Group items tagged

The second dose really does have stronger side effects. My mom got her vaccine because she works with law enforcement and she was sick for a few days after she got hers and she said when she woke up the morning after her shot that it felt like someone hit her in the arm with a baseball bat.

yes, the second dose does have side effects, but the same thing happens with the flu vaccine. the only difference is that this vaccine doesn't actually inject you with the virus. it just sends antibodies to teach your body to fight it.

This article talks more in-depth about what coronavirus vaccines do to your body. For example, it talks about how the first vaccine teaches your body how to react to the virus. With the second vaccine, you will more than likely be getting more side effects. According to the article, no matter how many side effects people will get, the vaccine will still be working in your body. What are your guy's thoughts about the vaccine?

I think that even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, we should all consider taking it. At this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.

I think that even though it has stronger side effects people should still consider getting the vaccine. The stronger side effects may be rough, but I'm sure getting Covid is worse.

The article discusses how the second Covid shot will most likely hit harder than the first. It talks about how that's actually a good thing because these common symptoms are typically signs that the vaccine is working. While I have had friends that have suffered from the second shot, I would still get the shot because it's better than getting Covid.

I think that because the side effects are stronger we should allow the vaccine more time for development, but we should still consider getting it.

Even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, I think all of us should consider taking it at this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.

I think that even with the second shot having more side effects we should still get it because it is our only option at this point but I do also think that there needed to be more time for the vaccine to develop and for us to know if it could really effect us in the future.

I completely trust the Maderna vaccine as my dad was part of the trial for it and he had no problems with it (he didn't have the placebo, he had the actual vaccine), and that's good enough for me, if he was fine, ill most likely be fine.

I think although the second dose has stronger side effects it shouldn't stop you from not getting the vaccine at all. I think the vaccine is our only chance of getting rid of COVID and it will only work if the majority of Americans get it. At the end of the day, I think the side effects of the vaccine can't be as bad as the long-lasting effects COVID can have on you.

The COVID shot reminds me of the flu shot because when you get the flu shot it is normal to get sick afterwards or have pain but it will prevent you later from getting the flu. Even though the covid shot has side effects it is still good to get it because it will prevent you from getting COVID

Even though the second dose has strong side effects I think that it's vital that everyone gets vaccinated if we ever want to return to normal life. I got my first dose last week and besides a sore arm and being a little thirsty I was fine. It affects people in different ways so I could get no side effects when I get my second dose or I could get a ton of negative ones. It's only for 48 hours according to the article and I´m willing to endure the risk of being sick if it means making the world hopefully safe and normal again.

I think its really your choice. I personally believe I do not need to be getting a newly made vaccine that no one knows the possible future effects from it. If I get Covid I get it and I feel it's more important for older people to get the vaccine if they like, you do you. But as well as the J & J vaccine, I feel it is unneeded things being put into your body where there has already been multiple of horrible results from people getting the vaccine. You won't be seeing me vaccinated.

Personally, I would not get the vaccine because nobody knows what it is going to do to you later. If there are no long-term effects and it truly does protect you from the virus then I completely understand why you would get it. The thing is, no one 100% knows so I would be very hesitant to get it.

I think you should get the vaccine but you should not be forced to get it. If someone is worried that the vaccine is not safe then they should not have to get it if they do not want it.

Even though it has stronger effects I still think everyone should consider getting vaccinated. Of course, there should be no forcing anyone to get vaccinated, it's just important that everyone weighs their options. I was really really sick with Covid earlier this year and it was awful. If I can do my part to protect myself and everyone else I'm going to do it.

I think that it's a good thing since as the article said, it means it's working. If there is a chance for people to be able to not get the harsh effects of COVID-19 then maybe they should get the shot so they can be prepared for it. Idk.

It's still in the works so of course it's going to have different/stronger effects.

I believe that we all should take the second dose because it will help with Covid and in fact it's definitely stronger than the first one.

I think that people should be able to decide if they want the second dose or not, but I hope they do.

I think more Americans should get the vaccine despite the side effects the vaccine has on them. It's our best chance of not catching or spreading the virus meaning that we can return to our normal lives. A couple of days of the side effects the vaccine has on them outweighs the long-term effects of not getting the vaccine including the fact that if you get COVID, there's a possibility your symptoms from the virus will last even after you're free of spreading the virus.

