It may be their body, but the baby inside has the rights to live

It should be banned, a baby, be it fully developed or not is still a life, it is not right to take away a life, and abortion may harm to mother too, in other words, abortion should be banned. If it is not right to take away a persons life, then why is it legal to take away a babies life, not even a more than 9 months alive? The baby can feel too, they have life too.

Your counter argument is invalid, you had already contradicted yourself in what you had said two days ago,

"Yes, and it should be the punishment for most crimes.

At one time if you stole a horse, you got hung. If the death penalty existed for thieves, you wouldn't have to lock your doors.

Death to all, that break the law."

Since you had said death to all, that break the law, then kicking in considered as violating once human rights according to the international law on human rights article 7 and article 17.

Your counter argument timed 12hours 17 minutes ago was an assumption, in fact these may be an direct insult to law enforcers too, "Anybody that deems this to be unfair is no doubt a thief themselves or they wouldn't have a problem with this.", i think that this is an unfair action, in other words, you are actually trying say that i am a thief, so where's your statistics and proofs? The court talks about evidence and not assumptions.

Since many lawyers and law makers, including the member of united nations, would deem this penalty as unfair, you are actually trying to say that all this people are actually thieves, which you have thus violated their human rights on article 19 of the international law on human rights, as you are not respecting the reputations of others.

What is equality in law? As accordance to the international law on human rights, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,

However is this really achieved? If yes, why is there still wars all over the world?

If we are all equal in the eyes of law, there will be peace in the world...

Of course dogs then cats, dogs can bark!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Banning coffee is definitely not necessary, what for? Coffee although contains caffeine, have you seen many people dying from drinking coffee rather than smoking?

In addition, there is numerous health benefits from drinking coffee.

But, please remember that the international law is currently used in the present. Second, do you mean that if you kick a person and he sues you for assault, you will get a death penalty?

Have you considered the effects of such laws? If any crimes will lead to death penalty, eventually a riot will take place against law enforcers and the civilians, causing major chaos around the world. So is this the type of happiness you are hoping for?

But according to Darwin's theory of natural selection, it states that Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. It states that human evolve from monkey where monkey fossil is found at enocene period, 55million years ago, the monkey are evolve from other species which means DNA of humans always lived together with dinosours

You mean death to all that break the law? Which means the judge would break the law too. Because by giving a death penalty, the judges are taking away a life too. Now lets take a look at the international law on human rights, article 6 -

PART III

Article 6

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.

3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.

5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.

6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.

So, death penalty should only be implemented according to the severity of the crime.

Women should be legally prevented from smoking, in an angle of law, although article 1 of the international law on human rights, civil and political section states that,

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

However, does it mean that the child in the mothers stomach has the rights to want to stay healthy and grow as a normal child? If the babies were borned abnormal, it would be for life, the get the pain for life, whereas the mother only gets the pain when she starts smoking the that was what she chooses to. The baby will most probably not have a choice to choose whether he/she wants to lead a normal or abnormal life due to the mother smoking.

Now lets look at some negative effect that will inflict on the child if the mother smokes - Babies born to women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to be born:

With birth defects such as cleft lip or palate

Prematurely

At low birthweight

Underweight for the number of weeks of pregnancy

Babies born prematurely and at low birthweight are at risk of other serious health problems, including lifelong disabilities (such as cerebral palsy, mental retardation and learning problems), and in some cases, death. So in the welfare of the child the pregnant women be legally prevented from smoking.

Furthermore, although the mother can destress when smoking and this is proven by scientist in Switzerland, it still remains a fact that smoking will accompany diseases, child can get borned with defects and mother will also be affected.

Here are some of the diseases the mother can get when smoke during pregnancy - Women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to have:

An ectopic pregnancy

Vaginal bleeding

Placental abruption (placenta peels away, partially or almost completely, from the uterine wall before delivery)

Placenta previa (a low-lying placenta that covers part or all of the opening of the uterus)

A stillbirth

Thus, I conclude that women should be legally prevented from smoking during pregnancy.

Children should not use computers in schools in order to save paper, these is because the waste produced in using the computer may be equivalent to the negative effects caused when making paper.

When we use computers, electrical energy is needed to power in computers, in these case, in the process where electricity is produced, the two most used and famous processes used in order to produce electricity is actually the burning of fossil fuels and usage of nuclear energy.

These are the details in creating energy through nuclear means and burning of fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuels

In a coal or oil fired power station, the fuel is burned, converting its chemical energy into heat and the heat used to convert water into steam at very high temperature and pressure. This then drives a steam turbine, a device which harnesses the energy in the steam, heat and pressure to produce rotational movement, mechanical energy. The rotating shaft of the steam turbine is coupled to the armature of the alternator, so the final result is electricity.

The fuel is burned, when fuel is burned it produces carbon dioxide, what happens if there is excessive carbon dioxide? Greenhouse effect will occur and eventually leading to global warming.

