RSS

5th Period

Please post responses on this page.

Advertisements
 

96 responses to “5th Period

  1. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    Social Security Reform

    When you retire, there will not be any money left in the Social Security system. What do you think we need to do to reform this system, or should we do away with it all together? Use findings from your research to support your argument. Keep in mind the large numbers of people who would be affected by a decision either way, and how do they factor into your stance on the issue?

     
    • Christy Lee

      March 20, 2011 at 8:20 pm

      Social security needs to be reformed and not demolished. Consider all the Americans who depend on social security benefits; the needy, unemployed, elderly, dependent children and the blind. Without this money these people would be forced to look elsewhere for other benefits, in order to survive. Social security protects people with financial problems to not be forced on the streets. Beginning in 1935, the system had grown to provide better coverage to a larger amount of people. Yes the system should be reformed to help these people but the only thing that would need to be considered is the financial state of our country. The costs are growing for Medicate and funding is being taken from other programs. This needs to be addressed and factored in as other things. Firstly, the program should not be demolished because a lot of people are dependent on these funds to live. Our economy is in dire need of funding, but instead of taking away funding for other projects, the best way would be to take a very small amount from programs that have more money than others. This will help to balance out the money and insure disabled children, the elderly and the blind can have worthy lives in the Unites States as everyone else can.

      “Social Security.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

      “Lifting the Social Security Wage Cap Would Increase Revenues.” Social Security. Ed. Mitchell Young. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

      “Government Benefits for Retirees Must Be Preserved.” The Aging Population. Ed. Katherine Swarts. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

       
    • Ana Rivera

      March 20, 2011 at 8:41 pm

      Many nations operate Social Security programs to assist their citizens financially and protect them from poverty. Since the 1935, the social security system has been expanded to provide greater coverage for more groups including farm labors, domestic workers and the self-employed. Why try to put a reform on social security now? To protect the elderly people when they reach their retired age. The United State has a social security system that provide the benefits to the elderly and the retire people, and the disposable. Also, the unemployed and children. In other words, the social security taxes that workers pay go toward benefits for people who have already retired. With the decisions if is made that the social security gets a reform everyone would have a benefit. Social Act created medicare a program designed to protect the elderly from the high cost of the medical care, and medicaid. A similar program for the poor. As you can see, that with a reform in social security people would not know how to manage their own money without making a mistakes. We should keep the current form of social security. Under reform more people would be left without any kind of security because there not able to manage their own money safety.

      “Social Security.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

       
    • Liz Meeks

      March 20, 2011 at 9:00 pm

      Growing up with elderly people who rely on things like Social Security gave me a bias on the issue. After reading both sides of the issue and deciding that while the argument for abolishing Social Security is a strong one, it clearly won’t work for very long. An article against lifting the wage cap even said that taking away Social Security would only work for six years at best. Many stand to lose homes and only have the ability to keep them because of things like Social Security. Removing the cap would be giving money back to the people who deserve it, and in turn those people would spend money and stimulate the economy. Yes the system is not perfect, but small kinks can be worked out with patience and a good brain behind the idea. There is no need to destroy a program with potential for improvement and room to grow.

      “Lifting the Social Security Wage Cap Will Not Save the System.” Social Security. Ed. Mitchell Young. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

       
    • Dylan B

      March 20, 2011 at 9:31 pm

      Gun Control

      The act of the gun control is ridiculous. The government shouldn’t have the right to take away the second amendment. This amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Everyday people use firearms to protect their family from crime and robbery, or to hunt for game. If the government no longer allows us to use firearms we will not be able to use rights of the second amendment, defend our family, or stop the crime rate by having guns.
      The government believes that guns are becoming a huge risk because they are not being used for their purpose; protection and hunting. You rarely hear on the news that there has been a shooting or robbery with a gun. This means it is not a big problem. If fellow Americans cannot have guns they will have nothing to protect themselves at their home in case of a break in. By having guns robbers will be afraid to break in someone’s house for the reason of being shot. People also use guns for hunting game and target shooting. By taking the second amendment away they will lose all these right and lose all the money spent on fire arms. This amendment shouldn’t even be argued about because people that don’t own guns don’t understand the benefits of them.

      John Luik
      Sabina Thaler

       
    • Dylan B

      March 20, 2011 at 9:34 pm

      Americans are so lucky for the creation of the social security bill because it can provide many benefits in the future. Now that the economy is in the ditch Americans are being ripped off because they are not providing the same benefits as in the future. Now they want to increase the cap wages. This would hurt Americans tremendously because it would cause the greatest tax increase. It would cause a tax increase as much as 12.4 percent. The effect would be worse than in the depression in 1970. They would increase the retirement age; making hundred of senior citizens wait longer to retire. This new reform wouldn’t reform the social security program at all but hurt the economy more than before. Americans today are paying too much out of their pockets. The government takes a portion of our money out of are monthly checks. They take a different amount out according to how much income you make. This is unfair because people that did something with their lives and went to college have to take more out of there check compared to someone that works a fast food restaurant. Another change that would hurt senior citizens is that the new bill would only affect people under the age of 45. I do not think that the change to this bill is fair because it will hurt Americans income and hope of ever retiring

      John Miller
      David C. John and Rea S. Hedeman Jr.

       
    • Drew L.

      March 21, 2011 at 12:45 am

      Social Security needs to be reformed. To many people in this country are dependent on Social Security to just throw it out the window. Think about the people who wouldn’t be able to afford any coverage if it was just thrown out. What would they do? I think something that might help with the costs for social security would be to cut some of the benefits from the wealthy. If they are already wealthy, why do they need the coverage? They should be able to pay for some of it and get by. As for the non- wealthy it would increase the amount of benefits that they normally wouldn’t have the money to cover.

      “Social Security.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

      “Oklahoma U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn Debates Need for Social Security Reform | NewsOK.com.”NewsOK: Oklahoma News, Sports, Weather, Business, Entertainment & Oklahoma City Photos & Video OKC. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. .

       
    • Josh Wolfe

      March 21, 2011 at 2:12 am

      I support the idea of reforming social security, rather than ridding of it.
      I think that, though quite difficult, reforming social security to continue to benefit the retired, elderly, injured, and unemployed is possible. An excellent idea, in my opinion, to reform it is to create some type of income cap. Basically stating that if, when you retire, you make over a certain amount in income, then you should not be able to access social security money. The people that fall into this category need to keep other options in mind, though. Capping social security income amounts will not completely cut off retirement funds to those who make over a certain amount. Other options such as investing into 401K’s are available, as well. A cap would make it so that less people are feeding off of social security and only those that really need it are using it.
      Another option is to privitize social security. This would give workers the ability to access social security, but would also give them the access to choose how exactly they want to invest their money. Different plans in privatizing allow for certain people to use less money than others over a longer period of time, or vice versa.

       
    • Andrew McInnis

      March 21, 2011 at 2:48 am

      I think our taxes should go to our retirement and not other peoples, that makes people more motivated to pay their taxes. This also lowers the unemployment rate because it will motivate people to work so they can have a retirement fund. Like the title says it needs reform, not recreation.

       
    • Nick L

      March 21, 2011 at 4:25 am

      Social Security needs to be reformed because its funds are on the verge of running out. When Social Security was enacted, there were too many people in the working class competing for jobs and very few people in retirement. In order to allow more people to have jobs, they created the system as incentive for older people to retire and still be comfortably taken care of. Nowadays, the ratio of workers to retired people is about 3 to 1 while back then it was 17 to 1. With the baby boomers beginning to retire, there will not be enough money to go around for retirees. Another difference that has come with time is our life expectancy. The amount of time social security has to fund people is much longer and has contributed to its dwindling budget. People are able to retire too early and receive benefits. Finally, the money comes from a fund that takes a portion of people’s income. There are certain people not contributing, but receiving full benefits when they retire. Therefore, for these reasons, I think reform is in order. If citizens want full benefits, they should have to retire later. Also, the early retirement people are receiving too much. Now if they retire at 62, they are receiving 70% of the benefits. I think if they retire this early, they should receive around 60% of benefits. Because of our longer life expectancy, the amount we receive from Social Security should be lowered slightly. Finally, because some of the lower class does not contribute to the fund, there should be an amount a person must make to receive aid from Social Security. I think these changes could help keep Social Security from bankrupting.

      “Government Benefits for Retirees Must Be Preserved.” The Aging Population. Ed. Katherine Swarts. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Mar. 2011.

       
  2. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    Gun Control

    This national debate has gone on since the inceptionof this great Nation. Your right to bear arms is brought into questions almost every legislative session. Do you believe in the right to bear arms, or do you belive this right should be restricted? Use examples and findings from your research to support your argument.

     
    • Liz Meeks

      March 18, 2011 at 5:11 pm

      The right to bear arms is a constitutional right cleary defined in the Bill of Rights. That fact alone is a standing basis for why increased gun control should NOT be part of our nation’s vast amounts of legislation. Decreased crime rates and suicide rates are proof that gun control is an invalid and out of date idea. The rumor that it increases suicides and crime rates has been disproven over the course of ten or so years with at least 1,839 fewer murders happening each year.

      Luik, John. “The Increased Availability of Guns Reduces Crime.” Western Standard (21 May 2007): 41-45. Rpt. in Guns and Crime. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.
      Document URL
      http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010015235&mode=view&userGroupName=cant48040&jsid=360131f5d44676e52095c10ad8cd43b1

      “The Availability of Guns Does Not Increase Suicide Rates.” Gun Violence. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.
      Document URL
      http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010223239&mode=view&userGroupName=cant48040&jsid=d957b275e36abf6c52f36e71fa580df6

       
    • Ana Rivera

      March 19, 2011 at 6:44 pm

      There has been debate on whether we should have the right to bear arm or if it should be restricted? throughout my research it made me come to a conclusion and opinion on whether the right to bear arm should be restricted. I strongly believe that the people should not have the right to bear arm because do to the right to bear arm it gives us results of the massacre at Columbine high school in Colorado, in 1999 caught the attention of the nation. Brought the issue of gun control to the forefront. The results of a gun control was of 12students killed and one teacher and another 21 students before committing suicide. The Center for Disease control listed the United State as having the highest rate of firearm violence among industrialized nations. Gunshot wounds are how the leading cause of death for teenage boys. We should at least require to obtain license to carry firearms and also to have some background if they want to have the right to bear arm. The right of a gun control maybe could be used for self protection but sometimes gun owners can sell guns at gun shows without a wanting period or a good background. I recommend the state to restricted the right to bear arm just for the safe of the community.

       
      • Ana Rivera

        March 19, 2011 at 6:47 pm

        “Guns and Violence.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 19 Mar. 2011.

         
    • Andrew McInnis

      March 20, 2011 at 7:09 pm

      Gun control

      The topic of gun control has been debated on for as long as i can remember, i think the big start of it was the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado. This brought Gun control to a national issue, yet i am here to say that people kill people not guns. Those boys would have killed the innocent civilians that day whether they had guns or whether they had knives. If every other kid there had a gun, how many people would have died that day? Gun control is only making it harder on law abiding citizens to obtain firearms because criminals will break the law either way.

      “Gun Control”

       
      • Andrew McInnis

        March 21, 2011 at 2:52 am

        Luik, John

         
    • Liz Meeks

      March 20, 2011 at 8:28 pm

      Our second amendment is a right that nobody has the right to change, it has been around since the Constitution was first drafted so why bother doing something to it now? One article stated that if gun permits had been allowed more freely in states who opposed them, there would have been 1,839 fewer murders, 3,727 fewer rapes and 10,990 fewer aggravated assaults. That was nine years ago, so imagine what sort of impact more gun permits would do for that statistic. Allow more gun permits and the problem of a crime rate will slowly diminish.

      Luik, John. “The Increased Availability of Guns Reduces Crime.” Western Standard (21 May 2007): 41-45. Rpt. in Guns and Crime. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

       
    • Dylan B

      March 20, 2011 at 9:33 pm

      The act of the gun control is ridiculous. The government shouldn’t have the right to take away the second amendment. This amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Everyday people use firearms to protect their family from crime and robbery, or to hunt for game. If the government no longer allows us to use firearms we will not be able to use rights of the second amendment, defend our family, or stop the crime rate by having guns.

      The government believes that guns are becoming a huge risk because they are not being used for their purpose; protection and hunting. You rarely hear on the news that there has been a shooting or robbery with a gun. This means it is not a big problem. If fellow Americans cannot have guns they will have nothing to protect themselves at their home in case of a break in. By having guns robbers will be afraid to break in someone’s house for the reason of being shot. People also use guns for hunting game and target shooting. By taking the second amendment away they will lose all these right and lose all the money spent on fire arms. This amendment shouldn’t even be argued about because people that don’t own guns don’t understand the benefits of them.
      John Luik
      Sabina Thaler

       
    • Drew L.

      March 21, 2011 at 1:22 am

      The right to bear arms is a very controversial subject. I think that you should only have the right to bear arms if you are using the gun as protection against an intruder. In New York City, the local government have issued a law that requires people to have a license to carry a firearm. Since this law was revised in 1994, the amount of murders in the city has gone way down. In 2009, the total of murders in NYC were 461. This shows that the city itself is on the right track to reducing the amount of murders in the city. It is at its lowest point since they started keeping records in the 1960’s. in 1999, the tragedy that unfolded at Columbine High School caught the attention of many people. How did these two kids get a hold of these powerful weapons? This incident really caught the attention of the government on the amendment we follow.

      “Guns and Violence.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

       
    • Nathan Hernandez

      March 21, 2011 at 1:58 am

      The second amendmant added to the constitution states that all citizens of the U.S. have the right to bear arms.Now their is a debate on whether or not citizens should be able to keep guns in their pocession or not.Those who believe that guns should be takein away do have a valid point.This be considering the facts that guns kill and everybody knows how to use them.The availability of guns has also largely expanded and anybody wishing for one can get one. This being bad because attacks such as the one at Virginia Tech can happen.Even though attacks do happen, we are granted to the right to keep guns. Guns help people protect themselves against others and studys show that households that own guns, commit less violent attacks than households that dont.Their will always be bad people in the world, but good people do need a way to defend themselves.

      Luik, John. “The Increased Availability of Guns Reduces Crime.” Western Standard (21 May 2007): 41-45. Rpt. in Guns and Crime. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

       
    • Jenna Bredwell

      March 21, 2011 at 2:45 am

      The government should not be able to take away the right of the second amendment. I believe that if a gun is being used to protect yourself, there is nothing wrong with owning a gun. With allowing people to own their own personal guns does allow guns to be in the wrong hands and used in crime and violence, but studies show that the chance of being a victim of a violent crime decreases as the availability of guns increases.

       
    • Randall Pontoo

      March 21, 2011 at 1:17 pm

      I strongly believe that the people should not have the right to bear arms because it results in nothing but death. Case and point: On Good Friday 2009, Anthony Powell shot and killed a female drama classmate as she rehearsed a scene at Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, Michigan. Minutes later as police arrived on the scene, he turned the gun on himself.

       
    • Logan P

      March 22, 2011 at 12:13 am

      For the last 20 years gun control has been a huge debate among Americans. People on both sides of the issue have great points and believe strongly they are right. But is one side right or wrong? Maybe so; It depends on what you believe and how strongly. I believe that gun control is a good thing. Yes, the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. However, it does not go into detail about how things should be nor does it say we have the right to bear arms in public. Gun control is a good thing because there are lots of crazy people out there that are willing to kill anyone. Also if everyone carried guns with them they would be at a higher risk to get shoot due to misfires and accidents. People that are all ways trying to change my view on the issue; Always say “well what if a man comes into a store trying to rob it and has a gun then we could all pull out our guns to protect us and save the day”. The problem with this is if everyone shoot at the same guy from many different angles, then there is a huge chance on getting hit in cross fire and killing innocent people. It’s not worth doing over a guy stupid enough to rob a store over 100 dollars and a pack of cigarettes. The fact of the matter is, that the federal government should step in and make gun laws to protect the people.

       
    • Tyler Kelley

      March 22, 2011 at 4:33 pm

      Our right to bear arms is clearly outlined in the second admendment in the Bill of Right. There are many views that each person takes, such as if they were to outlaw guns, then there would be no shootings. However, that is not the case. People who want to own a gun but are restricted to for many diffrent reasons, get their weapons through the black market. Even if the government were to outlaw guns, the blackmarket would get stronger because of the lack of guns.

       
    • Timothy McInnis

      March 22, 2011 at 4:51 pm

      Gun Control should be banned. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. If we outlaw or restrict the right to bear arms, the only people that will have weapons will be criminals and law enforcement. The 2nd amendment garauntees our right to bear arms and we should be able to enjoy this right without question.

      http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=GALE%7C00000000LVWY&documentId=GALE%7CPC3021900077&mode=view&userGroupName=cant48040&jsid=f1a1e4a3ee94f505560b1709368daaf3

       
    • Vadik Hudson

      March 23, 2011 at 2:08 am

      The First Amendment of the US Constitution basically says we have the right to bear arms because the common people coming from Europe did not have this right. I believe that guns should be allowed to be owned. I think everyone who owns a gun should take a gun safety class. I think that it is good for people to have the right, but it can be very dangerous when someone does not really know how to use that gun. It is easy to feel too confident just because you have a gun and think that will protect you. But many people just get hurt instead. Also, it is good for people who like to hunt to be able to own guns. Hunting is a good sport and it also can provide good meat to eat. Usually these kinds of guns are not used for self-protection. In conclusion, I believe it is good to be able to own and carry guns as long as the person has a lot of training for the gun’s use.

      http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010334214&mode=view&userGroupName=cant48040&jsid=86f14fed82ae57608e506b7e0b5fcf61

       
  3. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Tax Reform

    Taxes are at the very heart of American political debate. They affect everyone from the people and businesses who pay them to the others who receive some of the benefits. The IRS is very complex and costs a lot of money to run. Do you belive that tax reform is an important issue? Why or why not? If we change the system, should we try to modify it or scrap the current system and replace it with something completely new and innovative? Use your references to back up your thoughts.

     
    • Miles Gifford

      March 21, 2011 at 1:18 am

      I think that we should replace income tax with fair tax because it discourages consumption, leading to a conservation of resources and encourages saving and investing, which is the key to job growth. It would be a much simpler system, eliminating the need for individuals to comply with complex tax reporting requirements also freeing up all the money and time lost on the income tax process.

       
    • Randall Pontoo

      March 21, 2011 at 1:24 pm

      I believe that income tax should be replaced with a fair tax reform as it would give more people a reason to save and invest, which is can prove to be very helpful in freeing up money and other resources lost in the annoying tax process.

       
  4. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Nuclear Power

    With all of the stuff going on in Japan as a result of the earthquake and ensuing tsunami last week, many nations are considering shutting down their nuclear reactors for fear of a chain reaction like what has developed in Japan. The harmful effects of radiation exposure are causing people around the globe to fear the long-term health impact that this type of eruption can cause. What steps do you think nations should take to shut down, continue, or modify use of nuclear reactors as a source of power? Use your research to support your arguments.

     
    • Nick L

      March 17, 2011 at 5:52 pm

      Though Japan is seeing the immediate effects of the earthquake and the nuclear explosions, these occurrences are affecting many nations world-wide. As nuclear reactors were damaged by the earthquake’s forces, they exploded, busting open areas where dangerous radioactive substances were kept. Now, Japanese people fear for their safety because the radiation is spreading through the atmosphere and is known to cause cancer and even death. Because of the events that are occurring, countries such as the U.S. are reconsidering their use of nuclear power for multiple reasons.

      The main reason against nuclear power is safety. If not properly controlled, nuclear power plants could be harmful to people and the environment. Not only does nuclear power produce a risk of radiation by explosion, but also by disposal. There is no clearly safe way to dispose of the spent fuel produced by nuclear power plants. At this time, it is being kept at the plant sites, which can only be used temporarily until a new site is found. They must find a place to bury it until it is no longer radioactive. However, finding a place is difficult. The government considered burying it under Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but then realized that water from springs inside the mountain is used by people and could be affected. Because many possible storage sites affect people, this idea has received some opposition. Another procedure, called reprocessing, could be used to rid the spent fuel of most of its radioactivity, making it able to be reused again. However, the United States will not use this procedure because the reusable substance it makes is plutonium, used to make nuclear bombs. If it were to get in the hands of the wrong people, it could be used for terroristic activity. That is another possibility for danger with nuclear power. Finally, with today’s economy, nuclear power can be a costly investment. Though over time nuclear power is cheaper than other energy types, the expenses are high to construct and maintain the plant. In addition, the plant has a lifespan of only forty years for safety reasons. For such a short amount of time, the money may be another reason to switch from nuclear power.

      In conclusion, nuclear power has its benefits, but also brings many dangers. With today’s technology and brilliant minds, I feel we should switch to a different substance for our energy needs. With energy sources like hydrogen, wind, or solar power, I feel that our country needs to stop relying on nuclear power and make a switch for safety and monetary purposes.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 17, 2011 at 6:49 pm

        Nick, can you please provide a link or source citation. I would also like you to cite a specific example about the risk factors of radiation poisoning if you found one.

         
      • Nick L

        March 18, 2011 at 4:51 pm

        Some risk factors of radiation are sterility, birth defects, genetic diseases, and cancer.

        “Nuclear Energy.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.

         
    • Dylan Bergman

      March 18, 2011 at 5:32 pm

      Many fellow human beings do not understand why scientists want to replace fossil fuels with nuclear power. Sure fossil fuels are running out and effecting the environment. However, fossil fuels are not even close to the affect of nuclear power. Scientist believes that nuclear power is cheaper and renewable. This is not true. The reason we should not us nuclear power because is expensive to build, nuclear power can lead to a release of radiation, and the threat of terrorist getting their hands on nuclear bombs.
      Nuclear power is a bad idea because it will cause even more problems than we are facing now. First, nuclear plants cost two billion dollars to make. We are already have hundreds of plants all across the world. Making more plants would not help the United States out because we are already in debt. If we decide to build more powers plants it would release radiation into the atmosphere and cause sickness to hundreds of residents. Radiation is so harmful that it will burn you from the inside out. In Japan there is a catastrophe happening right now because plants were hit by earthquakes and tsunamis. This causes thousands of deaths because of radiation leaked out of the plants. Last but not least, the last reason is having nuclear plants can create nuclear bombs. If a terrorist gets their hands on a bomb they can possible kill tens of thousands of people. These reasons clearly state that we shouldn’t use nuclear power because it is unsafe and very expensive.

      Peter Schwartz and Spencer Reise
      Barbara Passero
      Cooke, Stephanie

       
    • Drew L.

      March 21, 2011 at 1:06 am

      I think that nuclear power in general should be shut down. I can’t think of anything positive that comes out of nuclear energy. Even though an advantage of nuclear plants are how much less they cost to operate over fossil-fueled plants, they cost more to build, and after 30 years have to be shut down permanently. This offsets the cost which leaves a very risky power plant. Instead, we should invest in more environmental friendly power alternatives such as solar energy. This is cheap, effective, and does not produce any nuclear radiation whatsoever.

      “Nuclear Energy.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

       
    • Miles Gifford

      March 21, 2011 at 1:10 am

      I think that we should use nuclear power because it produces very little carbon dioxide and has a lesser contribution to global warming. Also the technology is readily available and it can generate a high amount of energy in one plant.

       
    • Nathan Hernandez

      March 21, 2011 at 1:16 am

      The devestating affects of the tsunami in Japan have led to many nations fearing for their safety because of their own nuclear reactors.Many wonder if nulear energy is a reasonableform of energy to use.It does have its pros like, when used it is more environmentally safe.It has also become more costfriendly and is more abundant than coal.But wht people dont realize is that nuclear reactors are very unsafe and unstable.over the past century, atmoshpheric concentration of CO2 has reached levels in which the planet has not seen for hundreds of thousands of years. Nuclear reactors, countries fear, will also become a main target for terrorism across the globe.Nuclear energy does some good, but is it really worth the risks? If a nuclear reactor were to blow up.It would be a health has hazard for tens of years making an area unsafe to live in.

      “Nuclear Energy.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.

      Union of Concerned Scientists. “Nuclear Power Is an Environmentally Unsound Way to Reduce Pollution.” Union of Concerned Scientists: Position Paper (Mar. 2007): 1-4. Rpt. in The Environment. Ed. Laura K. Egendorf. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

      Peter Schwartz and Spencer Reise. “Nuclear Power Is the Best Way to Address Global Warming.” The Environment. Ed. Laura K. Egendorf. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

       
    • Logan P

      March 22, 2011 at 12:16 am

      Nuclear power is a very efficient, clean and green source of power. We as a nation and the whole world rely on fossil fuels way too much. They are not going to last forever. Nuclear power is a greener and more efficient source of energy. It does not release all the pollutants the fossil fuels that coal and oil do. The most important thing about nuclear energy is opportunity. We are currently in a recession and by building new nuclear power plants will create many new jobs that will last a long time and ultimately help the economy.

       
    • Matt Deaton

      March 22, 2011 at 4:32 pm

      A lot of people don’t understand how helpful nuclear power can be for the world. Nuclear plants don’t let off any harmful gases, and the only wastes are the spent uranium rods. Burning fossil fuels not only lets off harmful gases, but it also costs money to mine the fossil fuels. Although the nuclear plants are expensive to build, they replace the mining of fossil fuels. I think that every country should start making the switch to nuclear power, to stop the destruction of the atmosphere.

       
    • Tyler Kelley

      March 22, 2011 at 4:39 pm

      I think that we should continue to run the nations nuclear power facilities, but they need to be reenforced with some sort of technology that can withstand an earthquake or any natural disators such as the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Getting power from nuclear energy is the most efficient way that we have came up with so far. We should continue getting power this way until we come up with a safer, more cheaper way of getting the nations power.

       
    • Brittany Roenfeldt

      March 22, 2011 at 6:40 pm

      Nuclear power is the source that could save the world from falling into ruin when our fossil fuels come to an end. It’s a great idea for them to start experimenting with such power before the crisis hits the world. It’s proven that they create fewer toxins then those burned by regular fossil fuels. It’s obvious the change would be for the best, it would replace all jobs lost to those working to gather fossil fuels and possibly create more which would boost our economy on a global scale.

      “Nuclear Energy.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.

       
    • Vadik Hudson

      March 23, 2011 at 2:25 am

      Nuclear power is a good thing in one way because it helps us to not be so dependent on oil resources. On the other side, there is the issue of a nuclear power plant blowing up or melting down, like in Chernobyl. When the radiation is released into the atmosphere, it builds up quickly and is so harmful to all the animals, people and plants nearby. Many people in Ukraine and other countries died of this horrible disaster. That is one of the main reasons that I think nuclear power is way too dangerous to use, even if it is cheaper. There are safer ways to get energy. The long term effect of a broke nuclear power plant is so destructive that I don’t think it is worth the risk and the savings in money. I think it is better for us to develop other alternative forms of clean energy, like wind and solar panel farms. In conclusion, I think we should stop using nuclear power because it is too dangerous.

      http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010132277&mode=view&userGroupName=cant48040&jsid=7487752ca69ac87cdfe38213f93d82c6

       
      • Vadik Hudson

        March 23, 2011 at 2:26 am

        I did do this assignment on time, but the time stamp says later at night.

         
  5. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    Libya

    With the civil unrest going on in Libya right now, many people in the US and around the world are pondering the next step. Some are watching for organizations such as the UN and Red Cross to get involved and provide relief, while others are looking to stronger, more powerful nations to step in and provide long-term support by enabling stability. Based on your research, do you belive that the United States should get involved in this international crisis? Support your opinions with sources from your research.

     
    • Josh Wolfe

      March 20, 2011 at 10:37 pm

      I am for the United States’ Intervention in Libya.
      I believe that the United States should proceed with the “No-Fly” zone in Libya for the same reason that we are aiding the Iraqi army. It is unfair that a country lives amongst such a corrupt government and live in such terror. What kind of strong-arm do we hold if we do not aid in Libya? I understand that we are not exactly in the best financial position to take on such a large undertaking, however, what kind of country are we to stand back and watch this happen? On a smaller scale, this can be compared to a typical teenage bullying situation. If you know of someone that is constantly being bullied and is constantly in danger, do you help them or do you leave them to defend them self? If you leave them alone, what kind of person are you? You are not the “top dog” as the United States has proved to be. It’s funny to me, because the United States over the past couple of years has started to lose confidence in itself due to China’s mind blowing success. I know multiple people who, in an effort to boost the United States’ revenue and damage China’s prosperity, have boycotted all Chinese items. However, these same people who question the United States’ superior status, when in a position to earn the country a good name and earn itself yet another ally and militaristic aid, they want to avoid intervention. They want to avoid helping others out: one of the things that makes a good person a “good person” and one of the things that can make a good country a “good country.” We need to realize that by aiding the Libyans, we are only doing ourselves good. I know it’s selfish, however in a moment of question, it’s enough to favor one side over the other. We need to realize that the Libyans need serious help, and the United States is one of the few militaries that is actually strong enough to do it.
      Also, it needs to be noted that from prior knowledge of Libyan’s government, they haven’t proven to exactly be the world’s strongest, nor the most passionate. In the past few weeks the Libyan Government hasn’t exactly shown the strongest face. There is a good chance that especially if the United States interferes, they will shy away and will not actually engage in full on war.
      In the event that the Libyans do decide to fight back, the United States Military is a strong one. Also, as noted from previous intervention situations, countries around the world have been hesitant to bring themselves into a conflict, however as soon as the United States makes the initial move, they line up in alliance. We need to realize that if we do this, we will certainly not be in this alone. Being as strong as we are, we need to step up and be the first ones to intervene.

       
    • Matt Deaton

      March 22, 2011 at 4:39 pm

      The United States needs to be involved in Libya. We have had past experiences with Muammar Gaddafi, and we know that he is trouble. The uprising in Libya should have been handled differently, instead of killing innocent civilians Gaddafi could have tried to negotiate with the rebel leaders. I am all for the UN stepping in to help these people, the rebels don’t stand a chance without our help and they will all be killed for wanting freedom. Most U.S. don’t know what it is like in Libya, the citizens over there don’t have the freedom we all take for granted. If we were in that situation we would want help, and Gaddafi needs to be taken out of power forever.

       
    • Tyler Kelley

      March 22, 2011 at 4:43 pm

      I think that the U.S. should stay out of Libya unless they become an immediate threat to us or one of our allied nation. If we were to go into Libya we can run a risk of starting another World War and we could also run a huge risk of loosing people and weapons.

       
    • Sarah Edeker

      March 22, 2011 at 4:45 pm

      I believe the U.S. should intervene in Libya. Muammar Gaddafi is nothing but trouble. He is irrational and took the lives of innocent civilians. He should have at least tried to rationalize with them or something. If the U.S. doesn’t intervene more innocent lives will be lost because Gaddafi is willing to fight them “until the last bullet.” Gaddafi’s powers need to be taken away before more lives are lost. Also, if we were in this type of situation karma could come back around and they would help us if needed.

       
  6. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Abortion

    Most people’s minds will not be changed when it comes to this long-standing debate. But the discussion is out there, and it is an important one. When does life begin? Who has the right to take a life? Who should be punished? How do you decide the answer to all of these questions? Use your research to present an argument about the rights of the woman to choose or the rights of the child to live. you must support your argument with sources from your research, and you MUST pick a side.

     
    • Liz Meeks

      March 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm

      While yes there are pros to abortion what stands out the most to me are the cons. Roe vs. Wade was an asinine bill that in truth is only the legalized murder of unborn children. As Susan Wills would say late-term abortions, specifically, are “grotesque and absurd” due to one such case of a 26 week old male fetus having its brain sucked out of his head. Another author quoted that the instruments used in late-term and partial-birth abortions do more harm to the mother in most cases than good due to excessive internal bleeding and shock, eventually leading to death.

      Wills, Susan E. “Late-Term Abortions Should Be Banned.” Abortion. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Mar. 2011

      ProQuest Staff. “At Issue: Abortion, Moral and Ethical Aspects.” ProQuest LLC. 2011: n.pag. SIRS Researcher. Web. 16 Mar 2011.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 17, 2011 at 5:26 pm

        Liz, can you explain the cons a little more? “Grotesque and absurd” are opnions, so I would like to see some more factual evidence as to why abortion is bad or why you are against it.

         
      • Liz Meeks

        March 17, 2011 at 5:31 pm

        Most states have a point of viability, or a point when the child is officially considered a ‘person’. From the Pro-life side of the issue a child is a person from the point of conception, whether the mother dies having it or not is immaterial. Centuries ago many women died in childbirth and it was a natural thing. Women have rights yes, but so do unborn children in all other forms of cases such as inheritance and other legal cases.

         
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 17, 2011 at 7:31 pm

        Liz, I am not sure how your second response backs up your argument any more than the first one. In the second response, you talk about the death of the mother, and I am not sure how this ties. in.

         
    • Christy Lee

      March 18, 2011 at 12:55 am

      Abortion has been a major discrepancy in America through the years. There is a major controversy on when babies are actually alive, is it moments after conception or within the first month? There is not a proven justification on this. But everyone deserves a chance to choose, whether the choice is before or after the baby is conceived. Women make choices every day, to have babies and to give them up. As United States citizens women deserve rights just as everyone else does. Yes people make mistakes but it is a human quality everyone has. Everyone is allowed the opportunity to make choices and mistakes, without this no one would have anything to learn from. The case of Roe vs. Wade allowed women the chance to not have a coat hanger inserted into their bodies tearing out their insides as well as often time killing the mother. Sometimes these methods were effective, other times children were left motherless. Regardless whether it is legal or not women will do anything to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, even if it means their own death. The chance to choose is the main factor in abortion. Women deserve the right to fix their mistake because it’s human to make them. Also, often time’s women have reasons for terminating their pregnancies that the public is not aware of. For one, accidents do happen and people get pregnant. On the other hand people are also raped and would you want to see your rapist every time you looked at your child? These are factors people have to consider when discussing the controversy of this issue. Whether or not the babies’ heart is beating moments after conception or not, does not justify taking away women’s right at choosing.

      Fielding, Waldo L. “Repairing the Damage, Before Roe.” New York Times (New York, NY). 03 Jun 2008: F5. SIRS Researcher. Web. 17 Mar 2011.

      Quindlen, Anna. “On Their Own Terms.” Newsweek Vol. 153, No. 7. 16 Feb 2009: 60. SIRS Researcher. Web. 17 Mar 2011.

      ProQuest Staff. “At Issue: Abortion, Moral and Ethical Aspects.” ProQuest LLC. 2011: n.pag. SIRS Researcher. Web. 16 Mar 2011.

       
      • Mrs. Biello

        March 18, 2011 at 5:28 pm

        Great job, Christy. Your arguments are sound. Even though others may not agree with you, you do bring some strong points to the table.

         
      • sarah e

        March 18, 2011 at 5:29 pm

        Some people say that a baby is a person at conception. The first heartbeat of a baby signifies them as a human. Why would you want to take away the life of an innocent infant? You wouldn’t just walk up to a stranger, shoot them then walk off like nothing was wrong. This baby has done nothing to you but try to live. Would you be able to live with yourself? There are things called partial abortions. If you are willing to carry a baby (not a mistake) to 26 1/2 weeks why not carry it the remaining 13 1/2? If you are not able or willing to taking care of a child then use abstinence and keep your legs closed. Even if you were raped, you should still carry the baby until full term and then put it up for adoption. I understand not wanting to look at that for the rest of your life. You couldn’t prevent what happened but that still does not give you the “right” to kill a baby.

         
    • Jenna

      March 18, 2011 at 5:28 pm

      Abortion has been a huge arguement throughout the United States for years now. People may argue that abortion is a way women are able to fix an unintended pregnancy, or “a mistake”, and that women have the right to decide what they want to do with their bodies. Yes i agree that every female has the right to do what they want with their body, but when women misuse that right,that is when i do not agree. I do not believe abortion is right, women should not be able to have the right to end someone’s life, an innocent child’s life, even if the pregnancy is unintended. There are ways to reduce unintended pregnancies where abortions are not needed. Birth control and contraception are ways that can keep a women from being pregnant. Yes these options are not 100 percent preventable but I believe that if you are responsible enough to have intercourse, you are obviously educated about the consequences that can come, and should be responsible enough to take care of an unintended pregnancy. Abortion is no different from murder. A baby is a living human being from the moment of contraception, and if a women is to have an abortion they are doing the same crime as a murderer.

       
    • Ana Rivera

      March 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm

      Should women have the right to have an abortion? my answer is a yes for several reasons, I know many people might not agree with me ,but i believe us teenagers haven’t realize that sometimes having an abortion can give us a teaching lesson on life. Abortion is something that for certain people it could be mark for ever in their life. Sometime it depends how people take it. Many people believe that a woman should be allowed to decide for herself whether or not she should terminate her pregnancy. Supporters of abortion right argued that certain restrictions on abortion deny poor , less-educated woman equal access. furthermore, when searching the information i found out that abortion is unlikely a permanent solution to highly controversial moral and ethical issue can easily be found by having abortions. As we can see, woman make sometimes the bad choice of having abortions. Also, women have reasons for terminating their pregnancies that the public may not be aware of. Accidents do happen and people get pregnant. On the other hand people are also raped and sometimes that’s the reason of an abortion. They have an abortion because they afraid that every time they looked at their child they don’t want to see the rapist face. The people who is against believe that a person who gets an abortion at the time when is one month they believe that a fetus is a living thing and that is has the right to come to live. We might not have the answered to that but am sure that at a month is not consider a living thing because is so small and it doesn’t have a shape of anything. Abortions should be allowed for occasions like rape or sometimes people who get drug in their drink just to have sex without them been conscious.

       
      • Ana Rivera

        March 19, 2011 at 6:48 pm

        “Abortion.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 19 Mar. 2011.

         
    • Nathan Hernandez

      March 21, 2011 at 12:40 am

      Throughout the years, many people have stolen the lives of innocent babies. It is typically the mother’s choice of whether or not she wishes to keep the baby or get an abortion. Some believe that a baby isnt actually alive until after it has been born, while others believe that a baby is alive while still in the mother. Abortion does have its goods and bads, but I believe that abortion is a devastating occurrence that kills the life of youths yet to come and even sometimes the life that’s already here. In the case of Roe vs. Wade women were given a chance to get rid of babies by shoving coat hangers up them to murder a baby, and sometimes killing the mother while doing this. Some woman believe going to any risk to get rid of their unwanted pregnancy. These methods are inhumane. During today’s average world, an ever growing number of teens are getting pregnant and wish to get an abortion. Some states have even made it illegal to get an abortion without parental consent. By doing this, teens will travel hundreds of miles to other states to get their abortion.

      New, Michael. “Parental Consent Laws Are Necessary.” Abortion. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

      Document URL

      http://ic.galegroup.com:80/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010102412&userGroupName=cant48040&jsid=a1d4ef49e1c7dbb1cb84979201422c7c

      Collett, Teresa Stanton. “Teens Should Not Be Allowed an Abortion Without Parental Consent.” Teens at Risk. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

      Document URL

      http://ic.galegroup.com:80/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010167279&userGroupName=cant48040&jsid=8427ad462d18f97b058a2c9ed308d3ef

       
    • Miles Gifford

      March 21, 2011 at 12:56 am

      I think that you should be able to decide if you want an abortion or not because in some cases either you don’t have enough money to support a child correctly or you didn’t mean to have a baby and you are not ready for a child.

       
    • Randall Pontoo

      March 21, 2011 at 1:07 pm

      I feel that abortion is just another excuse for people to correct the mistakes that they made. I dont think its right for someone to just kill something that doesnt have the choice if it gets to live or die.

       
    • Logan P

      March 22, 2011 at 12:14 am

      United States, land of the free a country filled with opportunity. Free is what our founding fathers came here for. It is only fair that a woman has the right to do whatever she wishes to her body. There are a few reasons why abortion is ok. One, being if the woman has a chance of dying when giving birth, I don’t think the government should have the right to tell her what to do. Also if a woman gets raped, its wrong that the government would tell her she must have the baby, when she had no say in the matter.

       
    • Matt Deaton

      March 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm

      Abortion is a crime. There are some cases where abortion could be warranted, however that doesn’t change the fact that abortion is just like genocide. There is no reason why a child can’t be born and then put up for adoption. At least give the child a chance at life, don’t kill it before it can defend itself. If a woman is mudered while she is pregnant, the killer is charged with two counts of murder. An abortion clinic should face the same charges as a criminal, for each unborn child they kill.

       
    • Brittany Roenfeldt

      March 22, 2011 at 6:25 pm

      Abortion was created, just like the eraser, to fix what wasn’t intended. Having this option now limited strikes the fear that our women rights are diminishing. Abortion is a choice that women should have the right to make if desired so. Life shouldn’t be created if the means to support that life isn’t in existence. Not to mention that everyone in the world makes mistakes every day, exactly the way god had intended us to be. So this presents the question why are we now asking to take it away?
      Then there’s the debate on how abortion is killing a life. If the women that is asking for an abortion doesn’t have the money, support, or will to take care of another life, then it would die anyway. Besides that, just because someone has an abortion does not mean that murder is committed; it just means that they stopped new life from becoming alive. “Everyone, if they step back from the hotness of the political environment, can acknowledge that nobody really knows when life begins,” Jelena Woehr.

      1. Fouhy, Beth. “Health Bill Revives Abortion Issue for Young Women.” Daily Progress Charlottesville, VA). 19 Dec 2009: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 16 Mar 2011.

      2. Stein, Rob. “ACLU Presses to Ensure Catholic Hospitals Perform Lifesaving Abortions.” Washington Post. 23 Dec 2010: A.5. SIRS Researcher. Web. 17 Mar 2011.

      3. Fielding, Waldo L. “Repairing the Damage, Before Roe.” New York Times (New York, NY). 03 Jun 2008: F5. SIRS Researcher. Web. 22 Mar 2011.

       
    • Vadik Hudson

      March 23, 2011 at 1:50 am

      The issue of abortion has been widely debated in the community. Some people think that abortion is good and others think it is bad. The people who think that abortion is bad is because it is killing babies and is a form of genocide. However, other people do not believe that this is genocide. There is a big debate on the definition of genocide as applied to abortion. There are three stages of pregnancy. I don’t think abortion should be allowed in the late stage because the baby is ready. The doctors just pull the baby’s body out of the mother’s body and leave the head inside. Then the doctor suck the baby’s brains out. I think the early stage abortion is fine. Some people can’t afford babies, especially students. I believe in Pro-Choice. I read two articles that say the opposite things regarding abortion and cancer. One says abortion increases the chance of breast cancer and the other article says it does not.
      http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010102408&mode=view&userGroupName=cant48040&jsid=9adcd3a642e761090304f8f8ebfc4c1f

       
  7. Mrs. Biello

    March 16, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    Health Care

    Last year, the government (your representatives) voted to mandate healthcare for every one. Some view this as a great opportunity to provide healthcare to those who could not otherwise afford it, and others view it as one less freedom we have to choose because you are fined if you don’t buy it. Do you believe healthcare should be a mandate or a choice? What are the pros and cons of either side of the debate? Use sources from your research to back up your argument.

     
    • Christy Lee

      March 20, 2011 at 6:26 pm

      Healthcare should not be a mandate but a choice an American citizen should be allowed to make. Not only should this be a choice, it can also harm the current pace of medical research and advancements in our country. In the constitution our rights are laid out by the Founding Fathers; which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The other basic rights and principles are not stated but are known to be there. Nowhere in the constitution do the Founding Fathers write anything about paying for healthcare or other services being required. As an American Citizen we have the rights of liberty and freedom to choose what we do within the countries laws. If people choose to not have healthcare then it is on them if they get sick or not. They should not be forced into doing anything they feel uncomfortable doing. Yes it helps the people who cannot afford it, but maybe the law can one day be altered to where American citizens have a choice in the Healthcare Act instead of being forced to pay for something they do not wish to have. As earlier mentioned, there is also the speculation as of whether or not the Healthcare laws will harm our economy or help it. The universal health care plans destroy the free markets and declines the medical discoveries in our country. Innovation happens through research and success, not always by universal plans. As American citizens, each and every one of us deserves a choice in what we do and have to pay for.

      “Health Care Issues.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.

      “Health Care Is Not a Right.” Universal Health Care. Ed. Susan C. Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.

      “It Is Possible for the United States to Achieve Universal Health Care While Protecting Scientific Innovation.” Universal Health Care. Ed. Susan C. Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.

       
    • Josh Wolfe

      March 21, 2011 at 1:41 am

      I support the decision to mandate Healthcare.
      Though I realize that it is a “loss of our freedom”, I also realize that by mandating healthcare, the Government is trying to help the American population. Just think about it. What about expensive healthcare plans, only affordable to those who are in the middle to upper classes doesn’t scream “selective breeding” to you? A person’s financial status should not be the terms of America’s survival of the fittest. Many people in the past have been forced into credit card debt or are forced to work in jobs that they do not like, simply to hold onto their healthcare benefits. With a rough economy, one can only imagine trying to survive in today’s society when in debt up to his or her ears. Also, such situations are only worse for the economy. Staying in a job just because it has healthcare benefits isn’t exactly the type of motivation that a company CEO wishes upon his employees. I’m sure that any person stuck in this position isn’t exactly the most efficient worker, or the happiest. Just sayin’. Anyways… why on earth should a person’s financial status determine whether they can even live? I’m not saying that they should be able to live in a mansion with 5 cars, but they should still be able to live and breathe like every other human being. Without mandating healthcare, a financially unstable person, say, catches a deadly disease. Because he is unable to afford healthcare, he dies. In this type of situation, the rich will become more and more prosperous and the poor will diminish. Its common sense.
      The United Nations has declared Healthcare to be among the basic human rights entitled to people, however in 2009, nearly 1 in 6 people were uninsured completely. Guys, this means that say, suddenly, something happens to them: a car wreck, illness, ANYTHING, they are either forced into serious debt, or they are forced to die. Now do you feel as if the government is invading your freedom? Or are they trying to save the American population…. Especially with the economy the way it is…. More and more people are finding themselves poor and uninsured.
      Besides that, the healthcare plan has other upsides too. In most current practices, most tasks are carried out in the exact same way that they were 50 years ago, despite the world’s ever-changing technological advances. The new healthcare bill plans to change that. It calls for new developments, new research techniques, and etcetera.

       
    • Nick L

      March 21, 2011 at 3:40 am

      Health Care should not be mandated. With the latest Health Care bill, the U.S. government has now made health care a right to every one. However, health care is not a right, it is a privilege. In the Constitution, our forefathers clearly stated that our rights are to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights allow citizens to act and work for whatever they want and need. However, forcing hard working citizens to pay for others health care violates those hard working citizens’ rights. Just as the right to life does not require a person to feed another, it does not require them to pay for their yearly check-up either. Personally, I feel pity for those who could not afford it. However, I believe if they need it, they should attain it through charity, not by force. Not only does providing health care for the masses negatively affect hard working people financially, but it also lowers the quality of care they receive. Doctors must be able to make decisions about patients based on their observations and knowledge. But in government controlled health-care, doctors must answer to government agencies. A patient may need operation, but the government agency is controlling the costs and won’t allow it. Or a patient may need a certain medication, but the IRS will not give them a tax deduction for it. The overall care will be worse too because, if the government is providing it through tax money, they will give everybody the same type of care. The government will now be choosing your type of care in order to save themselves money. President Obama, said hypothetically about a woman needing a pacemaker, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.” Finally, illegal immigrants will receive “free” health care. If an illegal immigrant were to show up to an emergency room with no insurance, they could not deny him treatment. A citizen would be fined for not having insurance, but the person who is here illegally will be given a service, even though he does not have money to pay. He won’t receive a fine either. Clearly, there are some problems with the Health Care Bill. I agree changes needed to be made because of the ridiculous price for medical care. However, I do not feel the right changes were made. I feel that we should create more walk-in clinics. We do not need to pay expensive costs for a doctor with ten years of education to tell us if we have a basic illness. Walk-in clinic doctors should need less education and will cost less. Also, we could provide incentives to those who make healthy decisions that keep them out of the doctor’s office. These are a few small changes that could help lower the cost of health care when we need it.

      “Health Care Is Not a Right.” Universal Health Care. Ed. Susan C. Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

      Top Ten Reasons Obama’s Health Care is Wrong for America. http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/research/obamacare-one-pill-two-pill-red-pill-blue-pill/

      Devon Herrick, “How Do Illegal Immigrants Fare Under ObamaCare?” National Center for Policy Analysis, August 2, 2010.

       
    • Nick L

      March 22, 2011 at 3:33 am

      I do not agree with government mandated health insurance. Health care is not a right. Though the new reform bill may seem charitable, it illegally takes money from the hard working. Just as the right to life does not force citizens to feed their hungry counterparts, neither should it force them to maintain their medical well-being. The payment for the medical care of the poor should come purely out of charity, not out of force. Many of the poor people who cannot afford it had the opportunities to provide a better life for themselves, but now choose to rely on others to pay their way. Besides the fact that it is not constitutionally just, there are other reasons this reform should not have been passed.

      Companies are required to pay for insurance of their employees, which is not right in itself. In order to afford this, companies will now switch to public health insurance because it will be made much cheaper. The public plan not only saves the company money because it is cheaper, but also because the employees that could not afford it on their own receive subsidies. When the company makes the switch, they will now provide the basic government health plan with limited coverage for all their employees. Now in order to attain better coverage, if they are remotely well-off, they will have to pay for it on their own. This will not be so easy though as the government has now put regulations on private health insurance which will raise the prices. Supposedly, the public option will increase competition and lower the price of private coverage. How can this be the case when they fund the most competitive one with taxpayers money and set regulations on the private ones to raise prices. Eventually, they will drive the private companies out of business because these insurers cannot offer subsidies to customers.

      Secondly, if a citizen has public coverage, his treatment plan will be decided not by him, but the government. President Obama stated about a woman needing a pacemaker,“Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.” It sounds to me like the government will have the final say on a patient’s well-being, not the doctor or the patient himself. If it is deemed too costly for the amount of coverage the government wants to provide, they may choose not to allow certain procedures. It will also force doctors to make decisions based on whether a government agency approves, and this can be detrimental to the field.

      Lastly, the funding coming from tax-payers will be used in controversial and some clearly wrong ways. Not only will it be used to fund abortions, but will also provide illegal immigrants with health care. Because hospitals cannot deny patients, illegal aliens would be given treatment, but could not be given the fines citizens would receive for not having insurance. If they could not afford the treatment, they would come out of the hospital debt free, paid for by tax money. Tax-payers money would also be put towards the creation of healthy neighborhoods and parks. While this seems beneficial, there are already programs that deal with this project.

      Clearly, there are some problems with the health care bill that has just passed. I think there are other changes that can be taken. For example, we should create more walk-in clinics. It is unnecessary for someone to spend the money to go to a physician for a common cold. Walk-in clinics would be cheaper and would create a class of doctors that do not need as much education, and therefore, as much reimbursement. Also, I think we should set up incentives for healthy life choices. Choosing to eat healthy and not smoke should be rewarded because it keeps people out of the doctor’s office and could lower insurance prices that cover illnesses.

      Top 10 Reasons Obama’s Health Care Plan is Wrong for America. Heritage Research. January 20, 2011. http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/research/obamacare-one-pill-two-pill-red-pill-blue-pill/

       
    • Nick L

      March 22, 2011 at 3:36 am

      I do not agree with government mandated health insurance. Health care is not a right. Though the new reform bill may seem charitable, it illegally takes money from the hard working. Just as the right to life does not force citizens to feed their hungry counterparts, neither should it force them to pay for their medical well-being. The payment for the medical care of the poor should come purely out of charity, not out of force. Many of the poor people who cannot afford it had the opportunities to provide a better life for themselves, but now choose to rely on others to pay their way. Besides the fact that it is not constitutionally just, there are other reasons this reform should not have been passed.

      Companies are required to pay for insurance of their employees, which is not right in itself. In order to afford this, companies will now switch to public health insurance because it will be made much cheaper. The public plan not only saves the company money because it is cheaper, but also because the employees that could not afford it on their own receive subsidies. When the company makes the switch, they will now provide the basic government health plan with limited coverage for all their employees. Now in order to attain better coverage, if they are remotely well-off, they will have to pay for it on their own. This will not be so easy though as the government has now put regulations on private health insurance which will raise the prices. Supposedly, the public option will increase competition and lower the price of private coverage. How can this be the case when they fund the most competitive one with taxpayers money and set regulations on the private ones to raise prices. Eventually, they will drive the private companies out of business because these insurers cannot offer subsidies to customers.

      Secondly, if a citizen has public coverage, his treatment plan will be decided not by him, but the government. President Obama stated about a woman needing a pacemaker,“Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.” It sounds to me like the government will have the final say on a patient’s well-being, not the doctor or the patient himself. If it is deemed too costly for the amount of coverage the government wants to provide, they may choose not to allow certain procedures. It will also force doctors to make decisions based on whether a government agency approves, and this can be detrimental to the field.

      Lastly, the funding coming from tax-payers will be used in controversial and some clearly wrong ways. Not only will it be used to fund abortions, but will also provide illegal immigrants with health care. Because hospitals cannot deny patients, illegal aliens would be given treatment, but could not be given the fines citizens would receive for not having insurance. If they could not afford the treatment, they would come out of the hospital debt free, paid for by tax money. Tax-payers money would also be put towards the creation of healthy neighborhoods and parks. While this seems beneficial, there are already programs that deal with this project.

      Clearly, there are some problems with the health care bill that has just passed. I think there are other changes that can be taken. For example, we should create more walk-in clinics. It is unnecessary for someone to spend the money to go to a physician for a common cold. Walk-in clinics would be cheaper and would create a class of doctors that do not need as much education, and therefore, as much reimbursement. Also, I think we should set up incentives for healthy life choices. Choosing to eat healthy and not smoke should be rewarded because it keeps people out of the doctor’s office and could lower insurance prices that cover illnesses.

      Top 10 Reasons Obama’s Health Care Plan is Wrong for America. Heritage Research. January 20, 2011. http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/research/obamacare-one-pill-two-pill-red-pill-blue-pill/

       
    • Sarah Edeker

      March 22, 2011 at 4:53 pm

      I do not believe healthcare should be mandated. It is not a right it is a privilege earned. U.S. citizens work hard to be able to make sure that they are capable of paying for the healthcare they and their families need, not for the healthcare of non-citizens. I know my family would not want to support an illegal immigrant just so they can have medical attention. Yes, if it is an emergency they should be see but aside from that they should work for a citizenship. It has been done many times before and is not impossible. Josh, I’m sure if it was up to the people they would choose a substantial debt instead of death..yes healthcare is expensive and changes need to be made but they need to be the right ones. Not just some to say they made some.

       
  8. Brittany Howell

    March 17, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    Gun Control
    I believe we shouldn’t have laws saying we can’t have guns all the time. The worl is getting worse with violence and rape. Even when it comes to airports i honestly think we should be able to have guns. What if a terrorists comeon the plane, how are we suppose to defend ourselves. I don’t think gun control is safer.
    I personally agree with the smart guns. Yeah they may be expensive, but no one else could use your gun. If it is for you only then if a police is on the ground a bad guy can’t pick his gun up and shot it.
    When it comes to hunting, well I think that we have the rights over animals and should be able to hunt them if we want. God gave us the right so people need to back off.

     
    • Mrs. Biello

      March 17, 2011 at 6:52 pm

      Brittany, you should cite specific examples where lives may have been saved if someone on a plane had been able to carry a concealed weapon or how violence against women would decrease. Use the sources from your research to defend your argument that there should not be strict gun control laws. Your opinion above is not well backed-up as it stands.

       
      • Brittany Howell

        March 18, 2011 at 5:12 pm

        “Now he’s got a bill making it illegal to carry a firearm into an airport. It was inspired by the Georgia State Legislature, which recently passed a bill requiring the Atlanta airport to let people with gun permits take their weapons into the lobby, baggage claim, food courts–everywhere short of the point where you take off your shoes.”

        Collins, Gail. “Arms and the Airport.” New York Times (New York, NY). 15 May 2010: A. 19. SIRS Researcher. Web. 17 Mar 2011.

         
  9. Brittany Howell

    March 18, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    Abortion
    Abortion is thrown around alot. I don’t believe in it. People do it like yeah ok. I got an abortion. What about the people who can’t have children? If they could have the chance to have a kid, they wouldn’t have an abortion, but instead they can only adopt. I mean yeah girls get raped. But, either they should have been walking alone or they should lock the door at night. I’m not being mean, but the girls could give it up for adoption. They don’t even have to look at the kid.

     
  10. Andrew McInnis

    March 20, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    As many of you may know, the US has been involved in several of the protesting and rioting going on in Africa. The United States should not be involved in Libya because it is a waste of money. America is already 13 trillion dollars in debt, and solving other peoples problems should not be in the budget, deploying troops costs money. A second reason we should stay out of Libya is that there problems aren’t our problems, the UN has a habit of dumping its problems on America and we end up sweeping up everyone else’s crap, this needs to stop. The 3rd and final reason i have is that if we send our troops over there, they have a chance of being killed.

    All information found at “Leadership Needed” and “Libyan Civil Unrest”

     
  11. Sam Rusch

    March 21, 2011 at 2:20 am

    Abortion , pro-life (cons)

    To most people, an abortion is a means of getting rid of a mistake. It’s the easy way out. But when you really look at the subject at hand, it’s murder. Those people don’t realize that once the sperm enters the egg, life has started. It may not be a “human” just yet, but it’s a living thing non the less. Or maybe they do realize their actions and don’t care about what that person may grow and become. We are killing future teachers, marines, and even presidents. We need to bring this crime to a hault as soon as possible.

     
  12. Sam Rusch

    March 21, 2011 at 2:27 am

    Nuclear Power Debate (Pros)

    We’ve all heard the rumors that the world is running out of fossil fuels, well guess what, they’re not rumors. We need to start investing in a better, more efficient means of producing energy. Nuclear power provides for nearly 20% of American Electricity. If we focus all of our attention on nuclear power, then our fossil fuels will be saved in case of emergencies. Speaking of emergencies, thousands of people are rushed to the hospital due to intaking far to much coal dust and or fumes. However, compared with nuclear power, the number of deaths in the coal industry greatly out weighs those in the nuclear power industry. Their safety methods are far greater and more enforced.

    Nuclear Energy.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

     
  13. Sam Rusch

    March 21, 2011 at 2:38 am

    Gun control (Cons)

    Did you know that in 2004, 11,344 people were murdered with a firearm? Those people weren’t just crazed killers on a mission. Some of these people were innocent. Take this for example, an eleven year old invites some friends over to spend the night. His parents go out to dinner so they decide to play a game of hide and seak. One child hinds in a closet and discovers a gun, unknowingly loaded. He decides to show one of his friends what he has found. When he sees him, he yells “BANG” and pulls the trigger, meaning no harm. But this child has just killed one of his dearest friends. Now some of you will say that that’s just bad parenting and that everyone that buys a gun should have to buy a safe for it. Now I’m going to say this, gun safes are not that hard to get into. And there have been cases where children have broken into their parents gun safes to show them off to their frinds and done the exact same thing. Why should we tolerate with this violence when we can very simply end it? I vote yes for gun control.

    “Guns and Violence.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.

     
  14. Logan Polley

    March 21, 2011 at 3:53 am

    United States, land of the free a country filled with opportunity. Free is what our founding fathers came here for. It is only fair that a woman has the right to do whatever she wishes to her body. There are a few reasons why abortion is ok. One, being if the woman has a chance of dying when giving birth, I don’t think the government should have the right to tell her what to do. Also if a woman gets raped, its wrong that the government would tell her she must have the baby, when she had no say in the matter.

     
  15. Logan Polley

    March 21, 2011 at 3:55 am

    Nuclear power is a very efficient, clean and green source of power. We as a nation and the whole world rely on fossil fuels way too much. They are not going to last forever. Nuclear power is a greener and more efficient source of energy. It does not release all the pollutants the fossil fuels that coal and oil do. The most important thing about nuclear energy is opportunity. We are currently in a recession and by building new nuclear power plants will create many new jobs that will last a long time and ultimately help the economy.

     
  16. Logan Polley

    March 21, 2011 at 3:56 am

    For the last 20 years gun control has been a huge debate among Americans. People on both sides of the issue have great points and believe strongly they are right. But is one side right or wrong? Maybe so; It depends on what you believe and how strongly. I believe that gun control is a good thing. Yes, the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. However, it does not go into detail about how things should be nor does it say we have the right to bear arms in public. Gun control is a good thing because there are lots of crazy people out there that are willing to kill anyone. Also if everyone carried guns with them they would be at a higher risk to get shoot due to misfires and accidents. People that are all ways trying to change my view on the issue; Always say “well what if a man comes into a store trying to rob it and has a gun then we could all pull out our guns to protect us and save the day”. The problem with this is if everyone shoot at the same guy from many different angles, then there is a huge chance on getting hit in cross fire and killing innocent people. It’s not worth doing over a guy stupid enough to rob a store over 100 dollars and a pack of cigarettes. The fact of the matter is, that the federal government should step in and make gun laws to protect the people.