I agree with everyone's comments, even though the second dose has worse effects i think people should try to get it because other wise we'll never "go back to normal"

I think we should stick to the vaccine that we KNOW works best

Im angry about this be because it's already been moving to pass in Mississippi, Connecticut, and Tennessee. It's sad to see so many people retaliate against the trans-community. They see us as disgusting monsters. They don't feel bad when they take away the rights of trans youth because of their lack of understanding of what being transgender actually is. I'm not speaking for all trans people, but I would have rather never been born than to be trans. for many reasons because most are too personal to say. and when old 1900s people take away our basic rights, and others seem to never care, it angers me.

This is simply disgusting. Have people really become this ignorant and transphobic? Maybe they should... hear me out here... mind.their.business

I personally agree that transgender women should be banned from women sports because biologically they are still male and for all of human history males have been proven to physically superior to females and when you put a transgender women whos been a male for most of their life vs a women whos been a woman all of her life it's gonna be pretty obvious whos gonna win I would hate to be a girl in a wrestling team and get destroyed by a transgender women whos been a male for the longest time ever.

I disagree with the House of Republicans introducing anti-trans legislation that could lead to genital exams for females. America is a free nation where everyone has the right to choose and be identified based on their gender decision. As a female and one day future mother, I suggest not allowing this legislation because it will only spread narcissism and homophobia. Females should never be forced to go through an "examination" to prove their gender. The First Amendment guarantees our right to free expression and we should maintain it active no matter what.

I disagree, I think people have a right to be who they want and have a right to participate in the things that they want. Just because you fear what you don't understand doesn't mean you can force HUMANS to go through these traumatizing experiences so you can tell them they can't do something. They have a right to play sports if they want to and people shouldn't stand in their way.

I completely disagree with this. This is teaching young girls that it's okay for people to expect you to show them their genitals, this is teaching young girls that they don't have the choice to say no, this is teaching young girls to let old white men control our lives and the way that we handle our bodies. This is only adding to the rape culture of the present day by teaching girls that we don't have control over our bodies.

I disagree with this whole thing. Females have privacy and should keep it. I don't even see the big deal in allowing someone who identifies as female to play a sport that is only for girls. People should be able to be who they identify as without facing discrimination. I thought we've moved on already.

I disagree with the legislation. No one should have to have their genitals checked just to play sports in general. Also, people in the trans community already face enough humiliation and bullying, the old white men writing the legislation should stop worrying about what sports trans people play and instead work on attempting to end the global pandemic at hand.

how do you not see the problem with trans people playing sports? Men are scientifically stronger than females creating an unfair advantage. These trans people will just take opportunities away from women, like scholarships. If you are say a female wrestler, would you want to wrestle a male? No, because it's unfair.

I disagree with this completely. We should not have to show our genitals or get them checked in order to play sports. The trans community gets so much hate and suffers enough as it is. The people writing the legislation need to quit being so concerned with the trans community and what sports they're playing and also quit trying to pass laws that could invade young womens privacy. It's disgusting that this is even being considered.

Personally I think people should be allowed to do what they want, transgenders playing sports included. Politicians spend too much time creating conflict and fighting among themselves, which creates division among the people too

I also feel like most don't really care about the highschool sport. They just don't want trans people participating. I think when they imagine a trans woman, they think of a pedo looking dude, or very masculine. When in reality, many trans women look very much like women. I understand a physical sport, like wrestling, but that's basically it. Maybe weight lifting, but everything else is just based on the fact that some people don't understand the transgender mind and body and how they work. Who cares about high school or middle school volleyball that much to be so concerned to want to check any women's genitals? invasion of privacy and just embarrassing.

I 100% disagree with this. First off girls shouldn't have to show their genitals in order to play sports, it's an invasion of privacy and just disgusting. And secondly, this legislation perpetuates the idea that trans women aren't women, which simply isn't true. If a trans woman, or just a trans person in general, wants to play a sport on the team that aligns with their gender identity they should be able to.

