No homework tonight except to study. Because I have one final. One. Just one. And a midterm. That'll be very, verrry hard. But, Friday I can sleep in, and then help out my mum with some stuff, and sleep some more, and not go to school. And then not go to school on Monday.
See, my school year is divided in half, one half of the year for four classes, the other half for four more classes. Well, because of competition and the adverse effects of not practicing, all music classes are stretched out over both halves, by switching days with either a history class or gym. I switch Orchestra every other day with AP Government, so I have both all year long. AP English, because it's a college course (thus we see "AP" in front of it), is spread out all year every day. I had French five this semester, and have AP French next semester (that's an AP class that doesn't last all year) during the same bell, so that doesn't switch. The only class that I switch out of is Honours Chemistry for Acting Techniques. So my schedule won't change much Tuesday, the first day of the new semester.
Was that confusing? Yeah, I think so too. And I face it daily. Well, except for weekends. And Friday. And Monday.
So, American Idol is totally on tonight. Who's gonna watch it like the total nerd she is?!? ME! Yeah, yeah. I only like the beginning audition processes, when they get people like William Hung. It makes me really angry that that happens at all, sometimes though. The hundreds of thousands all have to go through a preliminary judging before they're allowed to wait. Those preliminary judges put really bad people through to wait to sing for Simon, Paula, and Randy, just for the ratings. They entertain false hope in really hopefull people just to have their dreams crushed on television for the money of it. I'd rather have some schmuck tell me I'm terrible than Simon, and then not wait three days in a tent in the freezing cold. Maybe that's just me.
Remember how I said I wanted to discuss political/psychological stuff? I'll just do it one issue at a time. (I've been chewing on all of this for weeks, so bear with me.)
So, John Ashcroft just resigned. Apparently people don't like his radical Republican views. Also, just as apparently, people don't realise just what a good job he's done. Crime levels are at an all-time low (from since before Clinton), and airplane security is very high. But people continue to blame the Executive Branch for 9-11. You tell me, who in the country (besides terrorists) actually thought that Al Queda was going to fly our own planes into the Trade Centers and the Pentagon? I'm guessing you hadn't guessed so. Who would have guessed about Pearl Harbour, or the Influenza Epidemic of 1918? Not you. Not the President. There are a hundred million ways terrorists can kill masses of Americans, who would have guessed it would have been our own planes? Who would have guessed it would have happened at all? We didn't even figure out who was the real cause until days after. And dispite what you say about Russia, Putin was the first one to point al Queda out to the States, before we received the tapes.
Russian-American ties are being weakened daily. In 2001 Bush openly supported Putin policies, but since the possible foul-play in the Ukranian elections (that didn't matter in the end, after all), and since more facts are being discovered about Chechnya, even though it's been a five-year civil rights destruction. Putin has been covering much of the murder he's causing, and when he offered support to the US in our invasion of Afghanistan, we accepted. The end.
But that's not what I wanted to talk about... how did I digress? Right, Ashcroft is pro-life. I wanted to talk about abortion. Firstly, it's wrong. Think about this for a minute: more women die during abortion than during childbirth. So, there are few cases when abortion is the right choice to make to save a mother's life. Not only does a baby have to die, but the mother has a higher chance of dying herself. Two deaths for each unwanted baby conceived. That's astounding initself.
Many people can't justify their arguments without the aid of the Bible. I say that my views are drawn from the Bible, but can be from just common morals. An abortion, most pro-choice advocates say, is freedom for women. Over 28% of women (260 were surveyed by Dr. David Reardon) attempt suicide after abortion. The mentality behind abortion shouldn't be, "The man can just walk away, why can't I?" It never is. The mentality after an abortion is nearly always one of loneliness, regret, and guilt-- if not these, indifference. I've never heard "freedom" as a response.
40 million babies have been killed in abortion. How did those 40 million mothers feel?
And a fetus, unlike what pro-choicers say, isn't just a pile of cells. Most babies are killed in their first terms. Within eight weeks functioning neurological sensors can cause the fetus to feel pain. When a baby is killed in abortion, it is physically hurt. A fetus after forty-three days experiences conciousness, making it able to understand that pain. After nine weeks, the baby has full motion responses, and will turn its head and frown if touched on the forehead, or kick if prodded on the leg. This is not, however, a reflex, it is, by the end of the first term, aversive due to pain caused. It can take an hour and a half of saline solution for a baby to die, and if the same saline were injected into the mother, she would inadvertantly throw herself off the table (imagine how the baby feels). And then there is the simple fact that to prevent life is murder.
Nextly, I sincerely don't believe rape victims have the choice, either. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, two wrongs don't make a right. If she were raped, how is that crime made right by murdering the unborn child? If the baby is a constant reminder to the rape victim, bear it, and put it up for adoption. I'd rather feel like a victim than feel like the guilty party, and I wouldn't need a constant reminder to feel worse. But, I think that if a bill against abortion were to be created, I think that, if it was absolutely necessary, two different acceptions to the no-abortion rule can be made: women who absolutely would die along with their child in normal childbirth, and women who are raped. I doubt that the bill will be passed any other way, but Appropriations will have to find a way to fund investigation into any exception case, because doctors lie for patients... and money needs to be put into birth-control education (because there are some people who are dumb enough to not wait until marriage) and adoption agencies.
Whew, that was a lot! I didn't even cover it all! Bottom line: don't kill babies. Everybody deserves a shot at life. Unless that someone is Scott Peterson. That guy needs to die. I personally think that not too many people deserve second chances, actually, but unborn babies have committed no crimes. What really gets me is that, stereotypical as it sounds, the same people who support choice are the ones who want to save the trees. Because it's easy to see how trees deserve to live over humans. And lab rats, too. Cure for cancer? That's silly. Save the rats! It's not like they're overly populated anyway.
Oh, and the title is from Monk. Sharona's gone! It's some new lady! And they walked through a huge uterus at a museum, and Monk refused to go into a fallopian tube, because, as he said, "I don't even know this woman!" I thought it was a fitting title, in a paradoxal kinda way.