     
  17. Jake Kennedy

    March 21, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    Gun control
    (pros)
    Gun control is nessisary for the citizens of the U.S. for protection from the people who want to to use firearms for crime. there are countless incidents were someone has walked into a gas station, bank, resturant or any public place for that matter, and started to open fire just to kill people. The question to ask as yourself would I rather have a crazy maniac shoot and kill someone or would I rather the murderer be killed. I am all for heavy restriction on weapons, but some of these bills that are trying to keep fire arms out of city limits is aginst the 2nd amendment no matter what angle you look at. So the libarals not only are they take away people’s firearms, but there also trying to take away our citizens rights.

     
  18. Jake Kennedy

    March 21, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    Abortion
    Abortion is wrong on so many different levels. First off its murder even though the baby hasn’t been born it still has a heartbeat and therefore is alive. Besides what has abortion brought anyone psychological trauma that research has proven to be true. After a woman aborts a baby she has to live with the fact that she killed that baby for the rest of her life. Stem cell research: has brought us cloning. Great now not only are murdering unborn babies we are trying to play god, and that doesn’t work.

     
  19. Jake Kennedy

    March 21, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    The Situation in Libya
    Sense the situation in Libya has escalated I believe that we should keep all ground forces out of Libya until absolutely necessary. Even though the war in Iraq is over something could happen to induce more fighting and then we would be fighting on two fronts again, which is always a last resort. I don’t like the fact that Libya’s government has taken up arms against its own people, but take military action as of now is a way to defend the innocent, and that is what America does.

     
  20. Chris Diaz

    March 22, 2011 at 1:01 am

    I believe that we should find other alternative resources rather than nuclear energy. Why? Well because it’s not safe. First off look at Japan, they had a natural disaster occur and it caused the reactors at the plant to explode or see fires. This in turn effects the environment and the people exposed to radiation. Also the fact that it isn’t renewable defeats the purpose of finding an alternative resource. Resources like wind air and water are all technologies we should be pouring our money into rather than a technology that is faulty.

    Lovins, Amory B, Carden, Art.

     
  21. Chris Diaz

    March 22, 2011 at 1:05 am

    Why should I be forced to pay for an expensive health care plan that I don’t want pay for to begin with? I’m pretty sure that goes against the constitution, for example I have a natural right to eat, therefore I do it. If I don’t care about my health I’m not going to pay to take care of it. So why should I pay for health care if I’m not going to use it? President Obama feels he should make me pay for something against my will? Yeah that doesn’t fly with me and I am sure it wouldn’t with the employers that have to pay for it that offer health benefits for their employees.

    Weisbrot, Mark, Brown, David, Goldstein, Amy, and Dan Balz

     
  22. Chris Diaz

    March 22, 2011 at 1:43 am

    We should intervene in Libya because the rebels asked for it. The people cried for help, and it would be inhumane not to. What type of super power would we be if we turn our back to a country that is in obvious need? What impression would that leave on the world? In my opinion I think we should go in and take down the threat because we are the most capable. We are the stronger force hands down, and a lot more organized. So getting our hands dirty to save the lives of innocent people should be a no brainier

    Bishop Pierre Whalonv.

     
  23. Nick L

    March 22, 2011 at 3:35 am

    Health Care Reform

    I do not agree with government mandated health insurance. Health care is not a right. Though the new reform bill may seem charitable, it illegally takes money from the hard working. Just as the right to life does not force citizens to feed their hungry counterparts, neither should it force them to pay for their medical well-being. The payment for the medical care of the poor should come purely out of charity, not out of force. Many of the poor people who cannot afford it had the opportunities to provide a better life for themselves, but now choose to rely on others to pay their way. Besides the fact that it is not constitutionally just, there are other reasons this reform should not have been passed.

    Companies are required to pay for insurance of their employees, which is not right in itself. In order to afford this, companies will now switch to public health insurance because it will be made much cheaper. The public plan not only saves the company money because it is cheaper, but also because the employees that could not afford it on their own receive subsidies. When the company makes the switch, they will now provide the basic government health plan with limited coverage for all their employees. Now in order to attain better coverage, if they are remotely well-off, they will have to pay for it on their own. This will not be so easy though as the government has now put regulations on private health insurance which will raise the prices. Supposedly, the public option will increase competition and lower the price of private coverage. How can this be the case when they fund the most competitive one with taxpayers money and set regulations on the private ones to raise prices. Eventually, they will drive the private companies out of business because these insurers cannot offer subsidies to customers.

    Secondly, if a citizen has public coverage, his treatment plan will be decided not by him, but the government. President Obama stated about a woman needing a pacemaker,“Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.” It sounds to me like the government will have the final say on a patient’s well-being, not the doctor or the patient himself. If it is deemed too costly for the amount of coverage the government wants to provide, they may choose not to allow certain procedures. It will also force doctors to make decisions based on whether a government agency approves, and this can be detrimental to the field.

    Lastly, the funding coming from tax-payers will be used in controversial and some clearly wrong ways. Not only will it be used to fund abortions, but will also provide illegal immigrants with health care. Because hospitals cannot deny patients, illegal aliens would be given treatment, but could not be given the fines citizens would receive for not having insurance. If they could not afford the treatment, they would come out of the hospital debt free, paid for by tax money. Tax-payers money would also be put towards the creation of healthy neighborhoods and parks. While this seems beneficial, there are already programs that deal with this project.

    Clearly, there are some problems with the health care bill that has just passed. I think there are other changes that can be taken. For example, we should create more walk-in clinics. It is unnecessary for someone to spend the money to go to a physician for a common cold. Walk-in clinics would be cheaper and would create a class of doctors that do not need as much education, and therefore, as much reimbursement. Also, I think we should set up incentives for healthy life choices. Choosing to eat healthy and not smoke should be rewarded because it keeps people out of the doctor’s office and could lower insurance prices that cover illnesses.

    Top 10 Reasons Obama’s Health Care Plan is Wrong for America. Heritage Research. January 20, 2011. http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/research/obamacare-one-pill-two-pill-red-pill-blue-pill/

     
    • Dimitri Darion

      March 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm

      Although i dont necessarily believe in abortion i do feel that it is your right to have or not have a child. It may be constitutionally wrong in some eyes but when it comes down to it that person makes their own decisions. An article said that a female wil experience cramping, bleeding, pain and finally the end of the pregnancy. If one wants to deal with that pain then thats on them, yes morally its wrong but you cant control a persons body.

       
  24. Cole Spivia

    March 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    Cole Spivia
    Abortion

    I am for keeping abortion legal. I believe that the life of the fetus and the “Am I killing a human being?” issue is between you and your god. No one else should be allowed to mandate what you do with your body. Saying that women cannot abort a baby is like saying someone can’t smoke a cigarette or get a tattoo. It is their choice.
    Also even if abortion was illegal it would still go on. Prostitution is illegal but business is still booming; just like the sex trade, if we regulate it to seedy back allies it will always be something filled with danger and disease. If abortion was illegal it would be performed in the bowels of the city behind a Laundromat with a coat hanger. The life of the mother would be horribly jeopardized and make her susceptible to injury and pestilence. By keeping abortion legal no one is risking their lives. The procedure is in a safe hygienic doctor’s office performed by someone with a medical degree. Not to mention if abortion were to be illegal what would happen to all the women who are pregnant by rape or who are victims of incest or for pregnancies risk the life of the mother. I say better to save one life than to throw away two. And then there are the pregnancies where the mother is carrying a child with a fatal disease or a genetic defect. Some women would rather not force a baby like that to live a life of sickness and strife.

     
  25. Dimitri Darion

    March 22, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Nuclear Power Plants

     
  26. Dimitri Darion

    March 22, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Nuclear Power Plants
    I am for keeping the power plants in America. They save time, money, and land, all important things to Americans. A plant producing 1000 megawattsn taks up to one-third of a mile; A wind farm would cover 200 miles to obtain the same result. Also by 2030 electricity demanded in the U.S is expected to grow by the 21 percent from current level. If we ended nuclear plants that would be a huge waste of time and especially land. You’d be able to drive forever and only see miles of wind plants.

     
  27. Dimitri Darion

    March 22, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    Gun Control
    Im all for gun control to a certain extent. Yes, its necessary to have restritions on firearms to protect the young, innocent, and those who just dont know any better. But if a U.S citizen has no criminal background or has done no wrong in his life to obtain the title of a criminal, who has the right to say he/she cant carry a firearm. Maybe some people feel more protected with a firearm in their house or on thier waste. Of course if the firearm is misused there should be strict consequences.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: