Please post responses on this page.
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?
March 18, 2011 at 7:27 pm
I don’t think the government should mess with gun control. We should be aloud to have guns. The second amendment gives us our gun rights. People use guns as self defense, scaring criminals away, hunting, or other recreational activies. I believe we should be aloud to have the right to bear arms.
March 21, 2011 at 12:27 am
Social Security is just not for older Americans but younger ones also from Disability, Survivors, and Supplemental Security Income help. These programs have a dark side to them with a 53 billion dollar deficit in 2010 alone. Some believe that the retirement age should be raised or even the amounts paid out should be slashed. With the current president in office being pulled two different ways one by the economic team that says change needs to happen and happen soon and then the political team that says if the democrats want to stay in office they need keep it as is with a multi billion dollar deficit. In a recent poll of college students it showed they believed the pay as you go system of social security will not be around when they hit that golden age of retirement. No one can say for sure how much social security will run into the red this year but only one can guess what it will be. Action must be taken to keep the benefits that we Americas pay into and expect when we get older or become ill.
March 21, 2011 at 2:28 am
Social security is a big deal. It is almost like issues as nucellar waste or global warming, whatever people are doing to mess it up now will, in effect, ultimately cripple the issue for the next generations to come. “But our problem in our country, borrowing $4 billion a day” said by Tom Coburn. He also hints that “but the problem is, we spent the money. We didn’t just take it. We took it and spent it.” If we don’t reform there will eventually be no money and some more debt we have to pay as a country. Nothing good can come from it.
March 21, 2011 at 2:02 pm
I think we do need to reform it. It is efffecting everyone from yougest to oldest. The poor will get a better chance to retire wealthy, or atleast with money. We the people need to help one another, and stand up for what is right. The social security reform also makes up for inevitable benefit cuts that must eventually be made to the system. Personal responsibility and ownership aare also injected into citizens. It will help the economy in the long run. It will bring us down first ,before it goes back up. The currrent system of social security is headed for bankruptcy. It will not make a difference if we try to make it better. We can not make it any more worse then what it is.
March 22, 2011 at 7:22 pm
cutting benefits like social security is an important issue. i think they should continue with it as in to helping those who dont have much. our elderly around locally depend on such things. it just makes it another challenge for them if its not there to rely on. they shouldn’t raise prices on anything, as population grows tremendously then we should think about it.
March 23, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Nearly 14 percent of people 65 and older rely on Social Security for 100 percent of their family income. About 50 percent of the people in this age group count on benefits for 50 percent of their income. This would be bad for the elderly because most of them need social secruity. Without it they will live in poverty. It cant happen and we must show action now.
March 16, 2011 at 5:29 pm
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.
March 17, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Gun control is just another way for the government to invade into your personal privacy. The right to own firearms is guaranteed by the constituion, thanks to the verdict in the D.C. vs. Heller case, and i believe any type of restriction, such as magazine limit and muzzle length, infringes this right. The government has no need to restrict law abiding citizens for the actions of others who decide to use guns as a tool for violence, especially when there is a self-defense issue. “A Man’s home is his castle.” A law in Florida has stated that one can use deadly force in their own home if they feel threatened. He should be able to defend it and everything inside if he pleases, beacuse ultimately, it is all he has.
Antonin Scalia and the Reporter of Decisions. “The Right to Own a Gun Is Guaranteed by the Constitution.” Is Gun Ownership a Right? Ed. Kelly Doyle. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2010. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.
Graves, Rachel. “Both Sides of the Gun Debate Would Benefit from Compromise.” Is Gun Ownership a Right? Ed. Kelly Doyle. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2010. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.
March 17, 2011 at 7:15 pm
I believe that our right to bear arms should be enforced because of all the crime and violence going on in the U.S today, people need a way to defend themselves and one of the most common and most effective is the right to bear arms, the laws surronding citizens rights to bears arms almost makes it impossible to get a weapon or just to stressful. If anything you couls put issued numbers on the weapons that are given to the buyer so that if anything bad does happen you will be a ble to trace that weapons background and etc. Background checks are also a major security point that makes it impossible for people with a bad past able to get thier hands on any type of weapon. Weapons are a persons most common defense against almost any threat and this right should be protected.
March 18, 2011 at 6:50 pm
“Guns and Violence.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.
March 17, 2011 at 7:30 pm
I think that everyone should be able to own a weapon as long as they do not have a history of any crime or mental unstability. Even though the second ammendment says that we have the right to bare arms I dont think that people should be able to own any weapon they want.
March 18, 2011 at 6:54 pm
I think that gun control should not be changed or tampered with. This is already a right given to us in the constitution. Being on your own property and protecting what belongs to you should allow you to protect it in a way such as a firearm. Although allowing people with records of violence or recklessness should infulence and help determine who gets this right.
