Human cloning would be entirely beneficial for science, and the quality of life, in addition to helping the prosperity of the human race. It would save, create, and improve lives all over the world. This would be an amazing accomplishment for scientists and following this major milestone, who knows what we will discover next! Human cloning would help the human race, the world of science, and the age of technology. The government would be blind not to see the benefits and allow human cloning.

Clones would be the best organ donors. Imagine one of your folks suddenly gets cancer in her kidneys and she needs to have a transplant. Of course would try to do anything for him, you decide to be his donor. Then after the operation, his body rejects the new, foreign organ, and the kidney fails. The doctor says that the only way he would survive would be to find a kidney with the same type of tissue as his original, healthy tissue. The solution to your folk's problem and the answer to your prayers would be cloning. Because a clone is an exact copy, he would have no worries about his body accepting the organ or not. This would be the only way to save him. But there is just one problem, cloning humans is not legal. What is going to happen to your folk?

Human cloning would be a positive message for mankind, and an excellent opportunity for the advancement of science. In the past century, scientists have been hard workers in making numerous achievements, discoveries, and inventions, giving us the knowledge we have acquired about ourselves and about the world around us. For years, scientists have studied and made tremendous progress in cloning. Experts say that if cloning research was legal we could find better treatments, and perhaps even cures for many terrible diseases that so many of us suffer and die from each year. For example, AIDS. This is a well-known illness that damages the human immune system. There are treatments available, but statistics show that three million people die from AIDS each year, and yet so far, no one has been able to find a cure. With cloning, scientists could copy and create more white blood cells to fight off and kill the deadly virus. This would save millions of innocent lives. It would also help in making new medical discoveries and expand our knowledge. With new advancements, we could continue to explore, research, and learn- just as we have been doing for several years.

When dealing with censorship, another important thing that must be kept in mind is personal privacy. Not all material on the internet is meant to be pornography. Some people keep their personal material on the internet and share it with certain individuals. For example, videos or pictures shared to distant friends, it is only way of sharing, given their geographical location. There should not be any censorship for someone’s personal material because they are the only ones that should be viewing it anyway. If all private material were to be censored at all times, it would most definitely not be considered private.

Personally, I believe that the Internet should not be censored. Freedom of speech was given to us by the Constitution. The rights have been ours for centuries and should not be taken away today, in modern society. I think that some kind of compromise could be reached between censoring the Internet and protecting children.

The major argument for censorship that has accumulated the most attention deals with the protection of children. Statistics say that "75% of children ages 14-17 use the Internet and 65% of children ages 10-13 use the Internet" (NTIA). Children can access the Internet at home, at school, at public libraries or at a friend's house. There is so much indecent material on the Internet, such as pornography that children should not be exposed to. How many children have already been exposed to this type of material on the internet alone? That remains uncertain, however it takes merely curiosity driven from TV programs, or even a friend, for an underage child to go on the internet and view material beyond what is meant for them to see. These sites, while they may come with an X-rated warning to not enter unless over 18, are still accessible to children, or whomever wishes to enter. Given the fact that there are warnings on such sites, there is still no guarantee that the viewer is of legal age. Children who aren’t of age, are most likely not mature enough to be exposed to such material, therefore the potential of permanently affecting a child’s morality remains high.However there always remains two sides to every story. In this case,why not to censor the internet.

War is always unproductive because destruction and dead people are unproductive as well as the loss of valuable resources.

Wars do not contribute to progress and I am going to prove it.

At first, wars destroy buildings, statues and libraries. For example, the great Gothic cathedrals and buildings were destroyed in the 2nd World War. (1) The government buildings in York (now Toronto), the then capital of Upper Canada were also burned down by the Americans in April, 1813. The Burning of Washington in 1814 was an incident during the War of 1812. During World War II, Japanese military forces destroyed or partly destroyed numerous Chinese libraries, including libraries at the National University of Tsing Hua, Peking (lost 200,000 of 350,000 books), the University Nan-k'ai, T'ien-chin (totally destroyed, 224,000 books lost), Institute of Technology of He-pei, T'ien-chin (completely destroyed), Medical College of He-pei, Pao-ting (completely destroyed), Agricultural College of He-pei, Pao-ting (completely destroyed), University Ta Hsia, Shanghai (completely destroyed), University Kuang Hua, Shanghai (completely destroyed), National University of Hunan (completely destroyed)(2). All these arguments shows that a lot of buildings, statues and libraries were destroyed because of wars. As a result, books were burned, cultures were damaged. So, how wars can contribute progress, if all achievements and knowledge, that were reached during many years, are destroyed in one day.

Secondly, wars do not contribute progress, because it carry death of thousand people. Statistics (3) shows that, during the World War II, over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population. Many people died because of diseases, poverty and starvation. That means there could not be any progress in such situations. Wars carry only destroying and death.

You are right x420xHustler,so why nobody asks the question:How did ancients survive without money and if someone thinks that the world crash and burn?

However, no one actually wonders whether happiness exist if there is no money. Of course it is - if it is a personal pleasure and happiness - without it or not.

Maybe even if you live somewhere in the country, alone or together with someone - then even more so you can cope without money.But,on the other hand,sometimes you need them,but still...If there is no money in the whole world-so let it be no problems,no lies,no jealousy

Of course it would take time...Rome wasn't build in one day. Or maybe money would be substituted by another paying system...?