I hope the conflit in ukraina will solve it and I aprecciate that those people are fighting for theyr country .
I want to run for US president later on in years. What should I talk about? Let me know?
Hello, I am twelve yrs old and I hope that I will someday run for a US persiend.
Here are my ideas:
1# Medcal care should be free. ( To be honest, most of the US healthcare system should be re-written.)
#2 Adbrotson should be legal (unless it is rape).
#3 To urge more people to be aware of climate change. BUT we should be sending trillions of dollars on it either.
#4 If you kill someone out of self-defense you should be charged with something. I am not saying murder/manslaughter though. But you did end a life...
#5 Books should be banned just because a group of people feels offended by them.
- this is just my opinion, pls don't come at me- I probably will update later ( I am still 12 still learning new things) see you then! Sorry if there are any grammar or spelling mistakes. BYE!!
| 18734 - Reply from Josiah A.208 , 16 yrs (United States) - 2022-04-22 |
| Hello, Malaya. Good job on standing up for what you believe in. Don't let the haters degrade you. America may be divided, but I believe that our generation of people (Gen Z) can make a big change in today's society.
| 18727 - Reply from Sophie11 , 16 yrs (UK) - 2022-03-27 |
|1. Obviously coming from the UK, "free" healthcare is a luxury - i say "free" because we use tax-payer money to pay for the healthcare. BUT, the issue with the UK's healthcare system is that it is wildly underfunded by the Conservative government - so yes and no, the healthcare system in the US shouldn't be free - but it should be cheaper, and easier to access healthcare
2. ALL abortion should be legal - if you criminalise abortion you are only banning SAFE abortions, people who can get pregnant (and don't want kids) will still have an abortion
3. books shouldn't be banned just because a group of people are offended by them, banning a book - say Animal Farm by George Orwell, which has a lot of socialist/anti-capitalist views within them, teaches people valuable lessons, like challenging the status quo of a society.
I also think that you should be commended for taking an interest in politics at such a young age
| 18710 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (United States) - 2021-12-12 |
|I don't agree with a lot of things you said, but keep developing your views!|
| 18708 - Reply from Hazel75 , 11 yrs (USA) - 2021-11-18 |
|I'm confused. Which parts should be legal and which ones shouldn't be? Cause if you say "Abortions should be legal (unless it's ****)" that seems like you shouldn't be able to have one if it is ****.|
| 18707 - Reply from Malaya156 , 12 yrs (USA) - 2021-11-18 |
|Sorry, I just noticed that I spelled abortions wrong. Sorry.|
I have been planning, and thinking of running for a high political office once I reach the required age to do so. If I do win, my plans entail-
-Fully separating church and state in the US, you shouldn't have to swear to a god you don't believe in, in an anthem, and or court (though exceptions have already been made to the latter). Mind you, this doesn't mean I am for the persecution of any religion, they should still be protected under the 1st Amendment.
-A basic healthcare system available to all Americans, while at the same time not eradicating competitive insurance agencies. This also will not be felt on the middle and lower class (I will explain later)
-Full rights for the LGBTQ+ community such as the ability to adopt.
-Personally I have no issue with the second amendment, however I think we must limit what Americans can and cannot own (not extensively but people shouldn't be keeping anti-tank rifles in their basement) and have extensive background checks. At the same time to counteract mass shootings we need to have a comprehensive and free therapist and psychologists to provide people with the mental help they need.
- Free upper education, we need to stay competitive with the rest of the world and increase the amount of people who are college educated.
-Increased taxes based on the wealthiest citizens, while also decreasing military budget.
-Increased wages for military personnel, including a major system to help battle ptsd and other mental health issues. (Just one of many changes to the military, might make a post to explain it later).
-Terms for senators and representatives (I am thinking 8 (maybe 10) years max)
-Clean energy (which includes; but is not limited too) Nuclear power, hydropower and solar panels.
-Using our words, not first to improve our international strength.
-Subsidizing the creation of small and medium businesses
-Decreasing political power of western ranchers (ask me about this, its a weird one)
-Fixing immigration crisis; blocking them off isn't moral or going to work for long, and we cannot let them all in. The third option is improving their home countries and hopefully causing the immigration flow to slow.
-Greater effort in space exploration; coupled with an international alliance of the major powers to explore space, hopefully improving Earthside relations.
-Decreasing pay-wage gap
-Reclaiming American manufacturing ability through subsidization.
-Decreasing congressional wages
Feel free to debate any ideas with me.
| 18744 - Reply from Gianna127 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-06-16 |
|I'm really sorry again for my delay... I really need to work on replying to people faster.
It seems we've traveled in a full circle... Gay adoption. I still stand by my view that children need a mother and father to thrive. Having both parents ensures the child the ability to converse and interact with both sexes. Statistically, children are much more successful and at less risk of mental illness with their natural parents. However, when this is unattainable, heterosexual couples are the next with success and mental stability. In a study done by American sociologist Paul Sullins it was found that emotional problems are over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents, problems including but not limited to misbehavior, worrying, depression, relationships with peers, and inability to concentrate. True, being brought up by a same-sex couple, divorced parents, or a single parent might be better than spending their childhood in an orphanage, there is no doubting that the best situation for the children is for a heterosexual couple to adopt them. It's for this reason, although I'm certainly planning to adopt once I'm married, that I've chosen not to adopt while I'm in my current state of solitude and confiding in my dog. I also still believe that a same-sex union is immoral, but that isn't related to the point of abortion. However, if you would want to, I'd be happy to debate this topic again.
I was under the impression that the new entity would take the place of Planned Parenthood; it would help the family support the newborn/unborn child, as well as help with adoption if needed. Did you have a different idea about what this new organization would do?
In your opinion, what should the universal background checks consist of? Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I always remembered that a criminal always has a first crime, before which they were innocent and seemingly harmless. Likewise, the shooter appeared harmless until he went into the school, so no one could really have prevented it. It's tragic, but I feel that there isn't much that can happen in regards to preventing shootings. They are often unpredictable.
I do think physical training for police officers would be helpful. Not necessarily being nitpicky with them about doing a certain amount of exercise each day, but encouraging them and reminding them to keep in good shape. I haven't looked too far into it, and I'm not extremely certain about how police officers function, but I've heard that the officers were unable to go into the school by an order, and that they had to wait for a more capable team to show up. Of course, going into the school might have helped, but at the same time they were being held back by orders. Again, I'm not entirely sure how true this is, but I've heard this from a few sites.
| 18743 - Reply from Jack 100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-28 |
|I would like to take back my words about calling all police cowards, it is simply not true. The two officers who did lead the charge we incredibly brave and I hope for their health. Most other officers around the country are brave as well, I just wish more action was taking to prevent this.|
| 18742 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-28 |
|I agree, it is definitely a very difficult matter. Frankly there is far more I could learn about the subject before I make any major assertions over it. However, based on my knowledge I would say a system similar to Big Brothers/Big Sisters, where adults and youth could take out a child for the day from an orphanage or foster care system. It would help them develop bonds I think... though that might already be in place. I would encourage gay families to adopt of course, though many already do.
I am conflicted whether Planned Parenthood should be combined with this new entity as having so many government bureau's leads to so much redtape and confusion. If it is separate then funds would be taken from planned parenthood. I also think the government could encourage wealthy organizations to donate funds into this system as well. I know many anti-abortion groups would probably be eager to, but I of course may be wrong.
It is terrifying and utterly senseless; I don't understand how someone could kill another person without reason... especially children. It strikes home for me as I am in still in school. Personally, police in schools are a horrifically flawed idea. My school officer cannot run and frankly always looks about five seconds from passing out. I have no faith in his ability to protect us, such as the officer at Uvalde failed to protect the students. Greater physical conditioning among police officers is definitely needed, alongside gun training. Maybe also getting some that weren't cowards and sat outside the school for twenty minutes as a murderer rampaged through would be good as well. Universal Background checks would also help, including (in my opinion) making it so that between the age of 18-21 someone cannot buy a weapon without their parents/guardians being present.
I am an INFP-T.
| 18741 - Reply from Gianna127 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-26 |
|Sorry for my delay in responding!
Do you have any ideas in regards to changing the adoption process? It's really a difficult matter... trying to balance safety for the kids yet enough people who are capable of adopting. I definitely could see youth counselors being a good idea... It would also be a good volunteer job/regular job for some teens/college students, and it would probably be a bit more enticing to pregnant teenagers or youths. What would you plan on doing with the funding? I'm not sure if I'm missing some steps logistically, but do you think taking the funds from Planned Parenthood and converting them into these centers/using the money to create such centers would suffice?
I'm horrified by the elementary school shooting in Texas. Such a tragedy. I really feel for the friends and family of all involved. It's led me to ponder gun safety. Similar to abortion, I feel that shootings will always exist (very sadly). I was wondering if you have any ideas on gun control that we could maybe discuss?
Very off topic, but do you know your MBTI/16 personalities type? I'm an ISFJ... Sorry for being off-topic, I was just interested.
| 18740 - Reply from Jack49 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-11 |
|The adoption process is definitely too strict in some regards, though I do understand why, mainly to ensure the kid doesn't end up on the street. However, refusing your family is nonsensical. I think the most important thing is whether the family will care for the child, not if the family is wealthy or small enough. Abortion and other things will probably always exist, legally or illegally, but this would help decrease the amount of abortions by a massive amount. I think community centers like this can do so much and more!
I could imagine these centers also providing youth counselors as well as ways to connect with the teen audience. So many abortions are from younger groups who were pregnant from a stupid 5 minute decision. If these kids could be adopted, or proper education and preventative measures are given by the sites, then this could be changed.
Thank you! I am glad to debate with someone who is intelligent and bright as well. I am the same as well, I came into these debates with the same closed mind, but through it I have opened it. My views on many things have definitely changed.
| 18739 - Reply from Gianna127 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-09 |
|I can understand how your school lacks the proper funding... I mean, it is a school meant for teaching, but it is really admirable that it tries. Perhaps this would be looking too far into the future, but what changes do you think would have to come about for this pregnancy/mother/family center to come about? As much as I'm sure this type of center would be helpful, abortion would still exist most likely... I assume the adoption process would have to be made slightly easier, as right now the biological parents tend to have a lot of paperwork and say in where the child goes, which isn't ideal for a woman that doesn't want the child. I recall that when my family wished to adopt (probably about 9-12 years ago) we were deemed unable to foster or adopt because of our house size and schedule. Our house was a fair size, but our plans to reorganize rooms to make everything fit smoothly and safely was rejected. In addition to this, myself and two of my siblings were mentally unwell, and the adoption agency did not want us having a child in the midst of that. I understand their viewpoint of the mental illness, but for the most part we were on the path to recovery. These restrictions always gave me the impression that the adoption process was too rigid, and that they were prohibiting and dissuading many families from adopting. However, if the adoption process were made less rigorous, there's the possibility that children would be taken into the wrong homes. What are your thoughts?
These discussions have been very pleasant. I enjoy debating with someone who is not only very intelligent and bright, but also eager to learn and patient. These conversations have helped me change some of my views, as prior to this I was extremely anti-government involvement in much at all. These insightful debates have helped me see some things I was blatantly wrong or unaware of. So thank you for that as well. I really think that one day you could make a very great president or senator. You are intelligent, have a keen sense of right and wrong, and you care about the future and the people of America.
... Slightly embarrassingly to admit, these discussions have made me less of a Hermione Granger and a bit more open-minded. :)
| 18738 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-06 |
|Do not worry, I find your idea of a "Grace" period fascinating. It perfectly links the society we have to the human population growth. Do not worry about talking about speculation, I often find that discussing it helps piece together thoughts and share ideas.