March 18, 2011 at 7:20 pm
I do not think the government should mess with gun control. We should be aloud to have guns. The second amendment gives us our gun rights. People use guns as self defense, scaring criminals away, hunting, or other recreational activies. I believe we should be aloud to have the right to bear arms.
March 18, 2011 at 7:37 pm
More like stupid idea for our government to even waist this much time and effort over. Gun Control will help nothing. It will only allow law abiding citizens to no longer protect themselves from pistol packin criminals. There is this whole underground economy called the “Black Market” that supplies everything criminals could ever want or need, including firearms. It’s our right and freedom to bear arms. Thats why it is our SECOND Amendement. Leave it alone.
March 20, 2011 at 11:13 pm
I don’t think the government needs to mess with gun rights. The second amendment which is the right to bear arms allows us to have guns. People use guns as self-defense, scaring criminals away, hunting, and other recreational activities. Guns are used for peoples safety. The government should not take our gun privileges away.
March 20, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Gun control is a highly debated topic among society. Excuses are always brought up stating as to why the Government should down right ban it, and they always fall to the side. The second amendment is enough support to prove that the gov’t cannot take this away from me. The main reason the government would want guns out of the hands of the public, would be to make the police much more effective. If people are already illegally obtaining guns, nothing will stop them with restrictions.
March 21, 2011 at 2:24 am
Gun control is just another way for the government to control what we can and can’t do. I think gun control is bad. The second amendment guaranties our right to bear arms. It will take the guns from law abiding citizens and put more on the streets, making it hard for the law abiding citizens to protect themselves. It’s been proven that requiring people to own guns in high crime rates eras that crime rates have gone down.
I think every American should have the right to bear arms, unless you have a bad past that would lead someone to believe you would hurt someone if you did have a gun. The second amendment gives us the right. It’s been that way forever so I see no need in change. Even if it was to become illegal, people would find some way to obtain them. It is better to let people have guns and have them registered then to have people running around with them illegally doing god knows what.
March 21, 2011 at 2:50 am
I think that it is a good thing that is a debate over gun laws, because without people arguing to have laws to allow us to have them then the only guns people would have are the illegally obtained ones and crime go way up but at the same time if we didn’t have people trying to take guns away then e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e would have them and unnecessary people trying to be a hero or big ego people would use them in very negative ways and this country will fall into chaos. All I’m saying is you can’t fix it to were everyone is happy but I’m leaning more towards what florida is doing which is “Two years ago, Florida enacted a law that allows anyone who feels threatened anywhere to use deadly force.” of coarse though not the entire country should have this law. there should be a series of checks and balances across the nation.
March 21, 2011 at 3:24 am
Gun laws cannot be fixed to were they are perfect for every to get along, thats just how it is. You have to have people on both sides of the story. If e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e was allowed to have guns then crime rates would increase dramatically and other untrained people would try and be a hero or something and make it worse and if no-one was allowed to have them then the bad organizations or terrorist would rise fast and become a nation like that. If you only lean one way then it is bound to lead to chaos and no one likes that now do they. There should always need to be a system of checks and balances to amend to the changing times of not just the nation, though that is the main focus, but as the world changes
March 21, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Gun control is a right held by the United States constitution. This means that any U.S. citizen has the right to bear arms. But, there are more guidelines than that obtain a legal weapon in the united states. All legal firearms are required to be registered to the wielder. Also, you usually need a permit to carry a gun on you that is not concealed. I believe that it is my right to protect myself with something that any other individual has the right to own, and use against me if they chose too. If guns were to become illegal, there would still be illegal ways to obtain them. And if you were seeking guns illegaly, then you would probably be planning to use them illegaly.
“The Constitution of the United States,” Amendment 5.
Doherty, Brian (2009-02-25). Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle over the Second Amendment. Cato Institute
March 22, 2011 at 4:41 pm
*Gun control, another well known issue. We are guaranteed by the constitution for the right to bear arms. Many people have tried to turn this around and try to give another interpretation of it. But we clearly have the right. But in our government we feel the right to try and control everything. We law abiding citizens should not be punished for what others chose to do when they take this for granted. Even if the government tries to control every aspect of it they will fail. If people feel threatened and they feel the need to have a bigger gun or bigger clips they will do so. It’s human nature and survival of the fittest, it’s how we survive. “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them” This statement is true. It is shown in statics that since the restriction has lowered the crime rate has dropped. For example grandma owns a handgun now so whatever kind of violence she may encounter in her home they will see that she has use of deadly force just like them and she’s not afraid to use it. This has lowered burglary and crime. We just need to leave it alone its good the way it is now. If you try to change or go against it you will always have people who will do what they want because they need to feel protected.
