Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice

Abortion is a controversial topic of the highest order, when it comes to moral implications of policy setting.  Child birth is a subject that is dear to all of our hearts because we are all a direct result thereof.  The topic of abortion is one that is particularly conflicting to my personal views as a Christian man, who also believes in the right to freedom.  Abortion is terrible in so many ways.  One, I believe that it is murder, as it constitutes the killing of an entity, that would have otherwise developed into a human.  Two, I believe that it is an easy escape for many who refrain from taking the necessary steps in contraception  to prevent a situation which they are not ready for (I say many and not all, because there are some few situations where women are raped…which we will touch on later).  Lastly, and arguably most importantly, abortion prevents what could have been a beautiful creation from taking place.  Had our parents chosen to abort us, none of us would be here today; and look how wonderful we turned out?

On the other hand, to proceed with an abortion is a choice that one should have.  First, it is, I believe, a freedom; and so an infringement thereof could be considered a deprivation of a right.  Secondly, abortion can be considered a method of alleviation of a “burden” for the mother.  Now, this is not to say that a child is a burden; rather, the circumstance that may arise from being placed in such a predicament may be viewed as such. An abortion can help one cope with such an unplanned scenario.  Lastly, an abortion is sometimes a necessity.  This isn’t in reference to health situations, where an abortion is sometimes necessary in order to save a mother’s life; this is rather in reference to situations where a pregnancy is the result of a rape, and consequently the mother would like to get rid of any remembrances of the occurrence.  In such situations, an abortion can be deemed necessary.

Given the two contrasts, it is easy to understand (at least from an objective perspective) why one could be for or against abortion.  Personally, I am conflicted because from a moral standpoint, I should be pro-life; however, from a libertarian standpoint I should be pro-choice.  This leads to my compromising view on the subject.  I believe that the right to an abortion should be given to women; however, I believe that women, despite the option, should always choose to keep the life.  Life is too precious to give up.  There are many women who attempt wholeheartedly to reproduce to no avail.  If given the opportunity, I believe that all women should chose to keep the baby.  It may not be convenient, but there are always ways to accommodate. If that means working twice as hard as you do to sustain two lives as opposed to one, or altering your life goals to accommodate for the extra life, I think it is worth it in the long run.  Again, keep in mind that none of us would be here today if our parents had chosen to abort us.  Lastly, if all fails, you always have the option of giving the child up for adoption.  If you aren’t in the position to care for an offspring, there are many people out there who would be more than happy to alleviate you of this “burden.”

In sum, both pro-life and pro-choice activists have very convincing arguments to make a case for their respective positions.  It isn’t hard for an objective person to see why one may feel one way or the other.  With that being said however, the best compromise is to give the freedom to an abortion, in hopes that those with that freedom will elect to forgo of that liberty.  If abortion is abolished, that closes the door for those who feel strongly against keeping an unwanted baby, whereas allowing that freedom still provides the hope that even those libertarians could chose not to go that route.  That, to me, is the most rational and impartial path to take.

Photo Credit:

NBA Countdown: The Tristan Thompson Saga

We are all just as puzzled as Tristan looks here

The NBA season is about a week away and most teams are well prepared for the highly anticipated return of our beloved sport.  Players are starting to get back into basketball shape, as the intensity of 2-a-days increases.  One team that has been eagerly waiting for the reconvening on the NBA season is the Cleveland Cavaliers.  After losing a hard fought finals against the healthier, deeper, and quite frankly more talented Golden State Warriors, the Cavs have been looking forward to the opportunity to redeem themselves.  Unfortunately for them, a pivotal piece to this redemptive army is currently out of the picture, fighting his own personal battle.  Tristan Thompson, the Cavs’ playoff hero who made a name for himself this past post season, is currently using his playoff performance as leverage in seeking a contract extension.  Coming off a terrific NBA finals, where he averaged 13 rebounds and two defeated Warrior bigs per game, Tristan Thompson and his agent Rich Paul initially came out seeking a 5 year contract for 94 million.  After a soft decline by the Cavaliers, the crafty agent, who was able to also get Eric Bledsoe a similar deal last year, revised his request, asking for a 3 year 53 million deal.  The Cavaliers are yet to agree to this proposal and make an official bid, as they are presumably sticking to their 5 year 80 million offer.  That leads us to ponder what Tristan Thompson’s worth as an NBA player really is.