I completely disagree with the statement "I also feel like most don't really care about the highschool sport". These high school athletes put in many hours of their week into participating in their sport. These people care a lot. For some kids, this could be their only way out of a bad situation they are in. Also, it's not only wrestling that this would create an unfair advantage. Basketball, Soccer, Softball, Volleyball, Swiming. The list just goes on. If you say that "Most people don't care" you must not be involved in any type of sport seriously.

true, I don't participate in sports. I guess I didn't think about how big and important even middle school sports can be, and I'm sorry bout that. What I was trying to say before is that most of the people passing these laws don't care about the sport. They just don't. They see Biden allow trans people back into the military, and they got mad. Another thing is that for the people saying it's a disadvantage, idk what to say to ya'll. Yall All could ban mentally disabled girls because it could "bring the team down". yall could ban stronger girls with muscle because they are "too strong compared to the other girls and its unfair". Anyone can make excuses to discriminate against a group they don't understand or care about and make it sound like they have the best of intentions. And maybe they do, but the fact they think they can stop the freedom of that individual because its unfair to them, shows the lack of understanding they have on that issue. I'm a trans person, and I personally live through small micro-aggressions and just blatant transphobia in my own house every day. So when I see discrimination with no consiterate thought on how to solve an issue (instead of finding a solution, they just ban people from playing all together) that's when I have an issue. I'm sorry this is long btw (:

the fact that they could say "I also feel like most don't really care about their highschool sport" is wrong the people who participate in their high school sports aren't just doing it for fun that may be one of the only ways they can start a career they want or it may be their only way to get out of a bad situation they also take hours out of their weeks to perfect their skills I personally think most people just don't understand the time & dedication.

I don't think that it should truly matter as long as they are doing what they need. The girls who are putting time and dedication into the sport should get to play, that is all that matters.

I agree with the ban because I feel it would always result in an unfair advantage however if there are ways to make it fairer then I suppose I would have no real problem with it

I disagree with this because it could allow children to think that other people looking at their genitals and that's just disgusting. Also, I feel like someone who is transgender is going to be taking certain hormones to change their body and while they are transitioning they shouldn't have the possibility of being looked at in this way because trans people already struggle with body dysphoria and this may just worsen it.

I feel like if you were born a male then it is fair to switch to a female or do whatever makes you happy but, it is definitely unfair for someone with the genetic make-up of a man to be competing against women in sports. Man are known to generally be stronger and more athletic than women and I feel like if they were competing in a physical activity it would never be fair.

This is a disgusting bill that has begun passing in some conservative states. The people writing these don't understand that Transgender (Male to Female) start hormone therapy that degrades their muscle building and strength overall so people would not have that much of an advantage. Also, no one is upset if it was a Transgender female to male.

It's pretty insane to think that any people would have to make a decision to abort their child or keep the baby even though it would be given a life of pain, like Zink's baby would've endured. Normally I would state that I'm very against abortion, but under some certain cases, (like having a baby with a deformed brain that would have to be connected to life support and live with pain), I think the option to have an abortion should be given to some people at 20 weeks or 24 weeks.

I do not completly agree with abortion, if she was 20 weeks in and the baby was fine and everything was going good then I think it would be wrong for her to of had an abortion, but since the baby had a malformed brain she was putting the baby out of pain the it might of had in the further, it was like putting a dog down its sad but needed to be done in her point of veiw.

I am pro-choice, and believe that any woman should have the right to an abortion. It sounds like they don't really know when babies can feel pain. I think that they should look into that more and find out for sure before passing a law against abortion after so many weeks. It could be harmful to pass one long before or long after babies can feel pain. I think that it was the good thing to do to have an abortion so her child wouldn't have a life full of pain. It's a good thing that abortion is legal, a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body. For example, they could have been raped, not had enough money to support the child, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc. Adoption isn't an "easy way out" of abortion, having to be pregnant for 9 months and giving away a baby you didn't want or couldn't raise is very traumatizing and stressful. It is good that abortion is legal and nobody should get to take that right away from a woman.

I think women should have the right to have an abortion if they wanted to but to have a limit at how many times they can do so. It is true that if your'e raped and aren't financially well then it will be troublesome. It is better than having to burden the child as well but there is a limit.

That's crazy and sad, it's really crazy that he just got out of jail and killed those women already, I'm glad they are pressing charges on him.

Yup

So what is the difference between a Transgender already serving and a Transgender trying to enlist to serve their country? They're still humans, and they still have the same rights as everyone else. "The only exception is for transgender service members already in treatment."

@mason_mower Transgender individuals that are currently in the military can stay, but no money will be spent on any medical costs for them. I agree, anyone should be allowed to serve their country, considering they are mentally and physically capable, no matter their identity.

I wish I could understand the logic coming from this. Discrimination is just wrong.

It's interesting that while campaigning in 2016, Trump stated ""Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.", but now he has become a person that threatens their freedoms and beliefs. His main reason for banning transgender people is the cost of surgeries and other care. Saying that the military was being burden by "tremendous medical costs." However, a study in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 put the number at of transgenders at 12,800 and the cost of care at $4.2 million to $5.6 million and concluding that "doctors agree that such care is medically necessary." And that the cost of care for transgender people is only a tenth of the cost of the annual $84 million dollars the military spends to treat erectile dysfunction.

This is a big step backwards for the trangender community. makes me sad

"The privacy of service members must not be infringed. This means that no soldiers, including those who identify as transgender, should be allowed to use the sex-specific facility of the opposite sex. When it comes to barracks, bathroom, showers, etc., the privacy of all service members must be respected. Given the nature of military living quarters, it is unclear where soldiers who identify as transgender could be housed." One of the reasons I don't believe transgender should be allowed to serve in the Military.

@stocktonthomsen Although I understand your concern Stockton, many transgender individuals are completely comfortable being housed in the sex specific facilities of the opposite sex. Considering some of them have stalls or something along those lines, the transgender individuals could change clothes and use the restroom/bathing facilities without exposing inappropriate parts. Also, considering the large military budget we have, we could afford either building separate barracks for the transgender individuals, or at least adding stalls to certain barracks so the individuals can wash up and use the restroom in peace.

Also, why does the gender matter of the person fighting? As long as they are capable of fighting, it should not matter. They want to fight for their country, so let them. @stocktonthomsen

"As far as the actual psychological issues at play, it used to be called gender identity disorder; now they call it gender dysphoria. The idea that sex or gender is malleable is not true. I'm not denying your humanity if you are a transgender person; I am saying that you are not the sex which you claim to be. You're still a human being, and you're a human being with an issue then I wish you Godspeed in dealing with it in any whatever way you see fit, but if you're going to dictate to me that I'm supposed to pretend, I'm supposed to pretend that men are women and women are men, no. My answer is no. I'm not going to modify basic biology because it threatens your subjective sense of what you are." -Ben Shapiro Desiring to be trans is ridiculous

That's crazy! How do people even come up what to put in drugs like this?

They know that the drug itself is literally eating away their body from the inside. Yet the addiction is so powerful that they'd rather keep injecting them self with it. It's much more addicting and powerful than heroine. Even though it's cheaper to make the affects are much worse.

I feel like this was like a mistake drug. They just threw bunch of bad stuff together and called it a drug because they got high.....It's crazy what people will do to feel that way!

Craziest drug I've heard of. Count me out on getting that "high." People are nuts!!!

That is disgusting thinking about what it does to the body. It literally makes the skin peel away from the bones.

It is crazy what people will do to satisfy themselves.. Unbelievable

if a drug there is a drug that can eat you inside out they should make it to where you cant get it because a lot of bad things can happen

Maybe if all the people who do drugs take this drug, it will get rid of druggies altogether. Maybe it's not such a bad thing. Joking. But seriously, why do people do these things if they know it's bad for them?

This was quite shocking to me since it happened so close to my home! The suspect was caught in front of AL which was the reason for the lockdown yesterday. I will be following this story closely as we learn more details about this sad case.

The craziest thing in this whole situation is that this man killed his mother and grandmother! I want to know his motives for doing such a thing. Is there something that they did to him that triggered these actions? I hope to hear more about this case in the coming days.

I think that this was a pretty scary situation, I had a friend say that she saw him walking around on the track alone. It was kind of cool to be able to see him get arrested in front of the school. They said that the shooter had an mental illness which makes people think about what could happen with anyone that has a mental illness.

someone interviewed the mom 10 years ago and she said that she feels like her son was going to hurt her

I passed looked out the window and saw the cops cars arresting him and it was pretty scary and the whole situiation is scary some people are just so messed up these days.

Abortion is never the way to go no matter what circumstance. Whether its an accident, and inconvenience or cause by rape, abortion is never the answer. People who get abortions are selfish, if rape is the issue and you don't want to have the kid because you don't want to be reminded of that instance in your life, then give the kid up for adoption. Whether you have the abortion or not, you will always have that memory. So give that life a chance, just as you had a chance when you were born. Everyone deserves a chance at life, no matter the reason they were brought into this world.