March 22, 2011 at 7:06 pm
The goverment says they want to keep the constitution the way it was written, but they want to take over guns and the way in which america uses them even though it would be against the constitution which gives us the right to bear arms. Guns dont kill people, people kill people.
March 23, 2011 at 7:24 pm
i believe by the 2nd amendment we are allowed the right to bare arms, a man has the right to protect his family from harm, and if he chooses to do that with a gun so be it. gun control is already in fource, there are certian rules and regulations that already have to be followed to even own a guy. taking a mans guy is also taking away part of his pride. it almost an invasion of personal space. so i think gun control shouldnt be restriced.
March 16, 2011 at 5:30 pm
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.
March 18, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Taxes are a part of any United States citizen’s financial life and have been for a long time. I think taxes should stay the way they are and nothing should be changed. We all pay taxes for a reason; what the government uses them for is a completely different issue. If you live in the United States legally, then you should have to pay taxes. This isn’t such a huge issue. The United States has better and bigger tings to worry about before the issue of tax reforms.
March 20, 2011 at 4:14 pm
I believe that tax reform is an important issue. Our country is trapped under a 1.65 trillion dollar deficit and tax reform is a way to combat it. We could lower our taxes by reducing and eliminating loopholes and other breaks. Reforming our taxes will increase U.S. competitiveness, and could attract American investment and jobs. I believe that we shouldn’t scrap the current system though. The current tax system may have flaws, but scrapping it could have severe repurcussions on the economy. We need to keep our current system while trying to improve on it.
March 20, 2011 at 4:15 pm
March 20, 2011 at 9:26 pm
With a raising national debt and highest inflection rates recorded affecting both the public and private sectors what should the government do in the way of tax reform. Some believe tax should be raised on the wealthy and lowered on the poor. Other people believe in such things as carbon tax, food tax, plastic bag tax, and even marijuana taxation but which way should the reform lean toward. With the average family having only an annual total expenditure of $49,628 and only 67% being homeowners. Taxes should be reformed to where Americas can have a greater amount of expenditures and more personal ownership.
March 22, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Tax reform is an important issue. Although, they do not need to keep raising the amount of taxes on certain things. The government says they are raising taxes. It could get to the point where some people can’t afford it. In my eyes, I think that no matter who you are, if you are living in the United States you should be paying taxes. Everyone needs to pay taxes.
March 22, 2011 at 7:29 pm
if they change to something new then lower prices, or for those with lower income have them not pay much and those who come into the States should pay their way in here. Changing the system, needs to have new rules, modify and update the way things are set.
March 23, 2011 at 7:16 pm
I personally believe that tax reform is very important in our society. The hard working people of America should not be taxed on that hard work. Should we just be lazy?
Instead, I suggest that we scrap the old system and replace it with a completely new and innovative system. My butt.
This innovative system is used in 15 countries in Africa and 3 in Asia. The largest society using it to date is Australia and they are having a swell time down under. The rainforests of Africa are now replenishing due to the revolutionary idea and i think we can solve all problems through my butt.
March 24, 2011 at 12:20 am
taxes are essential to the economy. They keep the government in business and spending money. But lately they have become a bit excesive. I think that taxes should be lowered to let the economy have a chance to expand. Since taxes are so high they have a big chunk of their income being taken out.
March 16, 2011 at 5:59 pm
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.
March 17, 2011 at 7:12 pm
There is no getting around the fact that nuclear energy can be dangerous. Nuclear accidents can be catastrophic to a large area. Japan’s current problems provide a perfect example. Despite all of this however, I believe that we should push forward with nuclear technology. Despite all of the potential problems that nuclear energy could wreak, most of which are very well contained, nuclear energy is still a powerful source of energy. While nuclear reactors are expensive to build and only last 30 years, they can put out 3 million tons of coal’s worth of energy annually for much less cost. With the right advances in the field, nuclear energy could make great leaps and bounds, so I propose that we use nuclear energy in moderation, while attempting to research new nuclear technologies to be applied.
“Nuclear Energy.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.
March 18, 2011 at 7:03 pm
My thoughts regarding the tsunami hitting Japan is that it is a horrible thing to try to live through, my thoughts on nuclear power is that this is a thing that human society needs to watch out for, nuclear power creates radiation and radiation can do many harmful things to everything, especially to humans. As an example to this is that when the U.S.A bombed Japan and they still have problems in their genes to this very day. Nuclear power does do many things that are helpful to us as it supports more than a hydroelectric dam would produce. I think that we should keep the nuclear power plants but we need to take many precautions to protect society. As in we should have an emergency shutdown button or something like that just in case something does go wrong we have a backup plan. Nuclear power does provide many positive side effects, but we also need to look at all the negative effects of it to. We will just have to learn from japans experience and move on to modify the power plants.