Over his 4 year NBA career, Tristan Thompson has been nothing more than a role player who excels very well at his job.  He is known to create havoc on the offensive glass, corral a few on the defensive end as well, and block a shot or two every now and then.  With his consistent effort on the offensive glass, and his athletic ability to catch lobs, it is inevitable that he will score a few points here and there.  Over the past season, he proved that his relentlessness on the offensive boards can create many problems for the opposition, and consequently favorable outcomes for his team.  With all that said however, Tristan Thompson is a one dimensional player in that his effort and energy is essentially all that he provides to a team at the present time.  His offensive capabilities are limited at best, as he isn’t of the caliber to consistently provide low-post scoring, or even floor spacing.  Defensively, he is at times a good help-side deterrence; however, his efforts on that end aren’t strong enough to make that a specialty worth a huge reward.

All things considered, Tristan Thompson is certainly not worth the asking price that his agent Rich Paul is trying to obtain.  While he is undoubtedly valuable, he is NOT irreplaceable, and not a star quality player.  With the return of Anderson Varejao, the Cavs already have a player more than capable of providing the same intangibles that a Tristan Thompson provides to a team.  With Love, Mozgov, and Varejao, the Cavs already have a solid 3 man rotation upfront (not to mention that LeBron can at times play the four).  Surely, it would be nice to have the luxury of bringing a Tristan Thompson off of one’s bench; however, that luxury is not worth the current inflated asking price.  It is absurd to think that Tristan Thompson should be receiving the same salary as a John Wall, or even an Eric Bledsoe (no offense, Tristan).  By my estimation, Tristan Thompson’s value as a basketball player shouldn’t cost a team more than 9 to 13 million dollars per anum.   On a championship caliber team like the Cavaliers, where many players take a pay-cut to make room for other winning role players, Tristan Thompson and his negotiating team have got to lower their expectations.  I highly suggest that Tristan and mastermind Rich Paul come back to earth and graciously accept the 5 year 80 million offer that the Cavs have offered, before they too wake up and retract the offer.  I sure would hate to see Tristan sit out a season (or majority of it) for this debacle, although it is looking very possible at this point.

Photo Credit:


Mass Shootings at Universities: the Latest Episode

This past week, the United States of America fell victim yet again to another mass shooting that took place at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.  The shooter, Chris Harper-Mercer, successfully killed nine students, and injured nine others.  Although it was later discovered that all 13 firearms that the shooter possessed were legally obtained, I am not here to advocate gun control (although that would certainly help, as most of these mass shooter in recent years have been known to utilize legally obtained weapons in their rampages).  Instead, I am here to voice my concerns about how easy it is for a potential mass shooter to not only enter a school campus, but even potentially live there with these firearms.

As a recent college graduate, who is back in school pursing a juris doctorate degree, I cannot help but to fear for my safety, knowing that there aren’t necessarily any stringent procedures that would potentially prevent such an occurrence from taking place.  Although I trust that my fellow future lawyers are all mentally stable and not ill-minded, you can never be too sure.  While the school undoubtedly has security guards/police, they aren’t necessarily in every class and every location on the campus at all times; who’s to say that they would be present if a gunman were to invade a class which he/she is rightfully a part of?  If present, who’s to say that the security/police would be able to have any deterrent impact?

From my college experience, I can confidently say that if I were to have ever possessed a gun on campus, it is very unlikely that anyone would have ever known.  From my travels around the campus, to my dorm experience, there were no interventions  that would’ve prevented me from such.  While this freedom and lack of intrusion is great, it is almost bothersome looking back.  Take for example going to a lecture, where some of the students are commuters; what if one of the students felt the need to one day bring a gun to class and end all of our lives, what would’ve prevented this from taking place?  This is not by any means an attack on my previous (and current) institution(s) for their safety precautions, or lack thereof, as I am aware that these conditions exists at every college/university that I’ve ever had any direct or indirect encounter with.  This is rather a proclamation that the problem needs to be addressed holistically from the upper ups.

Protective measures should be in place and enforced at all times, at all places, on all campuses/universities.  Although it may be costly to implement, all main entrances to every lecture hall, dorm, cafeteria, gym, etc. on every campus should be equipped with weapon detectors.  This will be the first line of defense against any civilians or students who may be brave enough to bring firearms to such places.  Secondly, there needs to be easily accessible, trained, security/police on staff to react in a timely manner, if the detector was to discover anything worthy of suspicion.  Lastly, the security on staff must be equipped and ready to combat the potential attack if need be.  While I am strongly against turning college campuses into some sort of quasi-war zone, I would much rather have that be the case, as opposed to the alternative of having vulnerable establishments where students are at the mercy of potential attackers on any given day.  Pursuing a collegiate or post-bachelor’s degree is already stressful as is; students shouldn’t have to worry about their safety in addition to that.  Rest in peace to all the lives we have lost in recent years due to many of such occurrences, and we certainly hope that this occurrence in Oregon will be the last.

Photo Credits: