Absurd and Ridiculous. In Fact,

¶ … absurd and ridiculous. In fact, while researching both sides of the debate I decided that I personally feel this is a non-issue. My reasoning for coming to this conclusion centers around another hot debate topic: abortion.

Why are the rights of barely multi-cellular quasi-people an issue for either side of the debate when abortion is still legal up until the ninth month? Regardless of whether I personally feel that abortion -- or stem cell research -- is right or wrong, it seems that those who are concerned about the rights of unborn children have a bigger fish to rescue from the aquarium. These people make themselves look absurd to the rest of the community.

No one who is not already gun-ho and on board 100% with radical pro-lifers can take antiabortionists seriously about the rights of unborn children that are being killed if these same people are arguing for the rights of individual cells and cell clusters. It would be like trying to convince someone that animals should be allowed to vote, in addition to saying that people should not eat them. (For the record, I do not think people should eat animals.

But I would think anyone fighting for a dog's right to vote needed therapy.) I also think it's terrible the way the media misrepresents the facts on this issue. A friend of mine had an abortion many years ago, and when stem cell research was brought up, she expressed great concern that her baby was experimented on after the abortion. This is not where stem cells are harvested. Writing this essay reminded me of the failings of the media to ever provide unbiased, accurate information on a wide-scale basis.

The tone I used in the writing of this essay attempted to convey the absurdity of the topic, while still presenting both sides of the issue. Children's rights is an important subject for me. I find it extremely surprising that more youth do not stand up for their rights -- our founding fathers fought a war to eliminate taxation without representation in our country, yet our children are forced to remain one of the most underrepresented and repressed groups in our society.

Fascinated by the intellectual work of groups like NYRA (National Youth Rights Association), I was already familiar with some of the sources that would be needed for the paper on Raising Teen Driving Limits. Many studies have proven that drivers of any age that are inexperienced, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, distracted, sleepy, or otherwise not at peak driving performance are dangerous. An experienced, alert teenager drives just as well as -- if not better than -- anyone else.

I would trust a teenage driver over a senile elderly driver with many years of experience any day! If teenagers are not allowed to drive at age 16, then when they are 18 and leaving home and have no choice but to start driving in order to survive, they will then be without any experience. A friend of mine was killed in a car crash when she was 16 -- it was the fault of a 35-year-old professional man, with an immaculate driving record. There are no easy fixes for automobile safety.

We actually have to promote driving education and safety standards for vehicles and roads, not just find a scapegoat such as young drivers. When writing the essay, I focused on presenting facts that backed up my opinion about raising the driving age. For the paper on Immigration Issues, I utilized a helpful study conducted by the Center for Governmental Services at Auburn University. This study revealed thoughts held by the public about immigrants and work in America.

I myself have many friends who are immigrants, and this subject was personally relevant to me for this reason. Making the argument that immigrants are.