“Nuclear Energy.” Global Issues in Context Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2011. Global Issues In Context. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.
March 18, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Nuclear Power is the way to go. We need to make sure that we are all safe from danger. We do not want it to end up like Japan. We have to cover all of our bases and keep safe. Using Nuclear Energy will cause less pollution, and will cast less. We may be able to also get out of this debt. It is a very safe way to go, and I think we should do it. We need to plan for the worse before the worse happens.
March 18, 2011 at 7:25 pm
“Nuclear power”, when put in the same sentence with “earthquake”, doesn’t sound calming. Truth is, after Japan’s earthquake, nuclear power will need even more safety standards. Japan’s nuclear reactors were designed to withstand up to a 7.2 magnitude earthquake. But, the recent earthquake in japan was an 8.9 magnitude earthquake. The designers of the Fukushima Daiichi plant even built a 25-foot tsunami wall between the ocean and the reactors – but the 30-foot wave triggered by the earthquake plowed right through it. The reactor with the highest earthquake risk rating is actually the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, just 24 miles north of New York City.This right here shows that these nuclear plants aren’t prepared and are on the verge of harming thousands of people.
sources- (the nuclear option, union of concerned scientists)
March 20, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Creation of energy is always going to be a double-edged sword and nuclear energy is no exception. Of course they can overheat and possibly cause mass amounts of radiation, but of course coal can easily cause mass amounts of pollution and cause global warming. Nuclear energy can cause radiation but coal mines can collapse. Nuclear power plants can potentially cause radiation sickness and coal mines can potentially cause chronic heart, lung, and kidney diseases. Just because Japan has had a recent problem does not mean we should abandon the idea all together. All energy sources come with some price.
West Virginia University Health Sciences Center. “Chronic Illness Linked To Coal-mining Pollution, Study Shows.” ScienceDaily 27 March 2008. 20 March 2011
March 21, 2011 at 3:09 am
Ok so with the problems in Japan, I really feel sorry for them but as almost everyone knows nuclear energy can be a very good and a very very bad thing if taken advantage of. If you put a nuclear plant somewhere don’t put it in one of the worlds biggest cautions for natural disasters because “if” it can go wrong with nature it “will” go wrong because nature don’t mess around. I’m not trying to say japan should have known better, I’m saying try and fix what you messed up even though it will be hard but don’t stop moving forward as the world top technology whole, just think it through next time. As a nation, no as the world, we should not just sit back and say how bad they are for messing up and because it messed up there is no hope for it. We should stand up and grow a pear and help them out for being the genie pig to the world because who knows how much bad rap the US, Russia, or North Korea or others would have got for this whopsie. Japan is a neutral country will little no military so its ok but we need to help them through it and learn from there mistakes so it doesn’t happen again or it will and who knows, someone might see it as an opportunity for war and then it will be a nucellar WWIII
March 21, 2011 at 5:11 am
I dont think that other countries should consider shutting down their nuclear reactors. The event that is currently happening in China is due to a natural disaster that no one predicted would ever happened. I believe that the best way to convince countries to continue the nuclear system would be by taking precautionary steps while building the plants and having it so that in case one of the reactors is about to blow there is an easy way to either shut it down or entomb it.
March 21, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Although nuclear power is proven to be very efficient in the way it produces power for our everyday needs it is a well know danger. Do you really want to pay the cost if something goes wrong? Japan is struggling as we speak from there tragedies with the tsunami and earth quakes now nuclear exposure. Nuclear power is very clean for our environment with absolutely no carbon dioxide emission at all. They claim the plants to be very cheap to build but that is a false statement. Nuclear power plants take millions and billions of dollars to build. This source of power sounds like a great idea especially with our depleting fossil fuels. But with our science and technology today we can find better ways to use natural renewable resources such as, wind, waves, solar, etc… We have the means to do this yet it may take more time to build wind fields and wave turbines to harness energy but this extra time and money seems like it would be very well spent on the renewable resources besides the spending on nuclear power plants. These nuclear plants can cause great catastrophe. If one was to blow up and could not be contained many people would be effected at that present moment and the 100 years to come in the future. There are place in Chernobyl that are still off limits to human civilization because of the harmful radiation. Japans food and people and animals are in danger because of the nuclear power plants failing. This is a risk I really don’t think we should take.
March 22, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Although nuclear power has proven to be dangerous it actually omits relativly low amounts of carbon dioxide, also the technology is already available. if it is possible to create enough energy to light new york city in one single plant, then why not use it?
