I don't think so. I understand why other people do it (to an extent...) but for me personally, I would never be able to draw a blade to another human being. That's strictly a metaphor: I'm also anti death penalty, etc.

Absolutely. No questions asked. It is silly to even think otherwise.

I'm a public school teacher, and I find it slightly insulting that an organization like TFA can "train" college graduates, who may have majored in business, or neuroscience, or anthropology, and give them the opportunity to take job opportunities away from licensed teachers and be given the chance at influencing our youth without any institutional pedagogical knowledge.

I see the value in what they're doing, visiting primarily low income areas and providing a fresh new perspective in the field, but I think it would be more helpful to recruit actual teachers to come into these areas: give them incentives, do something to make teaching in those areas more attractive.

No one is arguing that chopping a woman's arm off from her body will allow that arm to live on its own.

DNA may be present inside of the organism that rests inside of the uterus, but my skin cells have DNA too. We're not going to make a law making it illegal to exfoliate.

But to make the argument that a baby's life begins at conception is just as, if not more, ludicrous than the idea that a baby is nothing more than a leech waiting inside of a uterus in order to reach the point of sustainable life. A zygote is VERY different than a human.

It IS a woman's body, and it IS a woman's choice. A woman's uterus is essentially a breeding ground for the potential of a human life to develop -- is it a sin when a woman miscarries? After all, she indirectly had a hand in the destruction of a human life.

What about if a woman gets raped, either by a relative of hers or by a complete stranger? Was it HER body, HER choice for her body to be mutilated by a man? The argument you present would insist that a woman MUST go through with her pregnancy regardless of the terms, whether it be rape, incest, or whether the woman's life is in danger as a result of the pregnancy. We no longer live in the 1700s, we do not have to live by the archaic rules of society set forth for us back then. We are a progressive society by nature and we should allow women the opportunity to exercise complete control over their bodies -- whether or not they decide to abort their pregnancy is THEIR choice, NOT yours.

I think this question is far too overreaching. There are some obvious drugs that should not be legalized --- I, for one, don't want a country where people are driving on opium poppies, serving me my coffee while tripping on LSD or riding their bike down the road on mushrooms -- but I do think it is appropriate to legalize the "drugs" that have shown no negative effects toward the human body and are grown and produced naturally (ie; marijuana, salvia, etc.)

To even consider marijuana a drug is a sin, fueled only by racist Congressmen in the 1930s who wanted to mitigate the profit that Mexicans made as they brought the marijuana into the country and sold it to the masses.

Do you mean that drugs should not be legalized because it will increase crime?

You're right, I did, but that is hardly within the scope of this debate. Perhaps we could create a new debate where it would be appropriate to discuss that.

It is addressed, though. It is in the Constitution of our country that in those circumstances, there is a specific way to address the problem.

Can you elaborate on how you feel that some citizens' votes matter more than others? I guess I'm still confused about this concept, considering that each citizens votes eventually go toward a state's allocated amount of Presidential "votes" (electors,) meaning that in some way, people did have a direct hand in rewarding a Presidential candidate actual "votes."

Again, I'm not belittling you, just trying to understand your perspective.

That's an entirely different argument outside of the scope of this specific debate.