Here's the way that I see the whole abortion issue: Personally, I am pro-choice. Even though it could be considered ethically wrong to get an abortion, it's the mother's body, and she can do as she pleases with it. However, it IS wrong to use abortion as birth control. I think the issue is that some people think that they don't have to use proper birth control, and can just get an abortion. But abortion should definitely be allowed in situations of incest, because inbreeding is just never good. It causes the child in question to have problems, and while people with physical or mental issues are accepted in society, it's just common sense to prevent it when it CAN actually be prevented, like incest (don't abort the child if it's not incest). I also think that teenage girls deserve the right to get an abortion, because they're typically going to still be going to school, and I imagine that going to school pregnant is hard in every way. Of course, the best option is proper birth control, but it unfortunately isn't available in certain situations.

I agree with Kirstina, abortion shouldn't be used as birth control, birth control should be used. I also think that abortions need to be available in cases of rape, as well. It's easy to say "just give the kid up for adoption" but it's much harder to guarantee that the child will actually be adopted into a good home, or will even be adopted at all. Many children spend their lives in foster homes. Besides, you would still be forcing the mother to carry a fetus for nine months, putting her life on hold for something that isn't even conscious.

Being morally correct is so much more important than being politically correct. Abortion is in so many ways is morally wrong. To be for something that should very well be considered murder is absolutely absurd. I agree, everyone has the right to do what they want with their body, but that doesn't mean that what they're doing to their body IS right. That is like being pro drugs. Yes, if people want to do drugs, I guess that's their right, but is it right that they're doing drugs? No. That applies to abortion. And yes, "just give the kid up for adoption" IS the better way to go, because whether or not they go to a good home shouldn't be your biggest concern, it's whether or not they even HAVE a home. So give the poor helpless baby a chance, just like you had a chance, because that baby could grow up and do great things. Whether it was raised in a foster home, orphanage or by an unfit family, if you (the one who's pregnant) feel like your unfit to raise your child, wouldn't you think anything else would be better for it than killing it without ever giving it a chance?

i think in cases like that abortion should be allowed. i am pro-choice but when a dumb 15 year old gets an abortion just because they chose to have unprotected sex is not right. they should take responsibilities for their actions. but if the situation is like this, when the kid will be abused and poor and neglected i believe abortion should be allowed. it was sad to read this article but also good to read.

But when you're pregnant, how do you know they will be abused, if the parent would just have the baby and take responsibility for their actions in the beginning then they wouldnt be abused. Wouldnt you make sure of that? for the sake of your child? or are you just going to give up, take the easy way out and kill it?

Its really sad to think that someone would have wanted their mothers to abort them. Even if it was what could have been best for them.

She murdered more people than Jeffrey Dahmer and in a shorter time period too. Wow.

I'm not too sure how credible the story is. But, if it is true how had they not have noticed any type of connection between victims? Say, area of killing, type of person they are, etc.

At least she admits it. I think stories like this, are influenced by movies!

The murderers are really young to have done something like that!

She said she killed in Alaska and Florida, causing the police to investigate in both states. Which are probably the furthest states away. It would take a while for the police to investigate the cases. I think that she is trying to gain attention and possibly delay her trial.

This is crazy! Who could do something like that?

so she must have put a lot of thought into the murders so she could spare her self more time with the states working together

I think that this is crazy! How can she just sit there and say her and her husband had this planned since they met... Kinda stupid and maybe even a little psycho.

that's crazy! its a good thing they caught her. who knows how many more people she would have killed if she was still out there.

She said that the police wont find full bodies, only body parts.. from a wide range of ages starting at 13! The couple have had plans to kill together, but the victims never showed up. Barbour said she knew they were going to kill someone together since the day they met! How can someone even have the slightest thought of something like this!!

She's heading to prison as a young girl. She wants to be labeled as crazy as possible.

Women are crazy.

At least she admits it.

I seriously don't think she was able to kill just over twenty men since she was thirteen without one getting away or fighting her back. She'd have to take the men by surprise and even then, I don't think a thirteen year old would have successfully committed a murder and got away with it. I think she is just trying to prolong her trial and send the police on a search for the bodies or parts of these individuals she killed. Regardless, one life is time is prison twenty is a couple lifetimes.

The one child left alive is going to have a hard time adjusting to knowing that they were the only one left out of the ones that died.

One of kid will have a hard time to get to know what happend to the ones that died

This is just disgusting, I think anyone who can intentionally hurt an innocent child is despicable. Having a child of my own makes this story even more heart breaking.

If you are not a woman, you should not have a say in what women can and cannot do with their body. This is an unconstitutional law and it greatly endangers women's health care all across Mississippi. Every day, women are raped and become impregnated, but many may not know they are pregnant until after 15 weeks. How does the Mississippi government expect that woman to carry out the pregnancy under the circumstances that had caused her to be pregnant in the first place? It is clear the Mississippi government has not fully taken every circumstance into consideration when creating this law.

I think that the only constitutional ban we could put onto abortions is when the fetus can feel pain. At that point, you shouldn't be allowed to get one. Possible exemptions being if the women was raped, forced to have a child, or if having the child could hurt or kill the mother.

I can see why people would want to ban abortions after a certain time frame, even though I disagree with where they put the cap. However, I really don't like how there's no exceptions for rape, and I especially hate how there's now exceptions for incest. Inbred children tend to be incredibly unhealthy, and if the mother doesn't want to carry them to term, they shouldn't be forced to.

I agree that there should be a certain time frame for when you can have an abortion, but 15 weeks is to early to decide. I also think that if the mother doesn't want to her have the baby then she shouldn't be forced to, depending on what the reason is. Like if she was raped or could harm herself, then she shouldn't be forced to have the child, but say she just doesn't want to because she isn't ready then maybe she can think of others options like adoption because their are many people who can't have a baby that do want one.

I agree that there should be a time frame but also I believe that women should be able to do what they want with their bodies. There could be many different reasons for abortion like rape, self harm or just to young. But people should also think before they take action. I say this because people know what could happen when they have sexual intercourse. They know the consequences. But there are other options other then abortion, like adoption. There are plenty families that want kids but cant have them so instead of abortion they could end up helping a family.

I agree with this law. 15 weeks is plenty of time for someone to decide if they would like a child in their life. People do make mistakes and rather than the child not having a good life they decide to not have the child.

I would normally disagree with abortion, but I believe that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else. Someone could say the same thing about drug use. As long as you don't hurt anyone, it is okay. Why would someone try to control someone else's body/life?

I feel as the argument over abortions comes down to if you consider the egg as living or not during early pregnancy. As abortions are the woman's choice this still gives them that opportunity to make that decision if it feels just, but after so long the egg does start to develop where then you could be ending a life. Then that is where they draw the line and are basically saying that it is past the point of being harmless, so I can agree with this bill.

I agree that there should be some time frame for when you can and cannot have an abortion. 15 weeks to me seems like enough time for the women to decide if they want to keep the child or not. People do make mistakes. I think that it would be better to not have the child if its going to be born into a bad life. But I think that decision is ultimately up to the mother of the child.

I think that its good that they made it 15 weeks because at that time the baby is still not too big and it gives the mother some type of time to make a decision

i agree with the law too because they are well developed at 15 weeks

re:patrick -- perhaps I misunderstood your comment, but outside of abstinence what "other methods of not getting pregnant" are there besides medical birth control options? Like other articles posted here, I was as interested in reading many of the comments on the NYTimes site after the article, there were very compelling arguments on each side. I found myself siding with many who said that employers should not get the choice to opt out of providing this coverage. This was one such post: "Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. Does anyone believe for one second that we would be debating whether a Jehovah's Witness-owned company should cover blood transfusions for its employees? I seriously doubt it--which means that the debate we are having is not actually about religious freedom at all. It's about whether contraception is an essential part of women's health care, just like blood transfusions."

i agree with Patrick if women don't wont to get pregnant they should stay to the precautionary treatments to not become pregnant

Exactly. I'm not a pot smoker but I see the silver-lining. We would make a profit just off taxes alone. Its a gold mine, in other words.

I agree with everything they are saying. The government can make a lot of money on the taxes from selling pot and on top of t hat is it really that bad? We are accept alcohol and it is far more dangerous. How many violence issues, accidents, deaths, and overdoses have you heard of from pot compared to alcohol or any other drug. Pot is looking pretty well now compared to them.

I agree that legalizing marijuana is a good idea. After all, alcohol is a far more dangerous and more addictive drug and our society practically expects people to drink. The only problem I have with this article is that it implies legalizing marijuana will end the "war on drugs." Legalizing marijuana won't stop people from using other, more dangerous, drugs.

In my opinion the biggest obstacle to widespread legalization is the lack of a quick, real-time test which allows us to determine the level of impairment. I certainly don't want people driving drunk and there are many tests that we can administer to determine if the person is under the influence right now. Tests for marijuana can show use in some cases for weeks past. There are plenty of activities that people should not do while high or drunk, but how can we be certain of misuse without a more reliable way of testing?

