Abortion doesn't kill a baby because it's not a baby. It's an inviable parasite. It cannot eat or breathe on its own without the host (woman) so it is not its own entity. Therefore abortion removes an unwanted growth. If the fetus were a person than every miscarriage would be a murder and Mother Nature causes miscarriages in 20-45 percent of pregnancies. Are you going to accuse Mother Nature of killing babies? Or the host (woman)? I think not. It's not a baby. It's a bunch of cells.
Intelligence and desire to have sex are two entirely different parts of the brain. One can be very stupid and have no sex drive. As can one be very smart, very horny and take all reasonable precautions (pill, condom, etc) and STILL end up pregnant. Sex is more than procreation. Other primates (and many other species) have sex for the pleasure alone. Humans have those same desires--smart or not.
Yes, because criticism and humor are essential to a balance, objective society. If we fear that someone somewhere will be offended, how can we possibly communicate our concerns about a faulty government, harmful actions, or antisocial beliefs?
There is a time for political correctness, but the other 99% of the time it is unnecessary and unwarranted.
I say lousy, if by lousy you mean unemployed, distant, detached, overworked, unavailable, lazy, unintelligent, boring, uneducated, and other non-criminal versions of a bad dad.
However, if pops is a drug dealer, murderer, rapist, etc... Be satisfied with being alive and not knowing the sperm donor.
"If it is ok to abort, why do those who do so end up so destroyed for the rest of their lives?"
They don't. Not if they do it for the right reasons. There is always the "what if" factor. But millions of women have had abortions and are living perfectly healthy, happy, successful lives. About half of women in the US who have had an abortion already have children, so they know the joys and stresses of children. They make the decision for the greater good--the family and society.
"Everything happens for a reason"? So incest, pedophilia, rape, and abuse are results of reason?!? There is nothing reasonable about raising a constant reminder of a cruel crime. Those opposed to any type of induced abortion have no idea what its like for a child to carry the burden of being the offspring of abuse. It is a fact that unplanned/unwanted children are more likely to be subjected to abuse and neglect--continuing the cycle. Stopping that cycle of abuse is easy. It just takes one outpatient appointment.
I use caffeine to wake me up. I use alcohol to have fun. I use benedryl to get to sleep. And I like the way catnip and spearmint make my tongue tingle.
I think perhaps you may want to specify what TYPE of drugs in your question.
I only dislike Republicans (or Democrats or Libertarians or what-have-yous) when they're hypocrites who don't practice what they preach, abuse their power, mislead the people they purport to represent, or harm the innocent for the sake of achieving greater power/wealth for themselves and their cohort.
In other words, I dislike politicians.
I drink therefore I debate.
I can't understand why this has been voted down but no counter arguments presented.
Fact: Humans reach puberty as early as age 8.
Fact: Puberty causes severe hormonal changes and sexual curiosity results.
Fact: Adolescents' brains have not fully developed the decision-making center making them more prone to spontaneous behavior.
Fact: Abstinence training doesn't work on teens.
Fact: Condoms do.
Conclusion: Allowing adolescents access to condoms is the most logical means to preventing pregnancy, AIDS, and other STDs.
So, all you who voted me down, where's the problem?
Only if you want to make the situation worse. Those on welfare may have doctors appointments to go to and kids to take to school and church to attend and maybe even a job interview so they can get the hell off welfare.
I once knew a woman on welfare who was divorced with three kids, lived in a two-bedroom shack in the desert, and earned minimum wage at catch-as-can temp jobs. She now earns over 100k a year and is involved in community and charity projects.
The woman? My mother.
This kind of oversimplification really gets on my nerves. The assumptions are hugely incorrect.
First, not all Israelis are Jews. Second, there are Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. Third, deserving of property implies that there is such a scale that is used universally.
Lets start with false assumption #3: On your hypothetical scale, which of us deserves the land your house is on? I think you only _deserve_ 1/4 of it and should be restricted from access and changes on the other 3/4. You paid for it? So what? According to this system, you don't DESERVE it. In fact, due to low incomes and high unemployment, Mississippi isn't deserving of it's land, so lets reallocate it off to laborers from California and Texas. Who cares if they're not actually living there.