March 23, 2011 at 6:44 am
Nuclear power is and will continue to progress. Considering the cons to the use of nuclear power causes a lot of paranoia and fear in nations such as Japan. But to face the facts there are too many advantages to miss out on by researching and pursuing nuclear power. I think we should continue to use caution but also progress in our research.
March 23, 2011 at 7:28 pm
i think there should be no more nuclear power plants they are causing more damage than good. they have other countries thinking that they could harm them at any minute. they are also effecting the people. they cost us a lot of money to build the plants and money isnt worth the cost of life, therefor just shut things down completly.
March 23, 2011 at 7:31 pm
They need to take it slow on the nuclear power becaue it causes radiation if it explodes and can kill alot of people and hurt there children too. They said if helps global warming to make more nuclear plants but no it was a gimmick.
March 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm
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.
March 17, 2011 at 10:28 pm
“We don’t have a clearly stated objective, legal authority, committed international support or adequate on-the-scene military capabilities, and Libya’s politics hardly foreshadow a clear outcome,” says former military General Clark. Many claim that U.S. intervention in Libya in necessary for a variety of reasons. One of these reason are the oil relations we have with Libya, but Libya doesn’t provide much oil to the U.S. and what is lost will be regained form Saudi production(Clark). The Muslim world may begin to believe that the U.S. is only intervening for oil or domination of their people (Spitzer). From a humanitarian standpoint, yes, it is hard to watch people fighting against the leader and being murdered; however, the U.S. stood by when civil war broke out in Africa and killed millions as well as in Darfur which killed hundreds of thousands. A fight with Ghadhafi would mean ground operations, casualties, and post conflict peace keeping (Clark). Additionally, we do not know who the rebels are or how to form a government for them after the leader is gone. Some of these tribes may resist American intervention or say that they accept it and later change their minds (Why Rush). The Libyans say they do not want intervention for fear of a repeat of the eight year civil war in Iraq. Instead, the U.S. could deliver relief supplies, treat the injured, and let the Libyans settle things themselves (Spitzer).
Wesley K. Clark : http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_4315925e-4cc0-58c9-b3ac-84a4f9ca219c.html
Why Rush : http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/opinion/columnists/110316/opinion-libya-gaddafi-US-foreign-policy-obama
Elliot Spitzer : http://www.slate.com/id/2288595/
March 18, 2011 at 7:18 pm
“Should we stand by and watch a long term war that could claim many lives and destabilize the region for another decade or should the international community go in and try and fix things?” (Mark Swatson). I think we should help Libya out because we don’t want to live in regret if more people get killed than already has been. In the past, we have failed to help out countries that have had mass murders and looking back now, we should have helped them out. Libya also has an oil supply which could help us in the future if we succeed in helping out that country. Also, if we join in the fight, other countries may be motivated to help as well. These events could keep happening for a while if someone does not step in to help.
March 18, 2011 at 7:21 pm
With the situation in Libya I think that we should try to help them with some relief from care packages and also what they need the most is a way to keep order. A way I say we could do this is that we should send some of our military over there to keep some order and peace. Our troops would do nothing to increase the trouble that has already been made; we would just provide some security. While we do that we would also have to try and get the country up and running to the point, where they would not need our help. Libya needs to give rights to its people and ignoring its people completely. The anti-government protesters are just trying to show people that they need to be treated right. The U.S needs to intervene to keep what little peace it could provide for Libya.
“Libyan Civil Unrest.” Global Issues in Context Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2011. Global Issues In Context. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.
March 19, 2011 at 8:58 pm
I believe that we should handle the situation in Libya very delicately. We are dealing a civil war and our intrusion in their country might drastically affect the effects of the victory. We also have to take into consideration the strain on our military force. Also, it is diplomatically awkward to help a rebellion against a government that we formally recognize. No one wants a war. All that said, I believe that we should support the rebels. I don’t believe that we should pour soldiers in in a gung-ho fashion, but I believe that we should support them in other ways. We could provide supplies and specialists. Let them fight their own war, but give them an edge.
“Libyan Civil Unrest.” Global Issues in Context Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2011. Global Issues In Context. Web. 19 Mar. 2011.
March 20, 2011 at 9:18 pm
The issues facing the rebels and pro-government forces in Libya are ones that need to be faced at this moment as we speak. From mass killings in towns such as Benghazi and Brega to a president that believes he can buy his way out from no interest loans to free money. This issue must be addressed by the world and be dealt with before many, on both sides of this “civil war”, lose their lives. Many world nations from America to the United Kingdom see this conflict in the same point of view, but neither can decide if they should step in and help or just watch it play out and then support the side that comes out on top. What many of these nations are looking at today is if they get involved in the issue how long might they be involved in the conflict. To even the total number of forces needed to enforce such decisions as a “No Fly Zone” or a full out military intervention force sent into the country, such as the UNPROFOR forces sent into Bosnia and Herzegovina to regain and stabilize the region.
March 21, 2011 at 2:31 am
In my opinion, I think we should Help out Libya. We are the strongest nation in the world and if someone is in need I think we should lend a helping hand. That’s the right thing to do. I think we should send people over to help keep the peace and try to figure things out, before it gets worse.
March 21, 2011 at 1:37 pm
I feel that the U.S. should stay out of libya. i feel this way because it isn’t our business to even be in their problems over there. my boyfriend is in the marines and if we end up sending troops over there that would mean my boyfriend would have to go somewhere that isnt even neccessary.
March 23, 2011 at 7:07 pm
In my opinion I wouldn’t go through with an abortion, but I’m not in that kind of position. On the other hand, I honestly don’t care if a woman goes through with one. It’s their body, and they are their own person. What they do shouldn’t affect another person. It’s not like the people protesting are carrying the baby. No one knows what they would do if they suddenly got pregnant, so I believe we should just drop the whole thing and stay out of another persons life decision.
March 23, 2011 at 7:08 pm
March 16, 2011 at 6:06 pm
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.
March 17, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Women do have every right to decide what they want to do with their body, but on the same since they are murdering an innocent child. A mother’s fetus is a human being. They also have the right to live. I do not belive in abortion unless it’s the last option. If you get raped and get pregnant then, yes I do belive that abortion should occur. It also takes a bigger risk of not being able to get pregnant again. On April 25, about 10,000 people will desecend on Washington D.C. They will tell George Bush that we won’t go back. I think they have every right to. We should have the right to choose, but we should not have the right to kill.
Roe v. Wade was a bill passed in 1973 that made abortion legal. This was the correct decision and this law doesn’t need a revision. A very recent study by Danish scientists concluded that having an abortion did not raise the mental health risk of the mother. Also, before abortion was legal, mothers would use dangerous methods to abort their baby. That being said, if abortion becomes illegal again, who’s to say that anybody would stop having abortions? They would go about the abortion in an illegal way, putting the mother at risk. (“Repairing the damage before Roe”)
March 17, 2011 at 10:27 pm
If a fetus were able to speak and decide for themselves whether or not they wanted to live a life or be put to death in the womb before they even have a chance to see the world, I can almost guarantee that the unborn child would choose life. They were brought into the life of a person for a reason and deserve the right to live. Girls under a certain age have to have parental consent for an abortion, but really there should be no question of whether or not to have the baby (Abortion). “A fetus is a human being from the time of conception.” Therefore, abortion is theoretically the same as murder. (Abortion: Moral and Ethical). If a person does not want to have a child, then they should use some form of contraceptive. However, in the case of rape, I believe the woman should go through with the pregnancy and put the child up for adoption if they do not wish to keep the baby. Many women end pregnancies due to limited amounts of money, support, or they are too young or overwhelmed by the circumstance (Health Bill). This information tells me that these people knew they were in no position to have a baby, yet became pregnant anyway. From a medical standpoint, an abortion can come along with infection, excessive bleeding, and permanent damage to the uterus which is life threatening and would prevent a women from ever being able to give birth again (Abortion).
“Abortion.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Mar. 2011. “Abortion.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.
My other two sources are from SIRS which I cannot access at home, but will attach the address to my sheets.
Abortion is a serious thing. I do not think that abortuion is the right thing to do. It may be trying to save your life, but what about the baby’s life. Almost a year ago a woman went to get an abortion and she got an affection from the tools that the doctors has used. She felt horrible for it afterwerds. A baby is in a fetus and it has a right to live. If you can fight for your life why can’t you fight for you baby’s life. If you get an abortion you take that risk of never being able to have kids.
March 18, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Abortion is pure murder; it’s the same thing as putting a gun to an innocent person’s head and taking their life. No one has any right to take the life of an innocent child, even if they aren’t born yet. If the mother of an unborn child won’t be able to support that child, they have other options besides abortion. It should not be the decision of any mother to take the life of their child; it’s murder. They should go to jail and be sentenced to the same things that any other murderer would be sentenced to. I am so against abortion and I think it is 100% wrong. (Health Guidance & Buzzle)
March 18, 2011 at 6:59 pm
The topic of abortion is a hot button issue for many people in this country. I do not believe abortion is right. In my eyes, women who have an abortion are doing the same thing as killing some other innocent person. When I women gets an abortion, it gives them the freedom of committing careless activites and then they can get rid of them easily. After abortion, women have emotional highs and lows. Some even experience anger, frustration, and guilt for many years, so why do it? I do not think it is right for a woman to get an abortion. They let themselves get pregnant so they need to go with it and if they don’t want the child then put it up for adoption.
March 18, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Abortion is a natural right to a woman that no law can come between. It is ultimately up to the woman whether abortion, for them, is ethical and moral. Danish scientists have proved that there are no higher mental health risks after abortion. Plus, there are worse effects if an abortion is performed unsafely or poorly. Also, women can now use a pill for abortion that allows for privacy.
Fielding, Waldo L. “Repairing the Damage, Before Roe.” New York Times (New York, NY). 03 Jun 2008: F5. SIRS Researcher. Web. 18 Mar 2011.
Quindlen, Anna. “On Their Own Terms.” Newsweek Vol. 153, No. 7. 16 Feb 2009: 60. SIRS Researcher. Web. 18 Mar 2011.
Chang, Alicia. “Study: No Higher Mental Health Risk After Abortion.” Juneau Empire. 26 Jan 2011: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 18 Mar 2011.
March 20, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Abortion is a very touchy subject to many people because many people bring up different basis for argument. Religious people would most likely disagree with the thought down-right. Conception is the beginning of life and Abortion ends it. However, you cannot berate a person when you have never been in their position. A woman who is 16 and is pregnant has a difficult choice to make. have the child and completely change your life either through motherhood or adoption, or solve the problem simply with abortion.
People will do want they want, legal or not. I have no standpoint on this issue because I have never been put into a position where I need to choose.
March 21, 2011 at 1:36 am
In my opinion, I believe that the life of a child begins at conception. Whether the mother of a child wants to acknowledge this belief, is of their own choice. Many people say that they don’t believe in abortion, but the only exception is if the mother is a rape victim. A common argument to fight this belief is to ask yourself whether you want to punish the child for the father’s mistake. In my opinion, I don’t believe that abortion should be legal. Since I believe that the baby has life from the beginning of conception, I think that the decision of whether the child lives is no longer in the hands of the mother, unless her life is at risk by having the baby. If a woman is willing to have sex and knows the risks of pregnancy and the way to avoid it, then she, as well as the male, should be ready to take on the consequences of their actions. No child should reap the consequences of what her/his parents sowed.
March 21, 2011 at 2:39 am
Abortion is a very highly debated subject. In my belief life starts from the moment of conception I personally think it is wrong to get an abortion. In my eyes if you made the decision to have sex and you happen to get pregnant that is your fault, not the kids they shouldn’t have to suffer. People constantly say, what if they were rapped you still wouldn’t agree. No, I certainly would not. You don’t have to keep the baby you can bless an infertile couple with a child. Turn something horrific into a blessing.
March 21, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Abortion is a highly debated topic all over the world, i think it should stay legal and no matter what age you are, you should have the right to do what you feel is right with your own body. sometimes it isnt the girls fault they are pregnant. you never the story or situation of the making of the baby.
March 22, 2011 at 4:25 pm
*Abortion, this is a tough subject for anyone to talk about. You always get morals, ethics and religion thrown into the topic. I believe the opinion should be of the mother. Now I’m still on the fence about my opinion and I always will be. I believe there should be certain rules and exceptions. Such as a teenager getting raped and dealing with the emotional burden of the rape along is hard enough. But then having to carry this memory inside you can be just as horrifying as the rape. Now of course there is always an option of adoption, but a young teenager’s body is not made to carry and support a healthy baby. This can cause death of poor girl caught in the horrific event of rape and now possibly a death. Now I don’t believe that the girl who gets around should have the choice of getting an abortion just because she chooses not to use protection. But my onion and my different ways of seeing this subject is hard to regulate and set up rules. I will always be open on this subject because I’ve never personally experienced this.
March 22, 2011 at 7:15 pm
although there are instances when abortion is given an excuse that dosn’t give others the right to kill a human being before they even have the knowledge, energy, or power to speak for themselves. the only time a parent should be given the right to end their unborn childs life is if a life ending disease is discovered in a mothers fetus, todays technology allows detection of this.
March 23, 2011 at 6:47 am
Some say that abortion is playing God. But what about rape? Could you say that the rapist was playing God? Not a care in the world of what happens to the girl but because he can and has the strength over her. I think that it shouldn’t be for government to say if a woman or girl should have the abortion or not. It’s their own body and their choices or even a mistake.
