A blanket prohibition against talking to strangers may adversely affect the child's ability to function in society. A store clerk is a stranger, a police officer is a stranger, and most teachers are strangers. While this sort of prohibition may make sense for very young children, we must begin teaching them how to discern when a situation is potentially dangerous as soon as possible. Of course we should teach them to err on the side of caution.....
no.its not a planet.According to the new definition, a full-fledged planet is an object that orbits the sun and is large enough to have become round due to the force of its own gravity. In addition, a planet has to dominate the neighborhood around its orbit.
Pluto has been demoted because it does not dominate its neighborhood. Charon, its large "moon," is only about half the size of Pluto, while all the true planets are far larger than their moons.
Yes they are ruder because they are inconsiderate and impolite
The younger generation these days are indeed ruder than the older generation in terms of attitude towards others. Studies have shown that neighbors were ignored by nearly 35 percent of the younger generation as compared to only 15 percent of the older generation (aged 55 and above). Towards people who that they come into contact with everyday, the younger generation do not bother greeting and there is no form of acknowledgement.
The younger generation are ruder as they are getting expose to the flaws in the society at a much younger age compared to the past
YES! The current generation is negatively affected by this modern age. for example, youngsters are picking up bad moral values and bad habits online such as vulgarities, ungracious acts etc. it is no wonder that our younger generation are becoming more self-centered and are only concerned about themselves
Yes. We are more apathetic and less considerate towards other people as we live in a fast paced society and we only care ourselves.
What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.
Even one-celled creatures are alive.
What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature.
The nature of the life in the woman is human.
It is the product of human DNA; therefore, its nature, its essence, is undeniably human.
Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby.
Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities.
A person born without arms and legs is still human.
A person who cannot speak is still human.
A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person.
What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, bird, or fish. It has human nature.
If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it?
If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human?
If so, then from where did it get this different nature, since the only sources of its nature are human egg and human sperm?
Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it's okay to kill it. So, it doesn't make any difference with a fetus.
Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is -- not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But the fertilized egg of a human is, by nature, that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of muscle or skin cells because these do not grow into humans. Therefore, a human cell and a human egg are not the same thing.
A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell.
To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.
Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature.
Children should not work.The World Day today is a reminder that there are still 215 million children against whom the crime of child labour is being committed. 115 mullion children, amounting to 1 out of 7 children in worst forms of child labour, that 11 years ago we pledged to our children.child labor, any activity that entails physical or mental harm or preventing the child from going to school. Most of child labor is caused by the imperial need to survive.
One does not have to look much farther than test tube babies or genetic engineering to see that science has long had the ability to change and create life in a variety of forms. The more cogent question is whether or not such a creation is morally correct in our eyes.
i think celebrities are merely using their 'celebrity status ' to influence the vote. And to the effect, the mainstream media appears to be reaping in the benefits (which should come as no surprise.) It is also possible that said celebrities may in fact be donating or inadvertantly advertising for a specific candidate, it is in fact possible afterall.
Here are a few examples of celebrities using their 'celebrity status' to influence the vote: Spencer Pratt (another The Hills cast member), Donald Trump, Chuck Norris, Daddy Yankee (PuertoRican Rapper), Jon Stewart (of the Daily Show), Angelina Jolie, and many more other celebrities as well. so in my views celebrities use their status for political influence
yes ..ofcourse...........i want to tell u the same thing.when u go for interview or for any job u dont get job by ur emotions...........jst only because of ur talent that u hav. No 1 gives job by seeing others emotions they only want profit of their company.......which can only happen through a talent not by emotions.............so........... in matters of job only talent matters a lot.not emotions........
Actually what are human beings. The oldest defination that comes to my mind says- human beings are rational animals. Rational means based on reasons , than on emotions. This rationality of humans make them different from other animals. So man is made up of logic than of emotions.We see a variety of Incidents in life. When we see beggars or poor people asking for food or anything, we never feel PITY for them. All these words sounds good only in books. We call it EMOTIONS. if so, then what were the reason behind the two World Wars and every other war. Why don't we have our EMOTIONS there.
u r in favour of this debate...bt u r writing ur points in against of this topic...isnt it.....u r telling that they want to help beggar.bt who helps them...they only think ,bt they dont do that ........this means that human is not bundle of emotions.......if they will give only rs10 to that begger they will not become poor isnt it...
...