That would be fantastic, a brilliant thought. My school tries this but lacks the funds to do larger and more important procedures like ultra-sounds and adoptions, I can imagine further funding would do wonders for it.
I was looking through our old conversations and I couldn't help but smile and see how much I had changed from only over a year ago. So many new ideas, and ideas I have ditched. This entire discussion has been very beneficial to me, intellectually and morally speaking. Things that I used to be okay with I know find abhorrent, and vice-versa. Thank you for that. Sorry for this off track paragraph, it was just something I noticed and wanted to say.
| 18737 - Reply from Gianna127 , 25 yrs (USA) - 2022-05-05 |
|That's an interesting observation, but when I come to think of it, you're right. Many graphs show that second and third world countries will have a much higher population by 2050. A passing idea I've had a few times is that there is a grace period between low quality of life and high quality, or as those are portrayed in your example. Poor quality would be with much sickness and much unemployment, and high quality would be wealthier and more advanced in technology, as well as with many more people being employed. Many kids are unable to survive conditions in low quality of life, thus reducing the number of children born/surviving to adulthood. In the high quality, there is such emphasis on work and being employed that many people value business over family life. I find that in high quality life, there is a lot more propaganda about how one is only successful if they work, making things such as being a stay-at-home mom or taking maternity leave to seem worse. The grace period, which I feel that many second/third world countries with higher predicted growth rates, is where conditions are more ideal, yet the push for everyone to have a high-paying, full-time job is not there, and the idea of a family isn't marginalized to be poor or where the mother has to stay home. I don't know exactly what I was trying to accomplish by saying this... I got rather lost in speculation... I apologize.
While I'm not the biggest fan of government-run businesses, as they tend to be more easily corruptible and promote a poorer quality of things, as well as the fact that many have to pay taxes for a business they may not support, I feel that many abortions could be prevented by having a government funded cooperation. Planned Parenthood is funded by the government, yet it gives a very poor solution to problems. What if, instead of a place where abortion was the solution, they would provide services that would actually be beneficial to a mother and child? Ultrasound services, supplies, etc. And that would help eliminate the need to kill a child (and damage the mother's body in the process) because of poverty. In addition to this, such an agency could help coordinate adoptions of babies that aren't wanted.
| 18736 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-04-23 |
|That's good to hear!
I am in much agreement about Malthus and carrying capacity, there is no definite limit (only the limit of human engineering) on how much food we can simply produce. The reduction of what Americans eat and our food waste would help with food problems even more. The main problem I see is that birth rate tends to fluctuate in regards to quality of life and culture. We see an increase in children as the ability to aid them after birth increases with it, however the amount of children born is actually higher when the quality of life is lower. Now culture comes into this as many people are beginning to prioritize work over family matters. The interest in rearing children is decreasing as debts, work stress and increased participation of women in the labor force increases. Now at the moment quality of life is still increasing (for the most part) but climate change, food shortages and unrest might affect that. What I find interesting is how the cultural aspects of birth rates react to these conditions. Will we see a increase or a further decrease? I know much of my opinions deal in hypotheticals, and as such probably don't seem like they have any firm backing or even that I have a firm understanding of them.
Here's some interesting data: My city has a poverty rate of 14.7% while the metropolitan area has 9.7%. 10.6% of women gave birth within the last year in my city, while only 5% did in the metro... while there are probably other factors at play here I do believe there is a correlation to poverty (which is rising around the country) and birth rates. For reference my city has 15,000 people with 125,000 living in the whole metro area.
I do believe that churches and community programs will help these people, but where are these programs for the homeless and impoverished? I know they exist but as I stated the poverty in my city has only increased. The need is too vast and often times it is impossible to support people who don't want help. Having community run programs simply don't always work when the community is as large as mine. How do a few thousand donors compensate for the needs of 12,125 impoverished people (~number of people in the metro who are in poverty)?
| 18730 - Reply from Gianna127 , 24 yrs (USA) - 2022-04-09 |
|Thank you for the concern about my family. They are doing as well as they can be right now, and they haven't come into much contact with the war. :)
But a major question is if the ends justify the means. Only a very small fraction of abortions (around 1% as of 2019) account for rape, meaning that there was consent to do such relations with a partner for the other (approximately) 99%. Therefore someone is killing a human being for their choice to enter such a relationship. It is true that the population is booming, but there is no clear carrying capacity for humans. In fact, Thomas Malthus back in 1798 thought that the world would be soon overcrowded, but that wasn't the case. In addition to this, the predicted population growth is not in the reproduction of children. In an estimate from 2002 to 2050 for predicted population growth, there will be a relatively small increase in people ages 0-19, and some small changes in those from ages 20-45. The elderly is where the most population growth will be, most likely because of increased medical support for the elderly and more ways to prevent their death. Therefore one can conclude that the population growth is not coming from a massive amount of people having children, and rather the support of the elderly. I'm not saying that we should kill off the elderly, as that is just horrible for reasons I don't need to explain, but killing babies is a horrible solution, and there could be much better. For example, as about 99% of people who have abortions consented to the relations with their partner, perhaps choosing to not interact in such a way would help. I don't personally think that we need to reduce the number of children, especially because they aren't the reason for the majority of the estimated population growth by the U.S. Census Bureau. It would be punishing the next generation for our own "problem."
If one feels the need to have relations with a partner that can result in pregnancy, I feel that they should be held accountable for it. They shouldn't be punishing a baby for their own "mistake." In addition to this, humans are relatively infertile species. There is a small time frame in which most women can become pregnant. While personally I believe that all those partaking in such an action should be open to new life and open to having children, there are ways in which one who feels the need to have such relationships can avoid pregnancy. By abstinence during the fertile period or abstinence in general, many lives can be saved. In addition to this, if women do become pregnant by "mistake," there are several places in communities that are open to helping them. Most churches will help a homeless, poor, or pregnant person who needs assistance without missing a beat. Generous people will give money to a poor box inside church for this very reason, so that the church can help those who come. There are also some very generous people who have a house open for women who are unsupported by their families for their pregnancies.
| 18729 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2022-04-06 |
|From the current news, which is difficult to filter through as both West and east are spreading propaganda, I don't think Russia will overtake Ukraine. If anything they will succeed in "liberating" the two separatist regions. I don't think the US should directly involve mainly due to us being politically unstable at the moment with an absent president and vice president but our shipments of supplies do seem to be making a difference.
I am sorry about your family, I hope they are doing well. Are they safe from the fighting?
I don't think abortion is a good thing, due to that it is unfortunate that it exists, but it is a necessity. To counter massive population booms which threaten the global supply chain, a problem mainly in developing countries (which the grain you mention is tightening the noose around those regions) it is necessary to use abortion and contraceptives to limit the population growth across the world until we reach a reasonable position. Even though you believe that through good Christian faith we can do so, the simple fact is that 69% of the world is not Christian... unless the intent is to convince them by the sword. Besides, major population booms in medieval and industrial Europe happened even with Christian majorities. I believe it foolhardy to stake the entire human race on one course of training. Similar to climate change, we can't just let it happen, it will crush our children and grandchildren's future. The entire region in which I live could be underwater (hypothetically anyways), massive tracts of agrarian regions that are reduced to swamps and lakes. The food supply will be even more strained then.
| 18728 - Reply from Gianna127 , 24 yrs (US) - 2022-04-02 |
|Many apologies for my delay... I hope this finds you well.
I do personally believe that what we did to Iraq was partial justified... 9/11 had recently occurred, Saddam Hussein was around, and Osama Bin Laden was also in the Middle East. It is my personal opinion that putting troops there was a favorable idea, not a whole army, but some American soldiers to keep an eye out for any terrorist activity. The levels of invasion to which the U.S. went was too far, but definitely having some soldiers there was justified.
The war is also very selfish and is worrying me a fair bit... Ukraine grows much of the wheat that is imported into Africa, and a deficit in such wheat would be quite tragic. The anxious side of me is also very nervous about a third world war breaking out, and, as Einstein said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” I must say that I'm unsure of what will happen, or what should happen, if Russia overtakes Ukraine. Much of my extended family is native Ukrainian, and the terror I have for them is incredible. However, I am aware that U.S. interference could lead to a much more worldly war. What are your views about this?
I hope this doesn't sound like a bother, but I recall a while ago that you had mentioned that abortion is an unfortunate necessity. Can you please elaborate on that? I'm very curious about that.
| 18725 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (United States) - 2022-03-08 |
I feel bad for the soldiers fighting on all sides of the conflict, it really doesn't seem like either side wants to be fighting. I worry for the civilians and captured soldiers especially, war has repeatedly shown that they are often the most abused.
I think Russia's public reasons are invalid, sure the Azov battalion are neo-nazi's but invading an entire nation for that sole reason is idiotic. It would be like invading modern day Germany for the same reason. Russia also had many far right and nazi groups as well.
Of course it is fairly hypocritical for the west to criticize Russia for it's invasion, given what we did to Iraq in 2003. I sincerely hope that as a civilization we will move on from invading nations as a whole.
I hope so as well, any war between two nuclear powers would be devastating.
| 18724 - Reply from Gianna127 , 24 yrs (US) - 2022-03-05 |
|wasn't expecting it to be this vicious*
Sorry for the typo.
| 18722 - Reply from Gianna127 , 24 yrs (US) - 2022-03-05 |
|I was really shocked as well. I had always expected Russia to, at one point, invade Ukraine, but I was expecting it to be this vicious. Putin's explanation that they were attacking Ukraine because Ukraine was a threat is foolish. I hope that things will return to be better soon. I just hope that it won't turn into the third world war... After all, WWI was simply started by the assassination of the Austrian archduke.|
| 18721 - Reply from Jack49 , 16 yrs (United States) - 2022-03-03 |
|Sorry for my late reply, I was too shocked by the war to respond. What are your views on it?|
| 18718 - Reply from Gianna127 , 24 yrs (US) - 2022-02-19 |
|I don't really comprehend how people think that killing a baby - an extremely immoral act - is a solution. May I ask why you think they are an unfortunate necessity? The purpose of sex is to create new life, and when people partake in it I feel that they should most definitely understand that there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. The way it is now is almost like sending a little kid to a high class ballet school just so that they can have fun. The purpose would be to get really good, but the kid is just doing it for fun, while they could be doing recreational ballet or something. Most people seem to think that sex is just for fun and pleasure, when really it is for procreation. They should probably find other ways to show their love for each other (in fact, abstinence is a large way to do so as it shows you respect the person enough to wait until marriage).
In a way abortions almost relate to the problem of teens doing it. In a way, marriage keeps someone accountable so that, if a pregnancy does occur, the wife can point fingers and say that the husband needs to share responsibility. If one does it as a teen, there is really nothing holding the relationship together and forcing the father to be responsible.
I don't think that the government really has to get involved besides reversing Roe vs Wade. Most communities should be able to support the mothers. In my community, there is a place where parishes around the area contribute baby food, baby clothes, formula, wipes, etc. so that a mother in need can go and get the resources she needs. I'm not sure entirely whether women who have abortions are scared of what to do when the baby is born and worry about supporting it, or if they are just unwilling to go through pregnancy that they risked by having intercourse.
Contraceptives have their own mix of problems. One is literally breaking down their body in order not to have a child when they could be abstaining. If one has to have intercourse without wanting kids (which, in itself, is redundant), then the best thing to do would be to use a condom. It's almost as though contraceptives are used like flu shots. But if one gets a flu shot and ends up having the flu, do they do something drastic to reverse the flu? I don't even know what would be a way to reverse the flu besides staying at home with nice warm soup, and abortions used to be just as unthinkable as a way to reverse the flu. If someone is so passionate about not becoming pregnant (while the easy answer is abstinence) that they must have contraceptives pre-intercourse (Morning-After pills are practically abortion), then I assume they should feel free to break down their own body. I'm not going to stop them, even though I believe that it isn't right. Even though it is God's creation, those who don't believe in Him believe that it is their body, so it is their choice, and I am not going to force my religion on anyone. However, at the moment of conception it is two lives. No longer just their body. However, "Our bodies, my choice" wouldn't sound very good as a pro-abortion slogan...
If a parent feels strongly enough about those school subjects, then they should teach them to their child. But the majority of people seem to be fine with the way schools run regular subjects such as math, history, etc. However, the world is very split on their beliefs in intercourse, which is why I feel that parents should talk to their kids about it. It could be as simple as a teacher assigning the kids a homework assignment of talking to their parents. And, as parents, they should be willing and open to help their kid and help them grow.
If you don't mind me asking, how do schools tend to teach sexual education?
| 18717 - Reply from Jack49 , 16 yrs (United States) - 2022-02-18 |
|I would be happy to continue.
But that is exactly what people who are pro-abortion are arguing for, greater education to reduce the need for abortions. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks abortions are moral, if they do then they need to go to a mental hospital. But I do see it as a unfortunate necessity,though I believe greater education, contraceptives and abstinence could decrease the amount of abortions to null.
I am not arguing that it helps, but the fact is that banning them doesn't change anything. The more things that are banned the stronger any entity becomes, I just can't see how your belief in a limited government is compatible with this. The goal is to stop their use and not empower the government more that it needs to be.
Abortions are not touched upon because whenever they are my school gets swarmed by a dozen angry parents demanding the teacher who said anything to be fired, regardless of what they said. The public holds the school system hostage to the extent that books can and are being banned because parents don't like their contents. Usually this is because it goes against their convoluted political doctrine.
By your idea that parents teach kids controversial subjects then apply to literally every class in school? I have heard more then one person call math the "language of the devil", should math only be taught by parents now? Some people think the Earth is flat, should geography be taught by parents? Some others thing the US genocide against the indigenous people was fake, or that segregation wasn't that bad... should we no longer talk about those subjects at school? If people are so concerned about what kids are being taught then they should cut back on the McDonald's and Disney land visits and send their kids to a private school.
| 18716 - Reply from Gianna127 , 24 yrs (US) - 2022-02-10 |
I'm sorry for the delay... I must admit that I hadn't checked this in a while. I'd be fine debating again if you still care to.
By banning abortions the public is at least not under the impression that abortion is a moral thing to do. In addition to this, if abortion was banned and there was more guidance about safe and moral things to do instead if you really don't want to take care of the kid, there might be a decrease in abortion.
That abortion rates are higher where abortion is illegal is not a reason to make them legal. It's encouraging the wrong thing. If more information was given about why it was so wrong, then people might stop having as many. I'm not entirely sure how things are done in schools, as I was homeschooled, but I'm under the impression that the education on this is not the best. Parents really ought to give their children a better talk about this, or really anybody close to them. In a way, I almost wish that it weren't taught to kids until their parents inform them about it in accordance with personal beliefs and views. I understand, however, that it falls into the category of biology.
| 18709 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (United States) - 2021-12-12 |
|Wow, school sucker-punched me, but I've stabilized my schedule and I hope it isn't too late to revive this discussion.
Evidence shows that countries that ban abortions don't actually decrease the rate of abortions. Even more so, in many cases both the mother and child are killed because the mother uses unsafe means to abort. So outlawing abortion does nothing to solve the problem, because then the deaths just multiply.
| 18672 - Reply from Gianna5 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-09-10 |
|I completely respect your schedule, and by no means is this anything important that you should make a priority in life. Take all the time you need. :)
As you have said before, the laws of the United States are not based on any religion. So if we are talking non-religious, life still begins at conception. Scientists say so. The moment a child is conceived, it fits all those requirements I mentioned. If killing is against the law, abortion should be as well. On a legal point of view I am saying this. It isn't a belief, but a fact, that life begins at conception. And killing is taking the life of something. So abortion is killing. This is more than just a religious view.
By saying humans are the most dominant, I am trying to explain why killing unborn babies isn't the same as killing an animal. Humans are on the top of the food chain, so it is natural for us to kill other animals for food.
I honestly don't know very much about immigration, and that is a different subject. The majority of pregnancies are not immigrants who are not yet citizens. And also I don't understand what is wrong about letting immigrants, so long as they aren't dangerous with a background check and making sure they aren't terrorists/have evil intents, come into our country. The United States is a free land where hard work gets you far.
As you said, that is hypocritical and disgusting. I'm horrified by this. Certainly a child's grades don't make them any less worth! But who did the shooting? A mad man? Or the entire Republican party? While it does have a slight connection to the abortion issue, it is not quite the same. Somebody is being put on trial for killing children, which is against the law, and the people who sold the gun to him are probably trying to avoid being sued, as they didn't do the shooting themselves (it still isn't right to try to subpoena the children's report cards). I mean, yes, look more into who you sell guns to, but in all reality it isn't their fault. Arguing that they aren't worth as much is wrong, but I doubt when they sold the man/woman who did the killing they knew they would be using it to shoot at a school.
Now if we go back to beliefs and religious viewpoints, you'll remember in the past with slaves. People used to think that African Americans were not people, but it was several other people's belief that they were, which they are. Even though many believe slaves weren't humans or worth as much, they obviously were. If we were playing off people's beliefs, African Americans might not have been recognized as people and might still be slaves. But beliefs obviously can lead to some immoral things. Terrorists believe it's okay to kill people, some people believe abusing their animals is okay, and Five Guys believes $3.89 is a fair price for little fries (I'm joking and it isn't really immoral, but it certainly is ridiculous!). As I've said before, it is a fact that babies are alive at conception, and having an abortion would be killing, but people's beliefs still say it is okay.
So exercise and eating disorders.... It really depends on where you are in recovery. The place I was talking about was a place where the main point was to get you to a healthy weight and get you back to eating. The exercise I was referring to was obsessive exercising to try to burn off the calories you ate. At this place, you were allowed a short (Maybe a half a mile? 3/4 mile?) walk every day so that you wouldn't be sitting in a chair all day long, but it wasn't enough to make you go backwards. The inpatient program is really square one of recovering, so they wouldn't let you exercise yet. Most people went into inpatient after being hospitalized for obvious and severe signs of malnutrition, such as collapsing, and the hospital would make the analysis that you needed help. I had been in the hospital for 3 weeks before they decided that I wasn't getting the support I needed there and needed to go into a facility where it specialized in eating disorders. Some parents might notice that their child has an eating disorder and they put them on the waiting list for the inpatient program as soon as they can, before their child might possibly die. So it was definitely the first step in recovery. You had to be up to a healthy weight as well as showing that you are exercising for the right reasons to be able to exercise, and this mainly happened when you were out of the inpatient program and moved on to a partial hospitalization program or intensive outpatient program. Sorry for the long explanation... I suppose I should have made myself clearer when I had stated the exercising thing before.
| 18671 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-09-06 |
|Sorry for my late reply, I have been busy with work and school. I would still like to debate but my messages would probably be few and far between.
Yes, but this entire argument is a religious viewpoint. You claim that babies have souls and are alive, and thus you want to make laws to protect them. They claim animals have souls and are alive, and thus want to make laws to protect them. Humans are still the most dominant species in either religion, its just meant to serve as what the pro-life movement seems like to pro-choicers. It appears almost exactly like the people claiming animals are alive and have souls.
Okay, obviously Texas has voted in the abortion law but lets think of this. If a fetus older than six weeks is alive, then does that mean child support starts then. Should we continue deporting immigrant women because they have alive American citizen in them. Even more so I think it's very sad that firearm companies and the Republicans they bought are trying to subpoena the report cards of 1st graders and kindergarteners killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting. They are trying to claim that some lives are less valuable than others because they have lower grades. Wait.. these are the same Republicans trying to ban abortion, because... all lives have equal worth. It's hypocritical and disgusting.
I am confused. Why is exercising bad? Sorry for my ignorance but to my knowledge exercising is good when someone has an eating disorder.
| 18670 - Reply from Gianna5 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-08-25 |
|After doing more research, it is viewed by scientists that life begins at conception. A beating heart is not the only indication of life. Things are alive if they do all of these:
-Grow and develop
-Respond to their environment (stimuli and what not)
-Living things are based on a universal genetic code, DNA
-Living things are made up of cells (a cell is the smallest unit considered to be fully alive)
-Taken as a group, living things evolve
-Living things obtain and use material energy
-Living things maintain a stable internal environment (homeostasis)
-Living things reproduce (or have the ability to)
A baby, from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, is alive. From that moment it begins to do all these things. It is, indeed, a religious viewpoint as to whether or not we have souls, but there is no doubt that babies are alive from conception. Humans have always been on the top of the food chain, thus we kill animals to eat and live. And humans have dominion over other animals. You may say this is a religious viewpoint, but if you look at the world around us, it is established by humans. This all points to evidence that humans are the dominant species, and have been this way for thousands of years. I know what I am about to say is religious, but here I go:
Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28)
Everything I said, even without the religious things, points to that it is okay to kill animals for food and for necessary reasons. Obviously it is cruel to abuse animals more than necessary, as that wouldn't be taking care of God's creation, but we are still able to kill them. This being said, killing babies has no point or value, and it is widely believed that human lives are more valuable than animals, and that animals have a reason to be slaughtered.
Again, in about every religious belief killing is wrong. And in our laws, killing is wrong. And all evidence points to the fact that babies are indeed alive before they are born, from the moment of conception. It is more than a belief that they are alive in the womb. Going back into the past, people believed that African Americans, or people of another ethnicity than Europeans', were not truly human, or that they were less than us. It was their belief that they were less than us, which is obviously not true. It was everyone's different beliefs on it that stopped it from becoming illegal for a long time. Everything points to the fact that they are the same as us, but people in the past did not believe it. Now it is similar; everything points to the fact that zygotes are a less developed human, but still is human, but people do not believe it.
I understand that it may be extreme to hold control in a country for 20 years, but when the risk of them overtaking it again is so high, I feel that it is okay to stay longer. Well, really I think we should have held Afghanistan to a deal, and if they broke it, it would be like we were back in control. It is slightly similar to when, long ago, I was inpatient for an eating disorder. Sometimes, if you were suspected of exercising, you would be on CO- constant observation. If you built up enough trust, you were off CO, but once you are found to be exercising again, you are back on CO. We also signed contracts before leaving, agreeing not to do certain behaviors, or it could result in our readmission to the inpatient program. I feel that something like that would have been better, making it clear to Afghanistan that we would still be keeping an eye on them from afar and if they did anything out of line, we would be right back in.
I think I would still like to debate if you do. I'm sure you understand coming back from work/school and doing absolutely nothing but not feeling up to doing anything else because you are exhausted.
| 18669 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-08-19 |
|Except to the fake religious group I mentioned, they do have souls. That is the exact argument we are facing here, many people believe that these babies are not alive, and that they don't have souls. To said religion you are currently the same person you are calling a murderer for having an abortion.