I understand that marijuana is not addictive or has as bad of an effect as drinking, but there is no quick test or "legal limit" like there is with alcohol, so how could we make it somewhat safe? Being high impairs your reflexes and ability to function normally, as does being drunk. I for one, wouldn't want to be anywhere and have someone just start smoking a joint and have to breathe in the smoke and worry about getting contact high. Smoking marijuana would have to obey the smoking cigarettes law of not being able to do it in businesses. And what would the age limit be, 18, 21? Smoking pot around children would need to be against the law because they wouldn't be of age to breathe it in. And what about the people like me who don't want to be around it? I could understand if you do it in the privacy of your own home, because that doesn't bother anyone. Also, would you be able to drive while high? Does every user know the effects it has on their body like cigarette smokers do because its on each packet? There are many situations that would have to be considered in the legalization of marijuana. I see no problem with it if it's in your own home or a place, like a bar that is for smoking pot, because isn't that what bars are for, drinking alcohol? So keep all possible situations in mind when forming an opinion on the legalization of marijuana.

Voters in several states legalized pot use yesterday: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/06/14977250-colorado-washington-approve-recreational-marijuana-use?lite

Legal or not people will continue to smoke pot when they please no matter what the age.

What are the states who legalized it going to do when out of state people come and smoke their pot there?

I can understand maybe being prescribed marijuana for medical purposes, because I know that does happen, but I'm not too keen on making it legal in other ways. Even if it has no addictive effects, it smells really bad. And there's also the getting high part.

weed is from nature. it wasn't made by humans is dose not harm you.

A great number of things from nature are extremely harmful.

If stuff from nature isn't harmful that means I can finally try eating belladonna and hemlock! And get the pet cobra I've always wanted. (They ARE from nature)

I believe pot should be legal because its grown in nature and it does less damage to your body than cigarettes and alcohol.

that's weird. i wonder how he was still alive if he didn't even have a heartbeat.

As long as someone still has some brain activity they are still technically alive

It must have been a really happy day for the family, and a frightening day for the funeral home workers.

Wow, I do believe miracles can happen. I would've been scared out of my wits if a body suddenly started to move that was pronounced dead, though. But I'm happy for his family who got to spend two weeks with the man (:

I think they may have gone overboard explaining everything the girls need to wear in full detail. I thought some of the comments were disrespectful to girls and I can easily see how they were offended by this.

i beleve that it is true that there are more options for women to look less than formal clothing so it is not sexiest

I think that this dress code, while definitely explaining what the girls can and cannot wear, has gone too far in some of the wording they use. "Choose and outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman, but covered enough to show you are a lady" is not an ok thing to say to a group of high school girls, especially if they are honors students. Yes I do think it is sexist.

I believe that this dress code letter had good intent, but it just came off the wrong way. I think if they would have just given a list on what not to wear rather then using saying, "you are a woman and should be covered enough to show you are a lady. With that statement I believe that it is sexist. Your clothes, and how you present your self shouldn't determine on whether you're a lady or not.

I feel that the letter is showing the outlook they see girls wear on a daily occurrence. At some points in a girls perspective we feel as if they are more strict on what we wear, They could of been a little easier and worded it differently so it didn't come out so wrong. But I don't think it sexist at all because it asking girls to wear whats appropriate to been seen in public.

If the school wishes for such a strict dress code then they should hand out the clothes they feel that are "pretty" enough for their girls to wear. I believe that the dress code is moderately sexist, even considering that there are more options regarding clothing for women. It is appropriate to keep their students looking classy, but not to the point of having no freedom when picking an outfit.

I do believe that this dress code is sexist. There are lines in the requirements of the female code hat suggest they should be more modest than that of the males, not drawing attention to certain parts of the body and containing a level of ladylike stature that outdoes the gentlemanly requirements of the males. The four paragraphs "needed" for the girls. The two lines that strike me as the most opposite "Be classy." for the boys and "Think modesty." for the girls. It implies that they are letting the boys have more free reign with their opinion of classy and tightening the hold on the girls' idea of modesty, giving them fewer options.

It think the dress code it not sexist but it does go a little overboard. It kind of seems like it is going straight for the ladies, and could calm down on all the detail.

This is very upsetting to the whole deal of what is appropriate and what is not. The school is berating the girls on how they choose to dress in a letter. This "dress code" should not be allowed to come trough, as it is limiting how girls want to dress, sure they should dress in something revealing as they should know better, but given them four paragraphs on how they should dress to one event is ridiculous. If the school feels embarrass to the point of giving a dress code to the girls then they should hold an event. It is completely sexist because not every girl owns skimpy outfits, or dresses badly. Every girl is a lady in the first place and should not be limited because someone else believes they dress in revealing clothing. Guys can dress in revealing clothing just as much as girls can.