March 23, 2011 at 7:06 pm
The zygote-embryo-fetus is the first stage of a baby. In that case that means it is human and there should be no right to be killed. If the baby is in your stomach than its for a reason. God has a purpose into why the baby is there. You wouldnt want your mom to abored you because you wouldnt have been alive right now. There is more babys killed each year than all wars combined! Abortion is killing and it needs to stop.
March 23, 2011 at 7:09 pm
March 23, 2011 at 7:19 pm
i think that it is a womens body it is her chocie, and she should have control over that fact of abortion. pro-life supporters may think its an awful option but they need to know that there are still exceptions to every rule, if a woman doesn’t want a baby she will figure out a way to not have it. what if she had been raped and founds out she is expecting? why would she want to keep the child? why would she want a child from a man we disrespected her body so much? i know that nine months after something like that i wouldnt want a reminder, and one that she would have to look at everyday. one of the leading causes to poverty is single moms, if abortion wasn’t veiwed so negitively she may not be in that situation. so i think its her body and her decision
March 23, 2011 at 10:28 pm
I feel for people who do get an abortion. It seems like an easy way out of a difficult situation but killing a child is never going to be the right answer to a situation, no matter how good it may look at the time. So maybe in some situations its the right way to go like if you were raped then i believe it could maybe be an option. Still, think about it, your killing a child that didn’t even have a chance to live. You never know he/she could have grown to be the first doctor to cure cancer, break a world record, and be destined for greatness.
March 16, 2011 at 6:07 pm
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.
March 20, 2011 at 9:12 pm
I believe that healthcare should be a choice because for it to be mandated is unconstitutional. “The government only has the power to regulate economic “activity” and lacks the power to command action from individuals.” Requiring a person to purchase a product that he does not want to buy is violating the government’s inability to regulate things such as healthcare that are considered inactivity, (McCarthy, Mendelson ). The government lacks the power to command this type of activity and if they get away with this who is to stop them from imposing mandates on other products? Two federal judges believe that this mandate will open the doors to such stated activities, (Ruling won’t Stand). People are being penalized for not participating in an activity that they do not want to do. Yes, because the healthcare market is more than one sixth of the national economy, the federal government has the right to propose any reform to it, but, “the principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here,” (Levey). Currently, twenty six states say the new reform is unconstitutional because it requires Americans to have health insurance by 2014 (Wisckol). In all, people need to have the choice to decide if they want health care or not instead of being forced into it and having to pay for something they do not wish to have.
McCarthy, Mendelson : http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/apr/07/health-care-reform-unconstitutional-exchange/
Ruling wont stand : http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-
March 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm
There isn’t a single government agency or division that runs efficiently, do we really want an organization that developed the U.S.
“Free” health care isn’t really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education
Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
The health-care industry likely will become infused with the same kind of corruption, back-room dealing, and special interest dominated sleeze that is already prevalent in other areas of government.
I believe that we should keep health care as it is. There are people out in the world who do not work nor try to find a job. Those are the kinds of people that I do not want my tax money going to support their health care, when they arent event doing anything to get health care. Also, since most people are supplied with health care at their jobs, it should just stay that way.
March 23, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Obama needs not to be making any changes unless he expects everyone to be paying for something. i understand not everyone can pay for it in this economy but atleast those who come to the States. just promate things dont make it to where only certain people do certain things. keep expanding to Americans!
March 23, 2011 at 11:10 pm
.President Obama said, “I believe that the problem is not that people don’t want health care. It is that they can’t afford it.” His reasoning was correct in opposing a mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance. In his letter to Congress this week, he moved toward support for a mandate but again conditioned it on health care being more affordable. Knowing that healthcare is more affordable makes me believe that healthcare should be mandated.
March 21, 2011 at 1:52 am
I believe that healthcare should be mandated. Yes, there is a fine if you don’t buy it, but why wouldn’t you buy it when you are going to most likely be using in sometime or another? Rarely does anyone not have a sickness or an event occur to them that would require medical attention. Unfortunately though health insurance rates are very expensive. For this reason only 1 in 6 Americans usually have health insurance. What is worse is that most people instead of getting better by going to a doctor, wait until their sickness is life threatening then attend an E.R. where there expenses are covered by the tax dollars of American citizens. So too keep our country from acquiring anymore debt, it is seen as the greater good to require everyone to have healthcare. Other countries have the same system and they went through a few rocky years before their healthcare system was full efficient. We will have to go through the same thing, but it will be worth it in the end.
March 22, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Nuclear Power we know is dangerous and can cause all kinds of problems. They can lead to catastrophic long term problems and cause disaterouse environmental hardships. But its the most beneficial energy source.
March 23, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Taxation, its kinda hard to take a side. Yeah maybe its a little unfair the way they do it but without it they wouldnt be able to keep everything so nice and well kept.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 5 other followers
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)