Now, assumption #2: Most Palestinians are not terrorists or Muslim fundamentalists or bad people. Nor are they saints who valiantly sally forth to martyr themselves for a noble cause. They are everyday people like you and me who want basic things like jobs, food, clean water, safety, and a stable environment. They have an equal right to participate in a democratic government. However, they have failed to create any semblance of a stable democratic entity. The cannot trust their own leaders which only serves to exacerbate a bad situation.
And, finally, the first assumption. Not only are not all Israelis Jews, but not all Jews support Israel. In fact, the ultra-religious Jews don't believe in a country of Israel because only God can provide that--not some elected party. On the other side, you have Jews who are devoted to their own nations--like the USA.
So, before this gets too long and deep for a CD post, let me summarize by saying that this issue is not so simply divided and that in the end its not a matter of who deserves land but how we can protect the rights of Palestinians, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze, Israelis, and other peoples involved in the Middle East conflict.
Begin by expressing your interest in how the world today reflects the world that Brandbury so feared--though perhaps our incarnation of that fear is far worse. Speak to his interest in the underlying principles of society and survival. Express your concern for the illiterate uneducated masses who waste time watching TV and playing online games rather than spend time with loved ones enjoying a classic story. These are the types of introductionst hat 'catch' the attention of the reader.
If it was somewhere really nice, like Hawaii, I'd probably go.
If it were in some off-beat, backwater location, I'd have to think about it.
Of course, it also depends on how far in advanced the party was announced. Airline tickets ain't cheap.
If you have an opinion on abortion, then you must have an opinion on why you/your family/your parents/etc do not have any adopted children. I'm interested where anti-abortion groups want all these adopted children to go, since most "pro-lifers" do not adopt.
Well, it’s still unclear whether chicken eggs or chickens came first (the intended question in the original riddle), said Darla Zelenitsky, a paleontologist of the University of Calgary in Alberta who was the first scientist to closely analyze the dinosaur nest.
But interpreted literally, the answer to the riddle is clear. Dinosaurs were forming bird-like nests and laying bird-like eggs long before birds (including chickens) evolved from dinosaurs.
"The egg came before the chicken," Zelenitsky said. "Chickens evolved well after the meat-eating dinosaurs that laid these eggs."
So the original riddle might now be rephrased: Which came first, the dinosaur or the egg? Meanwhile, the new nest provides some of the strongest evidence in North America in favor of the bird-like egg over the chicken.
Well, it’s still unclear whether chicken eggs or chickens came first (the intended question in the original riddle), said Darla Zelenitsky, a paleontologist of the University of Calgary in Alberta who was the first scientist to closely analyze the dinosaur nest.
But interpreted literally, the answer to the riddle is clear. Dinosaurs were forming bird-like nests and laying bird-like eggs long before birds (including chickens) evolved from dinosaurs.
"The egg came before the chicken," Zelenitsky said. "Chickens evolved well after the meat-eating dinosaurs that laid these eggs."
So the original riddle might now be rephrased: Which came first, the dinosaur or the egg? Meanwhile, the new nest provides some of the strongest evidence in North America in favor of the bird-like egg over the chicken.
Well, it’s still unclear whether chicken eggs or chickens came first (the intended question in the original riddle), said Darla Zelenitsky, a paleontologist of the University of Calgary in Alberta who was the first scientist to closely analyze the dinosaur nest.
But interpreted literally, the answer to the riddle is clear. Dinosaurs were forming bird-like nests and laying bird-like eggs long before birds (including chickens) evolved from dinosaurs.
"The egg came before the chicken," Zelenitsky said. "Chickens evolved well after the meat-eating dinosaurs that laid these eggs."
So the original riddle might now be rephrased: Which came first, the dinosaur or the egg? Meanwhile, the new nest provides some of the strongest evidence in North America in favor of the bird-like egg over the chicken.