How can you ban something, in a nation that has no official religion, without evidence that something has a soul other than religious beliefs? You would be forcing an official religion upon the US, this entire situation isn't so cut and dry. And "It is right to force this fact on others, because it is wrong and it needs to stop." is the exact ideal that every religious extremist has had in history.(I'm not calling you an extremist)
Lets take an example... Alcohol. Two extreme views are -everyone can drink alcohol- and -no one can drink alcohol-. People didn't scream for either side, they sat down and they did what everyone is always going to have to do from the beginning and they compromised. Now you can't drink alcohol in some states until your 21, everyone wins in this situation.
The scenes from Kabul are horrifying, I don't think we made the best decision. We should have gotten as many people (interpreters, officials) before we left. While I still think we should of left, we can't police a nation for twenty years. I still think we should have provided air support, and minimal ground support to our allies.
Afghanistan hasn't fallen yet, a rebellion has formed in the North and have already pushed the Taliban out of two districts.
That is more of a religious question, I don't agree with sex before marriage due to my religion, but I don't think worse of people who do participate in it.
Don't worry, I don't always feel like writing as well. If you want to stop debating we can.
| 18667 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-08-17 |
|A beating heart is not the only indication of life. Trees are alive but don't have hearts, for example. True, they do have pulses, but they do not have heartbeats. And a lot of other living things do not have hearts or pulses. A zygote is still living before it has a heartbeat. Living things need nourishment and can grow.
I don't understand how people are convinced that it isn't murder to have an abortion. The baby is alive in there! And even so, sex is made for procreation, and if you weren't expecting to have a baby you are rather foolish. Don't kill a child for your own misdeed. And I don't see how there is any good that comes out of abortion. So in my eyes, it is very clear that abortion is murder, and murdering is wrong in about every religion. Why do people believe that a baby is not alive from conception? It is right to force this fact on others, because it is wrong and it needs to stop.
Animals do not have souls. We kill animals for our own survival so we can eat, and it has been done so since the beginning of time. True, we are murdering an animal. But they do not have souls and it is part of the food chain for us to kill them.
What do you think of what has been going on in Afghanistan lately? With withdrawing troops?
And what do you think of people having sex before they are married?
I apologize for my delay in writing... I am taking a few courses to get a master's degree and it has been taking a lot of my time. Also, I know there are some days when I don't feel like writing, so I hope you don't feel that it is an obligation to do this.
| 18656 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-08-13 |
|Yes, if someone is on life support they are still alive, their heart is still functional it's just that they need something else to help it beat. A fetus prior to 6 weeks has no beating heart, and has never beaten before. If that heart ceases to beat they are dead.
I am not saying that we should make exceptions to a belief system that allows them to hurt others, what I am saying is that you are imposing your own belief on an object, thus compromising someone else's belief. It doesn't make your view that abortion is murder any more valid than someone else's view that it isn't. I could explain this a lot better verbally, but we are having a debate on whether abortion is murder. You are making the assertion that it is murder, and the opposing side is making the assertion that it is not murder.
With that in mind, to us killing animals is usually okay, (lets say to a hypothetical religion) animals is equivalent to murdering a human. Should we be forced to stop eating meat because this religion is trying to force us not too. To them it is murder to us it is not. The central question in this debate is "is killing an animal murder", you entire argument is based on your moral belief (that you are entitled too) that abortion is murder, without looking at the possibility that it isn't or that a middle ground is possible.
In this hypothetical scenario, you may think you are right 'eating animals isn't murder' but to the other religions you are a murderer. You are trying to fight a principle important to the other side, and vice versa. I know that was probably a very odd read, I think I phrased it oddly.
That is definitely the ultimate and best way not to have a child, but try convincing all 7.8 billion humans to follow that. Humans are aps, our only goal like all other species is to literally reproduce so that our species can continue.
| 18655 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-08-13 |
|If someone is on life support, are they still alive? If they need a pacemaker to keep their heart running, are they still alive? And things that grow are alive, and to be able to get a heartbeat, one must grow first. And also a baby can't fully support itself out of the womb. It needs help in means such as food, milk, and so forth. So the baby would not be alive?
My point about LGBTQ+ was that if you remove your reproductive organs, you therefore technically aren't alive by your definition of life. But looking back on that I realize that some women and men need to remove those organs for reasons such as cancer and infections.
If the belief is harmless, then obviously there should be no law against it. Such as Jews celebrating Passover every year. Or the tradition where they yell so loudly the word "Haman" can no longer be heard. But if someone's belief is that killing someone is okay, there would be issues. Or the idea that people should dehumanize gay people for being gay is also awful. I might not approve of LGBTQ+, but I certainly don't think we should harm others.
Abortion and murder are the same thing. So when you say it would be forcing a belief onto someone who doesn't think abortion is bad, it would be forcing a belief onto someone who doesn't think murder is bad. You can't change what abortion is. Just because your belief says it isn't killing, it is still killing. Like often terrorists believe it is okay to kill themselves and other people in attacks.
The purpose of sex is to create new life. If someone is having sex, they should be fully aware that they might have a child. It doesn't take a genius to find a natural way to stop unwanted pregnancies-don't have sex. And if someone is raped, I still think it is wrong to have an abortion. The mother's community should be willing to help her, and I know programs that do help poor/in need mothers.
| 18654 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-08-12 |
|Sorry for my late response to this message-
During my hiatus from this conversation I deeply reflected and researched my views on abortion. In some ways my views have changed, in others they have not.
Something needs to be able to have "functional activity" which in essence means it can support itself (such as a beating heart), until then it technically isn't alive. That is where my views have changed, I am now unsure whether abortion should be allowed after the 5-6 week mark when a heart begins to beat.
It doesn't change my views on LGBTQ+ because your logic there makes no sense, a gay person can still reproduce they just might choose not too. A transgender person can biologically always reproduce (by technicality) because they will always have something scripted into their brain to allow them too, they just often choose to remove the organs that are necessary. Just because someone is infertile or chooses not to reproduce doesn't change if they are living, because they technically still have the ability.
Looking back now I can see where my point came out very wrong, I am not saying people who should be allowed to do something based on their beliefs, such as murder. You can't make rules like that, but what I am saying is should people not be allowed to do something based on another persons belief. I am not supporting murder or anything, I am just trying to raise a philosophical question, one that I am still pondering.
I mean that question is the one that starts wars, almost every single religious war in history has been fought because two religions didn't see eye to eye and the other wanted to ensure that their religion wasn't compromised by the other (or fought to gain power under the guise of religion). The point I am raising is that we can't make wholly rash decisions and force something like this. Murder is one thing, but we would be forcing our beliefs onto others in a way that compromises those who don't think abortion is bad, it doesn't take a genius to see history repeating itself here...
I think we have two solutions to the problem, and to me neither are better than the other. 1. No abortions after 6 weeks, both sides get something. 2. We keep it as it is, women can get abortions, but those who don't want to don't have too. At least with both of these solutions but sides can work together to stop unwanted or unnecessary pregnancies.
| 18653 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-08-02 |
|The military serves the whole nation. So do the police. But a healthcare system that you do not benefit from isn't what you need to be funding with your taxes. Just like how, when I was a kid, we had to pay taxes to fund the public school in our district, even though none of us had anything to do with them.
"Including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." How do those NOT match a zygote/fetus? They include the capacity for growth. And, like babies, they won't be reproducing or doing functional activity. So are babies not alive? And your argument for life completely nullifies your argument about LGBTQ+. "Reproduction". Anyways killing is wrong no matter your religion. I don't know a religion that says it is okay to kill, and I think everyone would highly doubt them. And with the Romans quote, there is a MAJOR difference between eating (or not very affecting acts) and killing (highly effective things such as rape). By your theory, why should we judge someone for their belief in rape? From the moment you are fertilized you begin to grow and function. So is a child at 39 weeks in the womb still not alive? When do you believe life begins? There is no magical birth canal that gives us rights. Also, how can fetuses die in miscarriages if they are not alive?
"Or is it allowed because another belief wants it?" Jack, that is the same thing as if someone's belief told them that shooting someone was okay. And where would that get them? Jail, most likely. Is shooting someone okay if they believe it is okay? Or what if someone injected someone else with a lethal poison (in most cases that is what they do in abortion) because they thought it would be with their beliefs? Abortion is murder.
| 18652 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-08-02 |
|In the case of water taxes you are taxed directly for a service you received, but some of that money is sent to other government operations, and some money for water control is received from other operations. If someone disagrees with out military system, or police system, and their property tax and water tax are partially going to it anyways is it different from a healthcare tax?
For many people a 'literal' soul doesn't exist, so they don't see life born at conception. All it is is a fertilized egg, scientifically speaking life is "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." Until the fetus starts this it isn't alive, so how can you murder something that isn't alive?
According to Roman's 14:1-23: The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." Who are we to stop or force another person from perceiving life from their belief system? Is it any worse than for a belief system to force us to adopt something they believe in, than for us to do it to them?
That is my point, I think abortion is bad, but I don't think we should mandate our religious beliefs upon others. I can guess a comment already "But shouldn't we stop murder? Or is it allowed because another belief wants it." I perceive that as yes, we should stop murder because it is a fundamental value to all, but stopping abortion is not and because of that I believe we shouldn't force others into our beliefs.
| 18651 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-08-01 |
|If other taxes they pay will be added into the healthcare possibly, why would you call it a "property tax" or "water tax"? Would their taxes be raised to pay for this healthcare system? What if they don't approve of the healthcare system, and their taxes are partly going towards it anyways?
I do not think the death penalty is right. You're punishing someone for (most likely) murdering by murdering them. An eye for an eye, right? I don't understand how abortion isn't murdering if you aren't religious. Murdering is wrong about everywhere you go. Abortion is purposely ending someone's life. Life starts at conception, not at first heartbeat. At conception a zygote, a baby, is created. It is still killing someone if they haven't conceived thoughts. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of someone, and has nothing to do with thoughts. A human is a human, no matter how small. If the father was a rapist, I still think that a woman shouldn't kill. Her community can help her. If a baby days when it is only a few hours old, it is still a few hours of being with family and friends and that is not intentionally ending a baby's life. In the Bible when Abraham (not Moses) tries to sacrifice Isaac, an angel had appeared to him telling him to do so. Abraham was going to do it because it was a message from God. But if you remember, God didn't truly want Abraham to kill Isaac. It was a test. And Isaac wasn't killed. I doubt any abortion doctors get apparitions from angels telling them that God wants them to kill babies. I don't think God intends for a murder to happen. I don't quite understand your point of view about this. Does a child only receive human rights after it leaves the womb?
I assume it would be like manslaughter, but you don't often hear trials for someone who passed on a cold to someone else who died from it. And it shows how terrible the world is if they would do it for a death from covid and not one from, let's say, an average cold. And at this point the chances of death from covid are very low.
| 18650 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-08-01 |
|The article didn't talk as much about the antifa members but it did clearly say the proud boys were armed with firearms.
I don't see why they would, I mean if someone is using something why should they have to pay for it. However, that doesn't mean other taxes they pay won't be added into the healthcare by some means.
Definitely, people are lazy, they will take an opportunity when they see one.
In that you would be right, it is food for thought. But what about this? Are you fine with the death penalty, a lot of innocent people are murdered, often death with pain. I don't think abortion is right by any means, but we have to factor in a lot of context in. If you are religious you are murdering someone, but what if you are not religious? Is it still murder if it's heart isn't beating yet, if it hasn't conceived thoughts? What if the child's father was a rapist? Or the fetus is discovered to have a serious medical condition that will cause it to die before it even is a few hours old? Let's not forget in the bible Moses tried to sacrifice Isaac, is that murder? Who's to say whether god intends something to happen.
I had covid as well, and I agree it felt like a cold, but my mom was nearly hospitalized as well. But that still doesn't answer the question, if someone gets infected by another person and dies of a disease, is it manslaughter?
I was sitting in a Subway the other day and this creepy old man was staring at me, I was about to say something when a guy on roid-rage kicked the door open and his two heroin using friends walked in after him. Screaming and yelling commenced. From that limited experience I would say I don't think drugs have been beneficial for America.
| 18649 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-30 |
|Were the antifa members using the list of objects or were the proud boys? I am certainly not in approval of the proud boys doing anything of the sort. It makes all the right be pictured as racist. What were their reasons for breaking up the antifa event?
Does the whole public have to pay taxes for your healthcare system, or just those who choose to take part in it?
I know that people are probably not super scared of the new variant, but it gives them a good reason to stay at home and do nothing. They can hide behind the excuse of them being scared of covid.
Do you have any memories from when you were a infant? That is the same thing as your question about a fetus. One is simply out of the womb. If you kill someone in their sleep, would they be aware? I don't call my point of view a "belief of murder". Killing is wrong, no matter where you are from in America, no matter your religion. Which is worse... pain without harm, or harm without pain? If a women gives birth, it would be pain without harm. If it were an abortion, someone would die without pain, but it is still death. It is taking the life of someone. You have a soul from the moment you are conceived. Abortion "doctors" are literally serial killers. About covid vaccines, only foolish people would run around *knowing* they had covid and doing everything normal. When someone is asymptomatic, the chances of them giving it to someone else is very low, and the high risk groups are vaccinated. I had covid myself, and I was sick for about 4 days... stuffy nose, sore throat, fatigue, cough. But it felt no different from a normal cold. For the low-risk population, catching covid is like catching a cold, and there is no way that someone who was asymptomatic could give a high enough dose of covid to make someone hospitalized. And that is a far overstep of the government to make something like a vaccine mandatory. But to make the option of abortion allowed would be like allowing people to commit murder on adults or children outside of the womb willy nilly.
I suppose I should have made myself clearer; what do you think of the use of drugs by Americans? Do you think they are helpful, and if so, why?
Honestly I am torn about the electoral college. True, it allows smaller states to have more say, but it also doesn't allow majority vote. So I must say I'm in between.
| 18648 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-30 |
|According to the Washington post, in August 22, the Proud boys clashed with antifa members using "paintball guns, metal rods, aluminium bats, fireworks, pepper spray, rifles and handguns. During the capital riot multiple proud boys were wearing body armour, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were armed as well.
The incentive is that they get healthcare, the value they give back is having a job and contributing to society. I am not looking for indentured servitude, just that if they want free healthcare they have to have a job which would then in theory repay the service. People do still have to pay money via taxes, as you said Free is never Free.
I think it is less a fear of covid (I worry about the new variant so I just wear a mask and stay clean at work instead of not attending) people just have too little reason to work right now, they are making more money doing nothing.
I don't consider a fetus to be 'living' sure it is still metabolizing which means under the biological definition it is alive but the question is is it aware yet? Do you have any memories or feelings from when you were a fetus? I said before I think abortion is wrong, but what you are advocating for is government control of the body based on beliefs of murder. If that is allowed why aren't mandatory vaccinations based on the belief that unvaccinated people could spread the virus and kill people also allowed?
I don't think Americans are ready for drugs yet, we cannot compare ourselves to other countries because we have a different culture than them. I think we are over consumeristic and will simply take more drugs because there are more drugs. I am not against marijuana though, even if I never intend to use it.
I have seen many arguments defending the college, ranging from "It is meant to allow smaller states power" too "Because the founders knew only the minority was smart enough to decide." I don't like the electoral college because of two reasons: A. It is authoritarian in the sense that the majority vote doesn't guarantee victory and B. It prevents a multi-party system.
| 18647 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-29 |
|Just because I am a conservative does not mean I agree with everything that other conservatives do. For example, I highly supported Donald Trump for making peace in a part of the Gulf War. I really was amazed at his speech at the March for Life. And he did very good things with the Little Sisters of the Poor. But I do not like the way he managed the tariffs and other import taxes during his presidency. I do not know who the 3% er's are, and I have hardly heard of the proud boys, much less of them bringing arms into riots.
"The US Government provides insulin to patients, in return those patients are expected to provide an equal service back if they can." What is the incentive for the patients to return an equal service? They are getting something for no cost to them. I wish the world could be "I give you something for 'free', you give me something for 'free'" but it isn't the way things are. What's an equal service back? If taxes were to be raised to fund this government run insurance company, people who have no need for it would be paying money. Insulin can be very expensive, and many poorer people who need it would be grateful to have it for 'free', but how would they contribute back? Certainly if it's 'free' they wouldn't be paying money. And if they have to give a service it would be like being a government slave a little bit. I still think in this situation it shouldn't be the federal government's job. I still stand by my "family, community, county, state, federal government" order. And I think that by giving insulin and casts, for example, for free is definitely going to put privately run insurance companies out of business. The only way for the privately run companies to compete would be to make their products "free", but that would put them out of business. I feel that if you would want to make this federal healthcare system the best thing to do would be to have a monthly fee, perhaps, so that people still have to pay money but it might not be felt as much as buying the insulin themselves.
Perhaps if the media wasn't exaggerating the effects of COVID it might be better for your unemployment policy. Right now many businesses are short of labor because people (who I might add are likely vaccinated) are wary of the delta variant. The vaccine against COVID is about 78% percent effective against getting delta, and even if you do catch it, it is 98% effective against death and 96% effective against hospitalizations. It's easy to be scared to go back into the workplace when people say 'the numbers are still rising'. The numbers are never going to fall. Unemployment is very helpful to people who have worked hard at some point in their lives but are now physically incapable of doing any work, but a fully able-bodied person being on unemployment is very different.
Looking back down at what you said about abortion and women being able to decide for themselves, you said "killing is wrong". It is very wrong, and in American today you are put in jail for many years for killing someone. How is that different from someone killing a child in the womb? Both ways you are killing. So should women get to choose to kill someone?
What are your views on drugs? And what are your views on the electoral college?
| 18646 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-29 |
|Of course I agree with you, I want a peaceful riot, I want peace in America as a whole. I feel what you just said "not bring arms into the strike" is contradictory to most conservative groups of thought, of course I don't know your views but the proud boys and 3% ers brought their arms into protests and it was applauded by the right. Is this any different?
Except they are making money from it, people who work in insulin production are still getting paid by private companies, the US government then provides said insulin by buying it from the companies and distributing it. The market is still free, and the US government is now a buyer on it.
My general belief is this: The US government provides insulin to patients, in return those patients are expected to provide an equal service back if they can. I think there should be a three month cap to unemployment, after that you have to prove that you are still unable to work (medical reasons) and you no longer get the benefits. I have been pondering whether only people who are on unemployment or working should receive free healthcare, it is another incentive to work, however I can foresee many issues linked to this.
Besides for obviously making sure the owner is following their end of the deal I don't see any reason why more government oversight would be involved.
| 18645 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-28 |
|It doesn't have to be a major riot. It can be peaceful. People who really truly care about the issue would make a stand. You can boycott products or just NOT bring arms into the strike.
Why would people choose to work and make said casts and give said insulin if they are not making any money from it? I know someone's health is on the line, but the world isn't so simple. I'm assuming you've heard this quote before "There's no such thing as a free lunch". There's always some cost to it, whether or not it affects the individual receiving the benefit. The money that isn't being paid to the distributor could be putting their survival on the line. It is like last year when "non-essential" people lost their jobs due to COVID... Every job is essential... It allows the person to buy food and pay their taxes. And now due to that heck of a time, it is very difficult finding people to work because their unemployment is paying more than a job would.
That's a pretty good idea about starting small businesses. I have a small question though. Would the government have much oversight over the business, or would they just give the tax cut and sum of money for the said 5 years? I think it is important not to have much government oversight in sole proprietorships and partnerships.
| 18644 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-28 |
|Last time they did a major riot it turned into an uprising as 10,000 workers took up arms in 1921. The US military came in with mercenaries and police and by the end over 100 people laid dead. Lately teachers are striking because of little pay, so the spirit does exist.
Essentially a healthcare system that provides necessary benefits to allow people to live, while I don't like quoting Karl Marx my healthcare idea essentially follows the latter part of the quote "to each according to his needs." If people need insulin to survive they will receive insulin for free, if someone needs a caste for a broken arm they will get said caste. I also don't believe people should pay $400 for an ambulance. How I will pay for this is by combining medicare and medicaid, and streamlining the system. Instead of getting strangled in red-tap. Also a boost through to the system with money (I am still figuring out from where). This is something everyone will benefit from.
I don't think someone who can pay for college should have the government pay for them, a wealth limit is required. If someone makes six digits a year they should be able to pay or help pay for their own kids college.
Small stores are important for numerous reasons, not only do they bring more diversity to a market they also usually provide more jobs and closer community interaction. Think about it this way, a 25% tax cut is given if someone opens a business, if they manage to keep that business open for lets say five years they get a sum of money. The US government did something similar to encourage Western immigration.
| 18643 - Reply from Gianna107 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-28 |
|If people have given up hope for change or it is the norm for them, it shows they don't really care enough about it to try to strike/boycott. If the people don't think it's that big of an issue, then why should we get the government to stop it?
That is a good idea about military budgeting.
Can you explain your idea about a basic healthcare system available to all Americans?
Also, about the college funding thing, or unemployment, or anything where you receive help financially (I know we have stopped discussing this, but I have done more research on it). After looking at many articles and statistics, I believe that if someone can't afford something, they should go to their family. If the family can't help, they can turn to their community. If the community can't help, go to the county. Then state. Then federal government. I think you shouldn't go to the federal government right away.
Why do you want to subsidize the creation of small and medium businesses?
| 18641 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-20 |
|Perhaps, yet we have not seen any major strike or protest in recent years, perhaps people have given up hope for change or it is not the norm for them.
I agree, both of my parents didn't get vaccinated for another 1 1/2 months after they were eligible for it due to uncertainty on it's safety.
Well I am not squashing the military budget, once you take off some of the funds going to our forces in other countries you will have quite a chunk of money to work with. Using some of that to finance my changes, while the rest leaves the budget is my idea.
| 18640 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-19 |
|I understand what you mean about striking, but I think there is a point where the people need to fight for what is right. You have said that the government would want to get the mines started again quickly, so I think in this case it is up to the people of WV to do what they think is right.
I agree with you about corruption and not interfering too much.
My mother has told me that even people who are vaccinated have been getting cases of COVID due to the delta variant, but the number of deaths and hospitalizations has been going down. There is no way to get rid of all COVID in the world. No vaccine can do that. And it is still very early in the vaccination to be having EVERYONE vaccinated. Vaccinations started coming out in January, I believe, and I wouldn't be surprised if many people were nervous to get it due to its newness. I know plenty of parents who don't vaccinate their children/themselves against certain things if they don't think they will pay off/have more trouble than it's worth. The most important people have been vaccinated, and when the media is always watching the case numbers and commenting on it, it is always going to seem high. The US is doing very well compared to places like Russia where the citizens don't trust the government enough for many of them to get their vaccine.
Just wondering, how do you intend to lower the military budget when including more therapist, psychological, etc. services?
| 18639 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-18 |
|Yes, but if someone is living on welfare they might get desperate and work despite it being morally incorrect. Strikes have happened though it really takes the state or Federal government to really do anything to regulate the companies more, something They haven't done.
Socialism/Communism don't always mean corruption, though they usually go hand in hand. I don't think we should destabilize any more governments though, we should give the people the means and tools to improve their country and send it in the direction they want it to go rather than us doing it for them and doing what we think is best.
