools will end up with less money. I agree with Ms. Potter that this puts people who cannot afford a private school education at a disadvantage. However, Ms. Potter completely disregards the argument of choice. She does not offer any explanation as to why people should have to send their children to one school when a voucher system would give them the opportunity to send their children to a school which might be better suited for them.
    I think that, while Ms. Potter has good points, she does not clarify or support her arguments well enough to convince someone that the voucher system would not be beneficial.

Proposed End of Life Bill

This article I found on the Texas Tribune talks about a proposed bill which would spell out the steps to be taken when a terminally ill patient nears death. This bill would give patients and their families more time to come to a decision and take the appropriate actions. For instance, as of now, if a patient/family disagrees with their doctor's decision, they only have 10 days to find a new doctor, but the proposed bill would give them 14 days. The new bill would also give the patient/family a one week notice before appearing before an ethics committee, versus the current 48 hours. I believe that this bill would be beneficial. The decision whether or not to end the life of a terminally ill patient is an extremely difficult one, and more time would be helpful for both the patients and their families.