Well, it’s still unclear whether chicken eggs or chickens came first (the intended question in the original riddle), said Darla Zelenitsky, a paleontologist of the University of Calgary in Alberta who was the first scientist to closely analyze the dinosaur nest.
But interpreted literally, the answer to the riddle is clear. Dinosaurs were forming bird-like nests and laying bird-like eggs long before birds (including chickens) evolved from dinosaurs.
"The egg came before the chicken," Zelenitsky said. "Chickens evolved well after the meat-eating dinosaurs that laid these eggs."
So the original riddle might now be rephrased: Which came first, the dinosaur or the egg? Meanwhile, the new nest provides some of the strongest evidence in North America in favor of the bird-like egg over the chicken.
Actually the revolutionary fathers of America were progressive--even liberal--for their era. Both English and French governments found American philosophers repugnant due to their extreme forward-thinking.
I agree that one interpretation of the values of our founders is embedded in the intent of the Republican party, but do they embody those ideals or merely chant them?
My car has a solar battery recharger. I'm trying to figure out when someone would use it. Most likely leaving the lights on drained the battery--which means it must be night. So how does the solar recharger work? I never quite figured that one out.
Although clarity is an ideal of communication of which I'm personally and professionally fond, language and those who use languages do not consciously take this into consideration. Linguists theorize that language develops from isolated dialects. Isolation does not have to be physical or geographical. There are some groups who find that, due to their political isolation, it is better to be ambiguous than precise. For example, there is a dialect of Irish that combines English and Irish and was used to confuse the British authorities. (I can't recall the name of the dialect off-hand.) The dialect had it's own very creative rules that prevented non-indoctrinated listeners from comprehending.
My main point is that sometimes, the words we use are not as important as the context.
I can't say I "hate" it, but I'm not used to it yet. I'm highly adaptable, but my initial response was "WTF happened?!" Give it a few days and it'll sink in.
I do LOVE that you guys aren't afraid to try new things. Keep up the awesome work! :)
In every life we have some trouble
When you worry you make it double
Don't worry, be happy...
dont worry be happy now
dont worry be happy
dont worry be happy
cos when you worry, your face will frown,
and that will bring everybody down,
so don't worry, be happy!
A religion is a system of beliefs and behaviors. Each religion began in a different way, but always with someone laying out those behaviors and specifying those beliefs at some point. That is exactly the foundation of the Jedi system. However, due to it's lack of a blatantly spiritual nature, some would say it is more like Buddhism and less like Western religions. Others argue that it is based on an obviously false premise ("the Force"); this is no more or less valuable than an omniscient/omnipotent deity instilling an unprovable soul into humans.
Many people and cultures survive on varying levels of vegetarianism. Some for environmental or economic reasons, some for religious or belief reasons.
The human body can obtain all the nutrients necessary to survive from a variety of sources. It is by far more important to eat a diet with various fruits, vegetables, and grains than the opposite. In fact, there are serious health issues for those who eat mostly meat and too little other items.
If you believe the Bible, then God placed Mankind in charge of all of this world. It was given to humanity to maintain. People were charged with taking care of it and all that is within it. However, God knows human fallibility and tossed humans out of the perfect Garden of Eden. God does not expect people to be perfect nor keep this world a perfect garden. The choice people face is to attempt to restore the world to the perfect balance or continue to move further away from that ideal.
As mentioned in the debate link below, until we can cure homicidal, antisocial, rapists and murderers, all we can do is protect society by removing these individuals.
As mentioned in the debate link below, until we can cure homicidal, antisocial, rapists and murderers, all we can do is protect society by removing these individuals.
"what I doubt is that we can go back to business as usual." We already have.
"I doubt we can watch old white men fall asleep in their chairs as someone holds forth in the chamber." Sadly, we shall.
"The last thing I doubt is that anyone in this country will ever be the same, or think the same or do the same as they did the day before yesterday." Admittedly, we're all a little changed from day to day, but I think the big changes are yet to come. :)
I think we've discussed this quite a bit on CreateDebate:
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_abortion_be_legal
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/PRO_LIFE_vs_PRO_CHOICE_OBAMA_vs_McCAIN_VERSION
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Abortion_What_About_a_Man_s_Choice
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_Abortion_be_legal_2
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Federal_Aid_for_Abortions
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_there_ever_a_reason_for_partial_birth_abortion
Sometimes when we are sad, we just need to be sad for a while. Like the Elton John song says:
Guess there are times when we all need to share a little pain
And ironing out the rough spots
Is the hardest part when memories remain
And it's times like these when we all need to hear the radio
Because from the lips of some old singer
We can share the troubles we already know
Turn them on, turn them on
Turn on those sad songs
When all hope is gone
Why don't you tune in and turn them on
They reach into your room
Just feel their gentle touch
When all hope is gone
Sad songs say so much
If someone else is suffering enough to write it down
When every single word makes sense
Then it's easier to have those songs around
The kick inside is in the line that finally gets to you
and it feels so good to hurt so bad
And suffer just enough to sing the blues
Sad songs, they say so much
If the facility has a policy not to serve something, then they don't have to serve it; the customer can go elsewhere.
If I walked into an expensive restaurant and demanded a chilidog, would they do it, just because I'm a customer and customers are always right? Of course not.
Each business has an image to support and although customer satisfaction is one part of that image, food quality is also something which can make or break fancier places.
As much as some Dems would like to admit it, we need the Republicans. We, as in Americans as a whole, need a counterbalance to the Democrats. It'd be nice if we had several active parties on various "sides" of the political spectrum, but we'll settle for at least one opposition group with the ability to threaten those Dems who let this election get to their heads.
I beg to differ that there are no social, financial, or psychological arguments to support school uniforms. From http://muse.widener.edu/~egrozyck/
The biggest deterrent to a healthy school climate may be the lack of discipline and respect. The absence of a well-disciplined student body is a major problem in many school districts (Curriculum Review, 1994.) This is true in suburbs as well as cities. Too many students are preoccupied with how they look and what they wear, rather than their studies. Schools have become a stage for the latest fashion parade, deflecting away the attention from learning and achieving educational goals (LaPoint, 1993.)
School uniforms can create a sense of togetherness in a school building. This sense of togetherness can convey to the tax-paying public that schools are well managed because the students are under control due to their dress (Peters, 1996.) There is more of a socio-economic balance among the students with the wearing of uniforms. Students who attempt to make fashion statements through the wearing of designer clothing are virtually neutralized. School spirit is enhanced because a feeling of togetherness is created. The gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is narrowed due to uniforms (LaPoint, 1993.) Uniforms create social harmony due to the uniform look of similarly clothed students (Kaiser, 1985.)
Proponents of school uniforms claim that school safety would be improved through a mandatory uniform policy. Gang type clothing would be eliminated. Crimes such as theft of expensive clothing or footwear would be substantially reduced (McDaniel, 1996.) Intruders in school buildings could easily be spotted if all the students were wearing a similar style of dress (Forbes, 1994.).
Supporters of uniforms contend that the wearing of school uniforms affects students’ perception of school climate. Students feel as though they are part of a team, and according to Keith King of the University of Cincinnati, "The number one protective factor against school violence is having students feel connected to their school and that they fit in." (Wingert, 1999.) Student respect for teachers, administrators, and especially for each other would be improved with the institution of a mandatory uniform dress code. The sense of togetherness that a uniform policy would instill in a school can not be overstated. If students were all dressed in a similar fashion, the "playing field would be leveled." Each and every student would be similar. The students would spend more time concentrating on their school work, rather than on what their friends or they are wearing. There would be less ridicule of students due to their inability to dress in a style acceptable to the "in-crowd" (Manual on School Uniforms, 2000.)
With the high cost of clothing today, school uniforms can lift a financial burden from students’ families. The cost of designer clothing, and especially footwear, is expensive (Timely Tips: School Uniforms Debate, 2000.) School uniforms can be purchased at one-third the cost of most school outfits that are purchased in department stores. Three school uniforms can be purchased for under a hundred dollars.
School uniforms would assist students and parents in other ways. Students would learn to appreciate the elimination of so many choices when getting dressed for a school day. Students would not be tardy for school as often because of the indecision about what to wear in the mornings (Showalter, 1997.) Parents would know that what a student puts on in the morning is what they would wear at school. Students sometimes change to other outfits once their parents leave for work. Uniforms promote a "down to business" atmosphere because kids view them as work clothes rather than play clothes. Therefore, they take school more seriously than before the uniform code was instituted (Kaiser, 1985.)
At the very minimum, schools should address the issue of a dress code. It is not necessary for the code to be rigid. But it is necessary for the dress code to be reasonable and fair. The best interests of students and their welfare should be addressed. There is no magical solution to the stopping of school violence and the improvement of discipline. Much of this answer lies in the chemistry that exists in a school between students and staff. Uniforms might appear to the public as the cure-all for a schools’ ills, but the ultimate decision on behavioral change is made by the children themselves.
From http://www.buzzle.com/articles/
1. A school uniform makes it easier for the school authorities to recognize students belonging to their school. It also makes it somewhat tougher for those that don’t belong to slip in; unless, of course, they go to all the trouble of buying a uniform that fits.
2. A school uniform also saves the school administrators from having to police what the students wear. There are no daily battles regarding what’s appropriate or not for school.
3. A school uniform apparently also saves students from putting their fashion tastes before their learning requirements. When they don’t have to spend time wondering what to wear and how to make a fashion statement, they can devote more time to getting an education. Theoretically, that is.
4. Wearing the same type of dress reduces social snobbery and peer pressure in educational institutions. It is also supposed to reduce incidents of bullying and theft. How do you pick on someone for wearing the same dress as yourself? Why would you steal a pair of shoes you both have and can afford? I suppose there are ways and there are reasons, but fewer.
5. School uniforms cramp the style of gang members. They have to recognize each other by names and faces instead of by flaunting aggressively painted jackets, T-shirts with obscene messages, clunky jewelry, and things like that. Instead of ‘my gang’ and ‘your gang’, they also have to think in terms of ‘our school’. It’s a hard life. On the brighter side, it helps them to live another day and go on to survive in college.
6. A school uniform can instill a sense of discipline and community feeling. This naturally reduces incidents of violence. Students can come to school without worrying about personal safety. Teachers don’t have to double as guards, and can concentrate on teaching.
Other resources:
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Teachers/
http://712educators.about.com/cs/
Americans are no more or less obsessed with fame and celebrities than any other country or culture. It is natural for humans all over the world to fantasize about the rich and famous. By obsessing over what So-and-so is wearing and what Such-and-such said or how Someone-or-other does things is perfectly natural. There is a theory that such fascination is left over from a time when information was scarce and formal teaching was unheard of. By involving ourselves in the details of those more successful, we have always hoped that we could pick up on that "secret" or "magic" they have and learn to apply it.
Condoms and other forms of birth control and STD prevention should be available from puberty onward. Every person develops at a different pace and while some may not be sexually interested until 16 or later, others are interested as early as 12 or 13.
I think the difference here is between "religion" and "faith" or "belief". It has been the case throughout much of recorded history that the religion of an era, culture, or society has never reflect the complete spectrum of beliefs of that time and place. I do not think it is possible. But what the religion does reflect is the overall socially exceptable guidelines. God alone is not a guideline. If just knowing what is right were enough, no spiritual person would need laws. And, yet, even the mostly saintly good intentioned believer can end up in jail. While the most law-abiding, kind person can be a sinner.
People need religion, laws, social rules, and legal restrictions to help them make decisions. God alone is never enough--no matter how strong the faith.