Nuclear Energy

This is the controversial one. Nuclear fission is a process in which unstable (radioactive) atomic nuclei break down, releasing energy in the form of radiation (escaping particles). By concentrating these nuclei together, a controlled chain reaction is produced releasing huge amounts of energy which is used to convert water into steam. The process of generating electricity in a nuclear power plant is simply by steam turbine, exactly the same as in a fossil fuel plant. The public fear of nuclear power is twofold: the risk of meltdown - an uncontrolled nuclear reactor is not very different from an 'atomic' bomb; also the by-product, radioactive nuclear waste, is none too pleasant.

As an aside - Nuclear energy does not obey the classical Physics law of conservation of Energy. It does however obey the Modern Physics law of conservation of Mass-Energy which allows for interconversion of matter and energy according to Einstein's famous equation E=mc² This fundamental difference means that Nuclear Energy is potentially the most fruitful source of all. It is important that proper scientific research & development into nuclear energy, and Nuclear Fusion in particular, should be allowed to continue.

If in any case that the nuclear power plant has some problems and leaks radiation, it causes more pollution and kill more living organisms, including trees. In other words, less trees will be able to make papers. Currently, there is already two serious nuclear leakage problems, Chernobyl and Japan, Fukushima.

Therefore I conclude that to save paper, children should not use computers in school as the create computer waste.

Firstly, I would like to define corporal punishment, Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with an implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings.

Corporal punishment should not be allowed, because as accordance to the international law on human rights, set by the Geneva Convention in Switzerland, Part II, Article 7, No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. Since the child are so small, they should not be getting corporal punishment.

Not matter how qualified the teachers and the principals in the school is, they should not use corporal punishment on students, such punishment are considered cruel to small students that is still in school.

I hereby give two reasons why corporal punishment should be disallowed, Canada banned corporal punishment in 2004. No European country permits corporal punishment. So far, the United States Congress has not acted on requests from organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union to enact federal legislation banning corporal punishment. Since education is widely viewed as a local and state matter, any further banning of corporal punishment will probably have to occur at that level. If, on the other hand, the federal government were to withhold funding from states where corporal punishment is legal, the local authorities might be more inclined to pass the appropriate laws.

In addition, Corporal punishment is not allowed in the military, mental institutions and prisons. But it is still legal to hit students in 20 states. The research shows that children who are beaten and abused are more likely to be prone to depression, low self-esteem and suicide. The simple fact that corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure is not part of any education curriculum indicates that educators at every level know that corporal punishment has no place in the classroom. Discipline can and should be taught be example.

Most leading professional associations oppose corporal punishment in all its forms. The reason why is that they feel it causes irreparable emotional damage to young people.

Therefore, due to the physical and physiological barrier that may occur to a child, corporal punishment should be disallowed in school

Social networking does not replace alive relationships, however, it actually improves real life relationships of friends and families. Most people used social networking to keep up their offline relationship, in other words they use social networking to improve their relationship after their real life relationships. Researches had also shown that social networking improves the relationships of people.

Students play very little roles or stand no chances in fighting corruption, in schools, when students are trying explain themselves or try to stand against their point, an argument may occur. In this case, normally the teachers will punish the students as according to defiance. How can the student fight corruption when they will be punished when they do it? In the social world, students may be known as "Small kids" and not exposed to the outside world, or is it just the fact that the adults do not give them the chance to express themselves? Therefore I conclude that students plays a little role in fighting corruption, because they may not have a chance to or fighting corruption may lead them into more serious troubles.

Talking in science terms, it is a matter of time that the sun will burn out one day, when that happens, Earth will not have sunlight, thus, the plants cannot photosynthesis as there is no sunlight, one of the conditions in order for the plants to photosynthesis, when the plants cannot photosynthesis, they cannot make food, which means the food chain is broken, animals will not have their source of food, ultimately, the human race will not have food too and wipe out.

In another science perspective, in the Kepler's law, formerly known as Hubble's law, "If the universe is finite in extent and the cosmological principle (not to be confused with the cosmological constant) does not apply, and the expansion speed does not exceed the escape velocity, then the mutual gravitational attraction of all its matter will eventually cause it to contract. If entropy continues to increase in the contracting phase (see Ergodic hypothesis), the contraction would appear very different from the time reversal of the expansion. While the early universe was highly uniform, a contracting universe would become increasingly clumped. Eventually all matter would collapse into black holes, which would then coalesce producing a unified black hole or Big Crunch singularity.

The Hubble Constant measures the current state of expansion in the universe, and the strength of the gravitational force depends on the density and pressure of the matter and in the universe, or in other words, the critical density of the universe. If the density of the universe is greater than the critical density, then the strength of the gravitational force will stop the universe from expanding and the universe will collapse back on itself. Conversely, if the density of the universe is less than the critical density, the universe will continue to expand and the gravitational pull will not be enough to stop the universe from expanding. This scenario would result in the 'Big Freeze', where the universe cools as it expands and reaches a state of entropy.[1] Some theorize that the universe could collapse to the state where it began and then initiate another Big Bang, so in this way the universe would last forever, but would pass through phases of expansion (Big Bang) and contraction (Big Crunch)

Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernova as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) has led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating. However, since the nature of the dark energy that is postulated to drive the acceleration is unknown, it is still possible (though not observationally supported as of today) that it might eventually reverse sign and cause a collapse. Dark energy is, however, still a speculative theory." If that happens human race will also die out.

Thus, I conclude that the human race will die out