Why are some people "pro-choice"?
I think I would be more liberal and democrat if only I could elect a pro-life canidate.. I know this is a very touchy subject but it is one that I feel to strongly about to stay quiet. Please please read.. It is not just for religious reasons that I am against it, but also for ethical reasons: a.)While women indeed have rights to control her body, that right has limits (like all rights). b.)Biologically, the fetus is not part of her body. a.)No child should ever feel unwanted. b.)In my country (USA) thousands of married couples would love to adopt a new-born infant. a.)There should be opposition to the conditions that lead to abortion, not to the baby. b.)Discrimination to women in the work force, poverty, lack of adequate health care and child care. *In order to take a stand against abortion, we must take a stand against the conditions that lead into it. However, do you remember a time you wanted to stand up for the voiceless? Like the poor, or discriminated people. Well who is more voiceless than a fetus? Source(s): I am definately pro-life. I might not of been here today if my mom had an abortion, and beautiful people like Bono or Martin Luther King Jr. could have been aborted. When a fetus is terminated, (as hard as it is to realize, it is very sad) we risk someone who could of made a beautiful impact in this world, and someone who could help lead this world more into one of peace and tolerance.
Why is abortion such a touchy subject?
I guess it's such a touchy subject since it covers the topic of women's rights, religion and government. (Not necessarily all, but I've noticed this). Whether it's pro-choice or pro-life, some people believe that forcing their ideas on others will really change other people, when it really just annoys/angers them. It's a controversy whether life begins at conception or at the birth of the child. I do agree with you how hypocritical it is alot of the times for people say 'it's ok for the death penalty', yet abortion is wrong. In their definition of life, aren't they both the same thing? I personally don't think it's anybody's right to tell me what is right or wrong about my body. I don't think anybody has the right to judge me if they don't know me or before they've walked down the path of both situations.
Should the death penalty be brought back in South Africa?
I believe the death penalty will instill a sense of fear and also re- establish the worth of human life. People are doing the most gruesome things to others and people just have to except that a life sentence is 25years? After that they are able to go back into society. A few years ago I would not have made this statement, because I believed that no human had he right to take or deem someone to death. But what about the person’s life that was taken from him. I guess what I am trying to say is that people should be held better accountable for their actions.
What are some good topics for writing a death penalty essay?
Some good topics for writing a death penalty essay focus on the pros and cons of capital punishment. Like abortion, there are few topics that have such powerful arguments in support and against as the death penalty. As one of the few countries in the world where it is still practiced, capital punishment in the United States has been the source of an enormous amount of controversy in recent years. Based on this ongoing controversy, some salient topics for writing a death penalty essay include the following: (1) “Is the death penalty effective as a deterrent to violent crime?”; (2) “Why are there such drastic racial disparities in the application of the death penalty?”; (3) “Why have some states banned the death penalty while others continue to use it?”; (4) “What type of capital punishment is regarded as most humane?”; and (5) “Is the death penalty congruent with the tenets of restorative justice?”
Death of the Hired Man help!?
“The Death of the Hired Man,” pits wife and husband in a confrontation over infirmity and self-esteem. As Mary and Warren tiptoe around a touchy subject—old Silas’ return to the farm on the pretense of performing short-term labor—they debate indirectly the question of values. Mary, who shelters tender feelings, wants Warren to lower his voice to spare Silas the insult of Warren’s disdain for him. As for the question of having Silas ditch the meadow, an unnecessary task, Mary assures Warren that the ruse is a “humble way to save [Silas’] self-respect.” The couple’s low-key debate featuring the dynamics of feminine mode versus masculine mode resurrects the confrontation between actively doing and passively existing. Warren is a doer. His physicality clashes on prickly occasions when he can’t see the logic in merely being a friend to Silas. The opposite of Warren is Mary, who recognizes that Silas feels outclassed by Harold Wilson, the self-important collegian, whose academic accomplishments outrank Silas’ skill in bunching hay into “big birds’ nests.” At the crux of the confrontation, Mary speaks the poet's most beloved aphorism: “Home is the place where, when you have to go there, / They have to take you in.” The homely, almost stumbling cadence conceals the altruism of Mary’s gift of grace. Lest the reader doubt the poet's poetic thrust, he ends with three linked images—”the moon, the little silver cloud, and she”—a metaphorical preface to Warren’s squeeze on the hand and somber announcement that Silas has died. note: The most striking style is the conversational technique.
Why Isn't Exsanguination Humane For Death Row Inmates?
I just read an article about a death row inmate who took nearly two hours to die after lethal injection. Moreover, I wanted to ask why prisoners aren't executed through a controlled method of exsanguination in lieu of the costly and controversial procedure that's used today? I have little to no medical knowledge, but would like to know if drawing blood (in this case, to the point of going into shock and dying) is potentially more humane than the latter method.
Why are politics and religion such touchy subjects?
They are two subjects that people feel very passionate about.
Why can't we put someone to death and bring them back?
We can.But from the perspective of a scientist, we choose not to, and have built in safeguards to discourage this from happening.To break it down further:You will never get funded.Human subject research is a touchy topic ever since WWII. Without a substantive reason that demonstrates that knowing what happens is worth learning about from a medical perspective, personal or private funding is the only possible option, and sketchy at best. We do not toy with human life to satisfy our curiosity.You will not find many willing test subjects or staff.Putting people to death is borderline to outright illegal in many countries. Finding people who are willing to risk death is also difficult.Assisting with the research would just be self-incrimination as an accomplice to manslaughter.You will never get published.No scientific journal would publish data acquired via methods that violated professional ethical standards. The premise of scientific research is reproducibility, which this is not.Ultimately, an answer exists and can be found, but even if it is, it is unlikely to ever become accepted as literature unless the methods complied with our strict standards for using human subjects for experiments.
Euthanasia Debate: Pros & Cons?
This is a difficult question to answer objectively. It's hard to be objective when it comes to human suffering. It's hard to be "factual" about pain and misery, which is so subjective. The Pros: Would stop the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients. Would decrease health care expenses of families and insurances for the care of terminally ill patients- I know this sounds callous, but I'm trying to be objective. Reinforces the right of an individual to make decisions about their life- along the same lines as a living will. The Cons: I really can't think of any except for possible unethical situations, such as a doctor euthanizing a patient who did not want it. The decision would have to have been made by the patient, while still of sound mind, while comfortable (not in such a state of severe pain that it would effect their decision making abilities), but yet not under the effect of so much pain medication that it would effect their decision making abilities. The decision could not be made by family members, who could have their own agenda. The decision could not be influenced by insurance companies.