Your mother has an important job. Currently (I believe) a third of the population is not vaccinated, and Covid cases are rising again due to the delta variant. If they were vaccinated I don't think we would be having this issue again. Of course we can't vaccinate young children, sorry I forgot to mention that, and because of that if someone really can't receive the vaccine I don't think they should be barred.
| 18638 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-18 |
|But if people in WV boycotted the products because they were awful, and some of the workers went on strike, wouldn't that result in almost no one joining the company? Anyone who had the water would know that it is bad, and anyone who didn't have it would probably hear it from friends/family.
So corruption is the result of socialism/communism is what I am getting from what you said. By the CIA destabilizing corrupt governments and helping to stabilize new ones, corruption would be more easily solved.
I know this was for Addison, but I don't think the whole population needs to be vaccinated, nor do I think that people should be barred from entering a place if they aren't (obviously if someone is not feeling well they shouldn't be going out, but that is just common sense). It would be like banning a person who has not had their measles vaccine from public places. My mother works for the DIA in a field of infectious diseases, and has told me many a time that children passing COVID to other people is very unlikely, especially if they are asymptomatic (the same applies for other ages as well, though children have the lowest chance of passing it on). However, if they are symptomatic, they shouldn't be going out anyways as the best treatment for any sickness is to lie in bed and drink ginger ale and watch hours of television.
| 18637 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-18 |
|Thank you again. I do hope to become one eventually.
Yes, I know some people do use gofundme to gain access to college, it isn't a bad idea.
West Virginia has a moderate union size with 10% of the population being in a union, however that isn't all just coal mining. 4.6% of the population of WV is unemployed, roughly 82,432 people. While 14,000 WV work in the coal business, if they go on strike there are more than enough fresh manpower for the company to grab and use.
Large amounts of funds are often stolen by local officials. In Guatemala, despite great gains many of the wealthy have impunity and are even trying to corrupt the system more.
Despite my views being left leaning I wouldn't run as a Democrat simply because I cannot stand the parties hypocrisy and corruption (the same applies the the Republican party as well). Running as an independent is risky because you lack the support of a pre-established party, so perhaps a run as a Green candidate would be best. However, I can't foresee the future and anything could change, already cracks are forming within the Democratic and Republican coalition parties. The Democrats splintering between the Liberals and Progressives and the Republicans splitting between the Libertarians, Moderate Conservatives and other smaller groups. However unless the electoral college disappears I don't think we will see any smaller party gain power.
While I am fully vaccinated, and I believe the entire populace should be vaccinated, it is the persons individual choice. However, the person should know that if they are barred from entering stores, or school that is on them. They always have a choice and they made it now they have to live with the consequences. It's like a no shoes, no shirt, no service policy.
I don't think defunding the police is the right idea, their funds should be allocated to better training, education and professionalism instead of being a small army. This would cut back on violence and if the police actual know how to properly behave things might get better. (Trust me I met this one police officer once who could use a few hundred hours of gun safety training).
If your wondering about my view on Biden... I think he is fine, but I personally would have prefered someone younger and stronger such as Pete Buttigeg or Andrew Yang. I think Kamala Harris as president would also have made a good choice, I think she will be Biden's successor because I don't think he will run for president again.
| 18636 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-17 |
|You are a very smart boy, Jack. I wouldn't be surprised if one day you do become a politician.
I can definitely see why having more convenient ways for college is very important to you. Nowadays with technology I feel like there should be something like the "GoFundMe" site for colleges, where it is easier for college students to get the money they need and it wouldn't be forced through taxes.
I'm from Pennsylvania, and we have a lot of coal up here. Isn't there a way WV could still strike and boycott the unsafe products and get products from other states instead?
You have very good ideas for helping to stop immigration. Can you please give me some examples of corruption?
I wouldn't necessarily say your media idea is horrible. I would just say that there are a lot of people who don't like having an overly loud media to deal with a lot.
| 18635 - Reply from Addison60 , 12 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-17 |
|Question(s): would you be running as Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc. What are your views on the current situation of the country? I am a conservative, personally, so I would like to see where you stand on some of these issues.|
| 18633 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-17 |
|Thank you, my father was never able to attend college, not because he wasn't intelligent enough to do so but because he was never able to afford it. Due to that it is a personal issue to me.
The issue in West Virginia is that inhumane and unsafe mining is more efficient than safely mining and because of that a lot of companies besides for a few who are willing to get their hands dirty are kicked out. Sure people could strike and boycott their products, but a lot of the jobs in WV are from the coal business and it is also crucial to American power so the government would be hasty to get the mines running again.
I agree, I wrote a thesis about Media bias for my final this year and I came to the conclusion that while media is biased, it isn't as biased as many say. It simply offers different viewpoints from thousands of different people on a subject (maybe some of these people are insane *Alex Jones*) but nonetheless media simply is perspective until propaganda gets mixed in.
In C. & S. America a major drive for emigration is government instability, safety concerns and poverty/lack of jobs. The CIA have routinely throughout history destabilized governments within the regions and thus, I wouldn't be surprised if they are still doing it. Remove that and begin trying to stabilize governments. Corruption is an issue I haven't exactly figured out an answer to yet.
Yeah, my media plan does have issues and is probably a horrible idea. One thing I definitely have to say is that Trump did help stabilize one region of the Middle East.
| 18632 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-17 |
|I know that there are really bright, intelligent, hard-working students out there like you, but I still think that having taxes for other people's schooling is not the best idea. I really do applaud you and wish I had been as diligent as you when I was 16. I really think that while the government tries to do this to help include people who aren't as successful, I feel that it isn't their job to provide education to unsuccessful families. Once again, I feel that you should have the option to help fund (almost like a collection box at Church) someone else's education. I am no politician (I'm a nurse), however, and my parents began to save for my and my siblings' educations from the time we were born, so my opinions on this might not be the best. I apologize.
I was not aware what was happening in WV. That is horrible. A government program such as the FDA (one that I-a major germaphobe-actually like) really should look into this. Although, I do feel that sole-proprietorships or partnerships might be more careful with this. If something is wrong with their product, people simply refuse to buy it and their business goes down, hinting to them that something is awry.
Perhaps I have heard too much conservative news at my parents' house, as I have definitely heard some countries in Europe referred to as "socialist" before. It is hard finding a balance between the left and right, and knowing what is true and what isn't. Do you have any particular things you want to do in other countries to help solve immigration problems?
It is definitely difficult trying to figure out what is too much involvement in other countries where terrorists and other bad people are trying to do bad things. It doesn't feel right to leave Afghanistan without much help against the enemies, but at the same time it is their country and sometimes the USA needs to stay out. A good example of why we should still help, however, is when recently (in the past year, I believe) Trump helped make some peace among Israel and some gulf countries, which hadn't been at peace for a very long time. About the media, infiltrating their media is definitely a low and deceitful action, but trying to overpower theirs with our own might just get a little bit annoying. I typically don't like hearing the media too much, as it is often very biased towards a party as well as false in one form or another, and sometimes hearing the media can just get annoying.
| 18631 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-16 |
|I do, I work 25 hours a week to prepare for it and already have $5000 in scholarships. Just because I want free college doesn't necessarily mean I want it because I am lazy. I think we have to factor in people who are not as successful as I am, it doesn't mean they are stupid, most of the time people like myself take the scholarships and leave behind nothing for them. Even if it is a close race I end up almost paying all of college off, even more so not every community is rich enough to ascend a group of kids to college level.
Corporations do have a lot of oversight, but once again look at West Virginia where water supplies are often poisoned by coal mining companies (not purposely) but they don't care the human cost to their endeavors.
I agree killing is wrong, that's why I hate war. But I stand by my words that women should be able to decide for themselves.
The amount of people fleeing Europe because of socialism is very little, and may I add Europe isn't socialist. They primarily have a social-capitalist hybrid Democracy, which while it is very left leaning is definitely not the envisioning of Karl Marx. Most seem quite content with their current system. China is obviously a different example because most of those that leave are searching for freedom. Our national debt is definitely something we need to cut back on.
Afghanistan is a tough question and one I have always pondered. I don't believe we should have gotten ourselves involved in a war there. But, I still think we should be helping the government we set up, the video of the Afghan commandos solidified that belief. I don't think attacking their media is the right solution, but if we can overpower it with ours that will fix the problem.
| 18630 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-16 |
|I still feel that you should pay off your college debt yourself (or your family and community and people who are willing to help). I think that it should be optional, rather than necessary by taxes, to help fund other peoples' educations.
I apologize... I did not think about things like roads and power grids. I do realize that government involvement is necessary in some cases, but I feel that the government nowadays takes their role too far very often. Though I would like to point out that corporations have a lot of oversight from the government.
I agree that we should pull some troops out of Germany. 40,000 is too much. I was not aware that there were that many in Germany. I do think we should keep high numbers in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan or other places that are likely to be attacking.
About military propaganda, I don't think we should do anything to Iran for calling us terrorists. We call them terrorists, and it's not like we can go and take over their media. I think that is a different country, and they obviously will have different views. However, if our country is calling US troops terrorists, something is certainly wrong.
My thoughts on abortion is that it is wrong no matter your religion. It is murder. I believe that if women aren't ready to have children, they shouldn't be having (you can call me a wimp for saying this) you-know-what. Once pregnant, a woman isn't only choosing what they want for their body. They are choosing for both bodies, and no matter your religion, killing is wrong.
I don't know what to do about immigration myself, but I would like to point out that a lot of people leave their countries for the freedom the US has. Many countries in Europe are socialist, China is communist, no one wants to live in Iraq or Afghanistan or any places involved in the gulf war for obvious reasons. I think that a lot of people leave their homes for the freedom, freedom that has been kept for almost 250 years. It would be difficult to improve the government of their own countries. But in places such as countries in Africa where it is difficult to live, I would say helping them and improving their country would be a good solution. But one thing to keep in mind is that the USA already has a $28.2 trillion debt.
| 18629 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-15 |
|I would agree by saying people would be bums and manipulate the system, but there are things that people manipulate in every system. During the 60's and 70's China faced a predicament of what you are describing, everyone didn't want to work because they got things even if they didn't and because of that China made capitalist reforms. But, they have free education in China and their students perform better than ours (admittedly the are an authoritarian police state) but if people have incentives to do something such as a good job after college they will try hard to do so.
I disagree that privatizing everything is a good idea, I feel that is setting the room for disaster. Power grids, roads, bus lines, libraries, and museums would all start falling into disrepair or close without massive local works being done. You would be putting a monopoly on American life in the hands of corporations who would probably seize this opportunity to take over these services for their own benefit. What happens to the highways? Who takes care of that, they are payed for by the public after all. I don't trust the government much, but I trust corporations less (look at West Virginia and their struggle against corporate power).
I agree, we shouldn't pull too many out but I don't think we need 40,000 troops in Germany. My thoughts on military benefits come from the fact that after the Vietnam was thousands of veterans never received funds for being in contact with agent orange and many are dying from cancer. The same applies to various things in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars such as hearing loss.
The propaganda is something I noticed recently, but it is primarily pushed forward by anti-US media, in articles they tend to loosely use the word terrorist and American soldier together. I mean Iran declared all American soldiers terrorists a few years ago. I think American soldiers are hero's and that as will all groups there are a few bad apples that need to be casted out.