RED:
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
Alaska
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Nebraska
South Dakota
Arkansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Albama
Tennessee
Kentuky
South Carolina
West Virginia
BLUE:
Washington
Hawaii
Oregon
California
Nevada
Colorado
New Mexico
Colorado
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Illinois
Michigan
New York
Pennsylvania
New York
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Virginia
North Carolina
Florida
Ohio
SWING:
Montana
North Dakota
Arizona
Missouri
Indiana
Ohio
Virgina
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Established electoral votes for Obama is 273; expected is 300-350.
But we'll just have to wait and see.
Like any other service, we use them because we cannot or choose not to do something ourselves.
Mostly, I go to my regular doctor to get prescriptions for things I cannot get OTC or naturally. Most people also prefer not to go to the doc unless something is bad enough they cannot handle it.
Admittedly, there are some overzealous parents who take their kids in at every sniffle or sneeze. But, likewise, there are those who refuse to pay or just aren't good enough parents to bother taking their kids in until its too late and the child ends up hospitalized--thousands of dollars of expenses which could have been just a small bill by preventative measures.
One thing I do know that we do too much is rely on antibiotics. However, that is still subject to debate and personal opinion.
Is this one of the reasons McCain is doing so badly in the polls? It's just one of oh, so many reasons. I'd say things like the economy and Republican corruption are much more influential, however.
Is it funny? Amusing, yes. Funny, no.
Does it miss the point? Heck no! It's right-on-target!
The facts speak for themselves.
This relates to the idea of a social (not just technological) singularity.
See http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Atheists who are fanatics abhor those who believe differently. Like Christian Fundamentalists, they refuse to accept the very possibility that some other view might be acceptable.
Atheists and Agnostics who understand that spirituality is an innate need in the human psyche can meet Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other believers halfway.
Likewise, those with faith must accept that there is a spectrum of belief and some lack the ability to merely take things on faith. They need to acknowledge that miracles are not enough for some, and smile openly upon those who embrace science as they embrace the Holy Texts.
I think where you're going is that any health care system suffers from a bureaucracy. I've dealt with the VA health care system and thank heavens I don't use them as my primary provider any more! Now if that were the way the gov't handled public health, we'd all be better off in another country. Fortunately, Medicare and the government employee insurance program are much better run.
Well, debt is good for some. Our entire world economy is built on lending, borrowing, building, and destroying.
One of my good friends has no credit cards, no debt, and no loans. This might seem good to some, but he cannot get a mortgage for a house or lease a car. He's stuck renting cheap apartments, paying higher insurance, and buying old, beatup cars because there is nothing on his credit report.
In our world, a little debt is a good thing. A lot of credit is a good thing. Too much debt or too little credit will ruin you. Of course, those are entirely subjective.
You cannot judge one program based upon a completely different one.
From the looks of a government-run military, do we want a government run space program? One has been overfunded and the other underfunded.
From the looks of government-backed education, do we want a government-backed bank system?
I think you see where I'm going here. And remember, the current government health system is the MOST efficient in the country.
There is nothing about Islam or any of the minority religions in Iraq that forbids education. They may choose not to teach Western history or certain aspects of science, but that doesn't prevent them from having mandatory education through the teenage years. In fact, Islam in it's unadulterated form REQUIRES indiscriminate education: all Muslims are required to be able to read the Qur'an and cannot do that without being literate.
Not all Iraqis are Fundamentalists. In fact, like most countries, most of the people are conservatively moderate. They want a decent life and lifestyle--including education. What has held them back has been overly vocal Fundamentalists and the wealthy and powerful bigots.
Again, there is nothing in Islam that forbids social or political equality. Many religious Muslim women vote and participate in the government of other Muslim nations. The changes will only be difficult and uncomfortable to a few. Sadly, these few often have the weapons, money and power.
If you would like to read a little about Islam, Democracy, and Human Rights, I have some textbooks from college I could recommend.
Although I never vote against funding for education, I feel that our educational system is fundamentally flawed. We need to throw it out an start from scratch. Since that will never happen, all we can do is patch the system and make do.
Part of the educational funding must include support for the families. Studies show that kids whose parents are involved do far better. We need to help single parents (and those working over 40 hrs a week) find the time to play a role in their children's education.
