It should be property-the musician or producer spent buckets of time and money on their project. Don't they deserve to get money back? Money is just like energy-money is almost never destroyed, just converted into labor, time spent, and more money. If the creator of the property put in labor, time, and money (money as incentive to keep inventing (profit), and money to cover for all previous costs), he/she deserves it all back. Because they can't get time and labor back, then they deserve profit, covering money, and money to make up for labor and time.

Everything is property-including intellectual property.

Copyright is copyright. Every time that someone downloads something for free online instead of paying the owner, the owner will be getting neither proper recognition nor money, which is morally and fiscally wrong. If there are no buys and sales in the U.S. anymore except for food and online services, then all the small companies that innovate the original ideas will have to shut down, and all entrepreneurs and inventors will lose their jobs. This will hurt the economy because there will be no taxes, and will also stifle the creativity of all people in the world. It will also effectively render any invention incapable of being made public for fear that the inventor will not make money. Do you want to live in a world with a terrible economy, heartbroken people, and no inventions to save us from whatever happens next in our lives that could be deemed dangerous? I don't think so. So support the PIPA and SOPA.

Well, he technically doesn't suck in its literal term, as he has a wife, but he was not a good president. Actually, neither of them were.

Well, humans wouldn't have so big of an ego if they didn't think they were better because of their religion. It is true that racism and wars are not caused directly by religion, but people have crafted them around religion, and thereby linking them. You cannot argue that people have not used religion as an excuse to treat others terribly. And if you say that religion is good, then shouldn't the head of those religions (namely the gods/priests) kick out all the bad people so they don't hurt other innocent people anymore? If religions won't be used to help save lives, and will not degrade immoral people within the religious group, then that group will have to face the consequences of others stereotyping against them.

Well, you can't be God if he doesn't exist. And if he did exist, why wouldn't he want to make everyone believe in him? If someone said to my friend, "That Joe guy (me) doesn't exist," I would walk right up to them and punch them in the face (thereby proving I do exist).

Well, I personally normally favor offensive tactics over defensive, because an offensive pokemon that's quick can normally withstand a few battles in a row, while a defensive one uses up all of its pp early on. However, Rampardos isn't fast enough to qualify as a good offensive pokemon, while a Bastiodon can spend hours fighting the elite four, as Bastiodon can also learn strong attacks that have high pp. Also, with steel poison is uneffective, which destroys anyone playing smog or poisonpowder. So Bastiodon earns my vote.

If a woman/girl is in danger of dying from having a baby, and was either raped or unaware of the fact that she was having sex (because they have never been educated), then they should have the right to not get physically hurt from having the baby or waste 9 months of their life, having to take time off from work to care for a baby she will give up anyway–if it even survives. If she doesn't die from having the baby, she will still be in a position of a weaker person. She will be less fit, and might even lose her job because she had to take a maternity leave.

My mother was 26 when she got pregnant with her first child. My father and she were very happy–until 4 months in when she found out that her baby, who she had already named Sarah, had a severe heart condition, where even if it did survive past birth (less than 1% chance), would have serious handicaps its entire life. Is it fair to cause Sarah to feel complete pain and suffering her entire life? At least with the abortion that my mother got, Sarah could feel no pain. She wanted that baby more than anything or anyone else in the world, and her heart was broken that she could not deliver the joy to Sarah that Sarah had first given to her. For three years my mother did not try to have a baby again, and those three years were the hardest of her life.

I agree that it's horrible for a woman to abort a child because they can't afford it, or don't want it, in those cases they should put the baby up for adoption. But if the baby or the woman is in extreme danger, then the woman has the right to choose. If you honestly think that it could be legalized for rape, but not for anything else, then how would you judge if it were rape or not? Even if the person could get consent from a judge, by then the baby would be even closer to being born and have more nerves that could feel the pain. Abortion must be either legal or illegal, and it is unfair to cause people like my mother to have even more emotional suffering. So I cast my vote for abortion being legal.

P.S. I may only be a 14 year old boy, but I have extensive knowledge on political fronts and current events, and my education thus far has been one of the best available to a public school. It has also been scientifically proven that children on average can see the correct answers to problems more easily than adults if given the same amount of knowledge because they have less emotional backgrounds that will impair their logic.