I feel like abortion is immoral (from a religious standpoint), but I think women should have the right to choose what they want with their bodies. However I think abstinence, education and safety is the best way to decrease the amount of abortions needed. But also as I said earlier I don't think religion should be forced upon others, and as such we shouldn't use religious reasons to inflict mass change.
| 18628 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-15 |
|I should have specified... By "dressed as a female" I meant doing things like plastic surgery and also just pretending you are a female in general when you are not. It is unnatural to pretend to be the other gender on the daily basis and actually considering yourself to be the other gender.
So regarding education.... I am not a huge fan of having it being a public service. My family was homeschooled due to our having to move every few years, and we still had to pay taxes to the public schools even though our family had nothing to do with them. We didn't participate in public school sports or any classes or any evaluators. In general, I find public services to be slightly unjust. You could be paying for a child to go to school, but the child could be lazy and won't try to do well, as their family won't be the one paying for their schooling. I find this to be an example of socialism. Someone could be giving their money to the government to redistribute "equally" among everybody. So someone who worked hard all their life would be as poor as a lazy bum who didn't work a day of his life. The incentives to be successful is much lower in almost everything provided by the government. Personally, I think your family and community of friends/neighbors who are willing to will be happy to help if a good family needs help.
I don't think pulling too many troops out of foreign territory is a good idea. Having troops in foreign territory typically helps prevent terrorist attacks in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and other places that are involved in the gulf war. And having military families in bases in other countries (Japan, Germany, England, Singapore, etc.) helps build better relations with those countries. Veterans already get a generous pension for their services as well as healthcare. I would also make the psychological help optional, as some of the military who works in the intelligence field, for example, might not need any. We had pretty good wages. Can you please tell me about all the military propaganda? I never heard of that happening. I thought troops were seen as heroes.
Just curious, what are your views on abortion?
| 18627 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-15 |
|Throughout history women and men have dressed similarly or very differently, I mean (to me at least) a tunic is too different from a dress and the clothing worn in the 1600's to 1700's was 'female' as well (tights, skirts). So I am not understanding how a man wearing a dress is unnatural as men have worn similar things throughout history.
In my plan it would be a public service, just like primary education. Since other people are paying for a stranger's kid to be educated, is it that different from free college? I see free college as an extension of primary education, and the general state of mind is that the new college graduates will help expand the economy which will help put the money back into the pockets of those who payed for it. Also, while the older population won't benefit from this, it allows for the future generations too and they will face less stigma to it because they got into college for free, and are now paying for another kid. It is a fair deal in my opinion.
If we pull out troops from military conflicts and foreign territory, I think we can decrease our military budget without cutting into pre-existing programs. However I don't think skinning the budget entirely is the right idea, and that a portion of those funds should go to pensions for veterans, healthcare for veterans (which includes psychological help as well) and reintegrating them with the public. Another thing would be increased wages. I think more needs to be done in regards to improving American troops image, instead of being demonized by media and foreign propaganda.
Please tell me about your views, I am interested to hear them. Also, I thank you family for their service.
| 18626 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-15 |
|I feel that the best idea about the wolves is to fund farmers to put up better defenses against the wolves. It involves government involvement, but not too much, and it is easily done.
I still think vitro fertilization is very unnatural. You are taking sperm a male who you don't know. I believe that the only way that is fruitful is if the marriage can sexually produce children, sperm from the husband and the ova from the wife. And I don't approve of infertile couples using vitro either.
In my eyes, there are only two genders; male and female. You are your biological gender. Transgender people who choose to be male still have the same equal rights as every other female. I believe that transgender people are put aside as "different" because it is unnatural for someone who is biologically male to be walking around dressed as a female. So I feel that whatever was ratified during the women's rights movement still applies today, and transgender people are equal to their original gender (or in my opinion, should be, but given some sensitive respect due to their evidently deflated self-esteem.
I do believe that everyone should be able to receive a college education, but when you make it "free", it is other people in the country who are forced to pay money for someone's college. I feel that if someone goes to college before they are able to pay for it, they should pay it off over time with the money they earn from jobs, which will typically pay higher if you are college educated. And the incentives to do well are higher when you know that paying the debt is on you.
What are your ideas for changing the military? As someone who was in a Navy family, I feel I can give you some first hand advice.
| 18625 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-15 |
|Yellowstone is only ~3,500 sq. miles, so only a few wolf packs could really live there. To answer that question we have to look at history, the federal and state governments didn't regulate or involve themselves with a lot of early hunting and wolves, mountain lions, beavers and coyotes were all almost exterminated in the mid 1800's during our push West. I would argue no government regulation is not the right course of action because at least you could ensure a portion of the population could survive. Or we could actually fund farmers to put up better fences and stop this deal entirely (but killing a few hundred wolves is cheaper than putting up a decent fence so you can expect the ranchers to be in arms about that).
When it comes to invitro it isn't unnatural by some senses you could say, you are simply given the sperm of a man. Sure the process isn't done naturally but child is born naturally and the sperm isn't created using chemicals, it is natural as well. It is common even with straight couples if the husband is infertile.
I heard a saying while I was researching the women's rights movement a while back, "Different but equal." it was a term used by people who were against the movement to try to defend the inequality between the two genders. Obviously that wasn't true, women at the time were not equal to men in many ways, but the same debate is sort of re-emerging today. Are transgender people equal to others, or is it the same "different but equal" saying?
We could debate other things, energy, government budget, foreign policy...
| 18624 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-14 |
|I feel that with all the government land (I am not sure how big Yellowstone is, or other national parks) they may be able to contain wolves on that land. I don't particularly care for my Yellowstone idea, myself, but if there is no other way to save the wolves, it is okay. I feel that the solution to the wolf problem, however, is simply to stop government involvement in it. I feel that if Idaho hadn't allowed its citizens to kill 90% of the wolves, there would be more wolves. I think that if the government doesn't get involved, the wolves might have a higher chance of survival. I know it sounds weird, but I feel that the people in Idaho have almost a pressure to kill 90% of wolves. Or, again I am against government taking this much action, states can lower the percentage of wolves that can be killed.
I looked up the word "equal" in my dictionary and it says "adj. 1 of the same amount, size, or value 2 having the same rights, ability, or position. n. any person or thing that is equal. v. to be equal to; match"
I believe that a transgender person who chooses to be a boy would have more rights than a girl who remains a girl, as the transgender girl would have the option to join the boys' sports team. A transgender person who is originally a girl is still equal to a girl. And if someone sees themselves as female and can't join the team of someone who is biologically female, the person who sees themselves as female has all the same rights as every other biological male. A biological and not transgender male is not allowed to join a different gender's team, and when it comes down to it, a transgender person is still their same gender.
Yes, I think at this point we will have to agree to disagree about marriage. But to comment on your statements, someone who isn't married can still make it to heaven. In marriage it is just being an extra "support buddy" to your spouse to help them get to heaven. And with vitro fertilization, is the marriage truly fruitful? Or is it going to unnatural means to get a child?
I am rather sad that we are starting to end our debate. If there is anything else you want to debate about, I would be happy to do so. Or if you want my REF number, I can give you it.
| 18623 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-13 |
|I agree, but often throughout the bible god has acted because of humanity, not as if their was a predestined path. The Tower of Babel, the great flood, Adam and Eve's exile... Sometimes I think god leaves our future up to us, and he only acts to save us from our own demise. Due to that I think fighting climate change is up to us.
Well that is the problem, sure you can add wolves to Yellowstone but the more wolves there are the less prey their will be to share between them. The wolves starve and die soon after. So they need land to themselves, some wolf packs territories extend over a 1000 sq. miles. Keeping them penned in will be almost impossible as well. Besides wolves are necessary even in places they are hunted to lower the prey species populations as when they grow to large they can also damage an ecosystem. Everything needs to be in equilibrium.
Being equal (in my perspective) means that a person is deemed as the same in terms of rights to all others. If a person see's themselves as female, and is unable to play on a female team, do they have the same right as someone who is biologically female who is. Equal doesn't always mean the same, on a balance scale you can have two 5 pound weights to one ten pound weights. They are equal but sometimes it doesn't mean they both get one law or option.
I suppose when it comes down to marriage we will have to agree to disagree... however if a marriage leads your family to heaven and homosexuals cannot marry then how are they meant to get to it? Also, homosexual relations can still be fruitful, gay women can get in vitro fertilization and lead a fruitful life.
| 18622 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-12 |
|Thank you for letting me know that my message wasn't appearing. Perhaps I accidentally x'd out instead of pressing "Ok, Publish."
While the idea of global warming does scare me sometimes, I have to believe that a lot of it comes from the media, which has been known to exaggerate often. I understand that the world is heating, but I believe that it will cool down again. The world has gone through ice ages, so perhaps it is going through a -what should I call it- steam age. I know it will be very rough for a while, but it's in God's hands and humanity will make it through.
I do not agree with hunting wolves for no particular reason. I don't believe people should be killing wolves like that. What if the government tried to repopulate wolves on national land, where people can't kill them?
May I ask why someone being on their chosen gender's team is equal? I believe that it is equal when everyone on the team is the same gender. I don't really see how it is equal for a transgender person to be on their chosen gender's team.
I might be wrong here, but I was under the assumption that US laws were based on Christian moral law? A sin is a deliberate thought, word, deed, or omission that hurts God and others. If you believed that a homosexual marriage was a sin, and did it anyways, it would be living a life of sin. Marrying someone you don't truly love because you are afraid to come out is also an ill-advised thing to do, which is why the Catholic Church recommends and supports homosexually oriented people to live a life of chastity. God would certainly not smile down on anyone dishonoring or being prejudiced against LGBTQ+ members, and He loves them the same as the rest of us. LGBTQ+ members can still be a part of the Church and the Church tries its best to help them. In the mid-1970s, the Vatican recognized the difference between being homosexual and engaging in homogenital (same-sex) acts. Catholic teaching holds that, as a state beyond a person’s choice, being homosexual is not wrong. But just as it is wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so, too, homogenital acts are wrong.
My family and the Church always told me that marriage was to create new life as well as lead your spouse and children to Heaven. Gay couples, therefore, are not fruitful. I do believe, however, that adoption should be available for single LGBTQ+ and not LGBTQ+ people. Adopting a child, in my opinion, is very difficult (there are too many limitations) and expensive to do, thus the reason more heterosexual families don't do it. My family wanted to adopt, but since we were military and moving around a lot we weren't able to, and then when my father retired and we looked into adopting again, we realized that our home (four children, three of which had mental illnesses, and a mother and a father) was too small and chaotic to ever be allowed to adopt a child.
I am rather enjoying this too. I'd say it is beneficial to see other people's points of view. This is helping me understand some things that I hadn't considered before.
| 18621 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-12 |
|I am not seeing your message|
| 18620 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-12 |
|I did write a reply but I don't see it above your message. Please tell me if it didn't send.|
| 18619 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-12 |
|I too believe nature will fight for itself, but I worry not for nature but for humans. Lets make the human body an analogy for nature, when a virus or infection upsets its homeostasis our body increases it's temperature to kill the invader. While humans are far more durable than a virus, a change of five degrees won't kill us, what will will come next. So the Earth is hot and the virus still isn't dead, but since it is hotter (the heat caused by more C02 due to less trees and more pollution) more water evaporates which further thickens Earths atmosphere. This cycle continues as the Earth gets hotter and hotter, rainfall slows. Places that were already arid become deserts and places like Africa practically become unlivable due to a lack of water to farm and lack of land to support such a large population. So they flee to places like America where we are currently dealing with wildfires and water issues as well, and we cannot support these people. Things get violent, things turn to anarchy. Nature or humanity isn't going to die, but things will be very rough for a very long time.
I agree that they probably wouldn't but logging companies, mining companies and farmers will still want some of this new land and cut down said trees. So Idaho signed a bill that allowed for 90% of the wolf population to be killed, no questions asked how it is done or where. Whats worse is that millions of dollars were spent to bring them up their their current numbers only for them to be slaughtered again.
Definitely, someone who is trans will always biologically be their birth gender, it is something people cannot change. I disagree, if trans people were allowed to play as their gender, then that would be equal as they would be considered who they are. Fair would be not allowing them to join other teams because of their inherent physical strength that often surpasses that of someone who is biologically female.
For the marriage question it comes down to the old debate "Do we base our laws on Christianity or are we a secular nation" Also, what is worse? Sinning once by marrying another person of the same gender, or sinning everyday because you are uncomfortable with coming out and lie everyday to say you are not homosexual. I also don't think god would smile kindly upon preventing people from a part of religion just because of who they love. Also I think a same-sex marriage can be fruitful, sure they usually cannot have kids, but they can adopt (something a lot of heterosexual marriages do not do because they already have kids)
Also, I have to say I am enjoying having a debate with someone about issues that is calm and hasn't devolved into a screaming match.
| 18618 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-11 |
|The government owns a large amount of land in the USA and takes many means to protect the trees on their land. I believe that ranchers, as they don't value trees very much besides, perhaps, shade for their cattle, wouldn't buy land with as many trees (as it would take up some of their land they wanted for cattle) and if their trees died, it would not be as many. And with national parks that the government has control over, I believe that we won't lack too many trees. It is the life cycle, and trees have survived much longer than any of us have been alive. Surely Emerald Ash Borers wouldn't kill off the whole tree population. While I do care about the environment some, I firmly believe that nature has and will continue to fight for itself for many years.
Hunting animals off your property is a debate in my mind. It is hard because my mind tells me that people simply shouldn't do it, but I know that a lot of folks will choose to hunt animals off their property. I also don't want the government to have too much power, however, as that could lead to many future problems. Do you know if the people who kill the wolves (ones that haven't strayed onto their property) do so close to their property or just whenever they see them? I could be completely wrong, but in the scene that is in my head I see ranchers killing wolves that are coming close to their property, so as to stop the problem before it arises. But I don't know for sure and I was wondering if you could give me more input.
I can also see both sides of the argument on transgender people being able to play sports, but I do believe that even when you say you are transgender, you are still your original gender. You might identify as a male or female, but biologically you aren't. It all comes down to your chromosomes.... Males have an X and Y, and females have an X and X. Equality comes in where you know everyone on the team has the same gender as you, and I believe it is more fair/equal to have transgender people playing on their original gender's team than having them play on their chosen gender's team.
I do not believe that workplaces should be firing workers for their sexual orientation. I feel that in most places the policy should be "Don't ask, don't tell" unless you trust the person to still understand that you can't help your sexual orientation. If I were a business owner in that situation, I would still believe that a marriage is between and man and a woman and disagree if they are in a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender, but I would not fire them for something they cannot help.
Here is something that I base a marriage off of:
"Marriage is the beginning—the beginning of the family—and is a life-long commitment. It also provides an opportunity to grow in selflessness as you serve your wife and children. Marriage is more than a physical union; it is also a spiritual and emotional union. This union mirrors the one between God and His Church."
"In the Catholic Church, marriage, also known as holy matrimony, is the 'covenant by which a man and woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring', and which 'has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptised.' "
Again, I know that I am probably very biased to my Catholic faith, but a marriage needs to be fruitful, and a marriage between the same gender is not so. I would not call myself homophobic, as I am not violently against gay marriages and I understand their points of view.
| 18616 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-11 |
|True, your explanation of how decreasing federal lands is a solution, is something I find agreeable. I will have to think about that more.
However, the Emerald Ash Borer kills trees and I don't think ranchers have much use for trees on their property in general. Also,soil degradation is still a thing and with cattle leaving the plains bare of grasses causes immense erosion and is a factor which caused the Dust bowl during the 1930's.
I agree that if an animal is attacking someone's property they have a right to defend it, however the hunting of the wolves does not just include that. They are allowed to purge those that haven't even bothered their property yet.
Admittedly my thoughts on transgender people in sports are still not fully developed. I can see both sides of the argument and I think it inevitably comes down to "are we an equal country, or a fair country?" If we were equal then of course I think transgender kids should be allowed on other teams, but if we are a fair country they shouldn't because it wouldn't be fair for some people (yet it also wouldn't be fair for them).
Why LGBTQ+ are being fired from their jobs is primarily due to homophobia I believe, their employers simply don't like them because they are homosexual. So they find illegitimate reasons to fire them. It is interesting seeing a difference in our believes despite us both being Christian, though I can see that being caused by myself being a Methodist. The main problem I do have with your beliefs is marriage, since to me they still deserve (at least for legal reasons) to be able to be classified as married since it is important when it comes to... lets say adoption.
| 18614 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-11 |
|Not all the lands they maintain include places like Yellowstone. Personally I think that they could still own enough land yet not destroy national parks like Yellowstone. I also believe that if someone owns that property and raises an important commodity on it, they will be eager to get rid of insects such as emerald ash borers. It is their land and they would face the consequences.
As for hunting animals, I also believe that you can set up precautions to stop them from coming in to attack your cattle. And again if it is private property, and the predators freely roam onto their land, I feel that they can try to dispose of the animal (though personally I would try to set up better fences, barns, etc. before trying to kill the animal, but to each their own.)
Thank you for pointing out that about the ranchers' powers. I didn't think about that before. I agree with you that it is corrupt, but on the other hand if they decide to stop providing the nation with beef, they won't be gaining money and their business reputation will be scarred. And with fish, ham, and chicken along with beef that take up most of the country's meat, I believe that Americans would not starve.
My point of view regarding LGBTQ+, which is probably very much so based on my Catholic religion, is that yes, you can love anybody, and you should love everybody, but a marriage is in between a man and a woman, and if you aren't married but are involved sexually with one another it is adultery. So in my view, LGBTQ+ shouldn't be a community of people who are sexually engaged with people of the same gender, but perhaps people who struggle with the sexual orientation of people of the same gender, and they can support each other to get through a life of chastity.
Transgender people still have the bodily functions and hormones of their original gender. This would make it rather dangerous for themselves or other people on a sports team of one gender. For example, if a female pretends she is a boy and joins a boy sports team, she might be seriously injured going against much stronger and differently built boys, as well as not being as good of a player, since after many years boys are simply faster and stronger than girls. And if a man pretends he is a girl and joins a girl sport team, they might injure other females and also have the unfair advantage of being faster and stronger. Not being able to go into a bathroom of their new "adopted" gender I feel is a lot fairer to people who have remained their gender in the bathroom. It would practically be the same thing as a boy going into a girls' bathroom or a girl going into a boys' bathroom.
May I ask why LGBTQ+ are fired from their jobs simply because of their gender? I don't see that as being fair myself, as it would be the same thing as a straight man or woman being fired because of their gender, and LGBTQ+'s sexual orientation is no business of their workplace.
And as for the military, until recently being gay was against the US law, so if someone was gay in the military, it would mean they were breaking the law. That's where the phrase "Don't ask, don't tell" came in, so that gay people in the military wouldn't be fired due to their sexual orientation, which no one can help.
Note, when I say sexual orientation I am referring to the gender they are attracted to. By sexual behaviors I mean acting romantically around one another.
| 18612 - Reply from Jack100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-11 |
|While that certainly is a possible solution, these lands include areas such as Yellowstone. By removing federal control of these regions can prove disastrous for the local environment. While in the bigger picture it does look small, it opens paths for other animals or plants to take over due to the absence of a natural "immune system". Insects such as the Emerald Ash borer have already devastated some American forests, which then hurts our lumber industry. It is a domino effect.
That isn't exactly what I am suggesting, I do not care or plan to enforce where you can and cannot raise cattle, that is a major overstep of government authority to me. However, just because you choose to raise cattle in a certain region; knowing that there is a chance for attacks on your animals shouldn't grant you special privileges to hunt animals.
The way they have power is this: They provide most of the meat that feeds the US, importing it isn't easy and because of that thirty or so companies can consolidate control over the industry; killing smaller honest ranchers. If you control the food supply of a country you essentially control the country. Obviously they are not starving us or forcing us directly, but their immense wealth gained from their beef monopoly allows them to easily buy out state and federal congressmen. I think both of us can agree both aisles of our government is very corrupt.
By LGBTQ+ rights I don't just mean rights, I also mean perception. (I should have specified). For example the US government did not include Xavier Bettels (Luxembourg's president) husbands name from a photo, despite having every other spouses name in 2017. So what rights are they missing? Transgender people (this is still a huge debate) cannot join sports teams, or go to bathrooms of their new gender in many states. Also according to the ACLU many LGBTQ+ are rejected or fired from jobs simply because of their gender, and until recently soldiers couldn't be openly gay.
| 18611 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-11 |
|As a conservative, I feel that most of these issues could be solved by not having as much public and taxpayer-paid land, and more private property. I also don't see why they should be limited on what they can do based on where their cattle are raised. And I don't understand how they have more power than the rest of us when we are in a labor union.
Also, what rights do LGBTQ+ people not have?
| 18610 - Reply from Jack 100 , 16 yrs (USA) - 2021-07-10 |
|So in the Western states, including the great plains states and most of the Rocky mountain states large cattle ranches exist. There are quite a few issues that originate from this:
-A it takes more acres of land per cow to raise a cow in the West than the East; this due to a variety of reasons ranging from less nutrients to a different climate.
-Also due to needing more land for cows these cows consume the US government allows them to graze on public land. When these ranchers began to hurt the soil quality and animal life the US government cut them off. In 2014-2017 a series of events took place which included an occupation of a ranger station, the murder of two police officers and for dozens to be injured.
-Due the the necessity for meat, these ranchers hold a strangle hold on the region. Recently wolves made a comeback from local extinction, but ranchers are once again allowed to hunt wolves using all means. (Including helicopters). However in Wisconsin and Michigan out of 8.7 million sheep wolves only killed 3,879 in 2015.
-Ranchers input millions of dollars into lobbying both state and federal governments to give them increased autonomy and to prevent action to change the climate.
While most ranchers are small time and have nothing to do with this, I believe much needs to be done to combat the influence of large ranchers because they are hurting the environment, their political leverage and because they are grazing their cattle on taxpayer property.
| 18609 - Reply from Gianna50 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-07-10 |
|Please explain to me the western rancher thing.
I personally don't think I'd vote for you but I definitely think a lot of people would. Keep going buddy!
Pro Life or Pro Choice? Reply your answer below.
| 18675 - Reply from Gianna5 , 24 yrs (US) - 2021-10-18 |
Can you please tell me the other reasons for your being pro choice? I'm curious.
Also, a woman has the choice when she gets pregnant. She takes the risk when involving herself in certain relations. That in itself is her choice. It is still a living, human being when it is in the womb, so it would still be killing. Also... killing is considered wrong on about every level, regardless of religion. There's a difference between people dying from natural causes such as disease and old age and an otherwise healthy human dying because someone simply changed their mind/didn't want them anymore from very gruesome causes of death. There are adoption centers and foster homes if you don't want the child. You don't have to murder someone. The option of abortion is the option of death, killing. Should we have the option of killing others in our world? Legally killing others? It's not our right to dictate whether or not someone should have a baby... I just think they should decide that before having certain relations that are meant solely for the procreation of offspring. It is our right, however, to make sure the world is safer and there aren't people going around saying it's fine to kill a child.