I do not believe it is sexist because they are specifically making men wear a outfit. They are giving girls freedom within guidelines . On the other hand the way they address the first paragraph is a little sexist because they do make it like you have to be pretty to go.

The dress code letter my be considered sexist in the eyes of some people, but women tend to push the boundary's of the code to a far more extreme so it is only fair that the school be more strict and draw more attention to the matter of proper dress apparel with females. Men in school get in trouble if they are wearing clothes that are profane and clothes that are not appropriate for school, yet when females get into trouble, it is automatically sexist. It would not be this way if females did wear such revealing clothes to a school and then did not proceeded to after being told and warned by staff and administration. In some cases, schools have to give such strict guidelines to the female population of a school, even if it does not apply to every student.

I feel that the generation that were in right now would require a dress code. I personally don't think its sexist because i feel some women under dress, i also feel that it makes the school look more professional.

I think that this is sexist because there was no need to have four paragraphs explaining every article of clothing that these girls could wear to this event. But, in another way it is not sexist because there are many styles girls are able to wear, some being more informal and/or more revealing than others. All this letter really would have needed was length of skirts/ dresses and the spaghetti straps, no need for the first and last paragraph.

I think that women do tend to show more revealing outfits than men, but it's no exuse to single them out. Men and women both should have fair dress code rules that can give eacother both the same amount of rules, yet reasonable. Certain rules apply to certain genders, but the line was crossed in this sexist act.

I believe that it is sexist because it gives the girls more and it list little for the guys. It tells the boys to look classy and tells the girls to look pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show they are a lady.

I think they're making a big deal out of this, This should not be done because students don't deserve to have this dress code.

I think that the letter was sexist because it made it look like girls had more possibilities to breaking the guidelines.

I think this is sexist because of the difference between the guys and the girls. It told the girls that in order to be a woman they had to be pretty. They told the guys to be classy. It's a Catholic school, those girls know what to wear and what not to wear.

I feel this video and letter is some what sexist. I believe that you should be able to wear what you want, but appropriately. If you are told to wear something and have to wear something do it. I agree that schools should have some sort of uniform, because if you dress nicely everyday you feel better about themselves. The reason i feel like this is sexist is because men have two things to wear and while girls have so much to worry about and pay attention to.

I believe it is sexist. The writer of this letter automatically assumed stereotype about what girls would wear or draw attention to on their bodies. This letter obviously favors men and is much more strict on women.

I feel that the letter was sexist. The letter only said one or two things about how boys should dress and then gave almost a whole essay on how girls should dress.

I believe it is sexist to both of them honestly. They went over board on how girls should look and what they should look like. They want them to show off, but they are saying this to high school girls. Than again they are telling the boys they need to shave.

I think that this is indeed sexist. They pretty much told the guys, "Hey, wear pants, dress shoes, shave and take out the earrings and you're good." but they they told the girls, "Where this, don't wear that, you can wear this but not that. try not to look like the women of the night. thanks!" i think that that is messed up

I think that it somewhat sexist. Telling to dress modestly and respectfully as they did with the guys would've been enough I think. I don't believe they needed to go that far into it if they didn't for the guys

I feel this letter is just wrong. I believe that you should be able to choose what you want to wear but by being appropriate. It is a private school so if they assign a school uniform you have to wear it, but the way they are saying and telling you what to wear is not so much sexist but just wrong. Telling students they must dress according to their achievements and to look pretty as if they aren't already isn't right.

I wouldn't say this is extremely sexist, it's more like it's just really ridiculous. I understand wanting everyone to look classy and professional, but you do not need that many sentences to basically just say, no flaunting what your momma gave ya.

I feel like they went a little over board with this. They may have been a little sexist just because they had so much more information for the girls on what they can and cant wear than they had for the boys on what they can wear. I personally think that there should be no dress codes at all. just because it lets kids express themselves, but in an appropriate way.

I think that these guidelines are similar to our school guidelines according to dress code, but I don't think it was right to just blatantly put it out there. Now if this is a huge problem I could understand this but The reactions from students make this seem like dress code violations are not a huge problem at their school, I think the teachers should have trusted the girls at the school to dress appropriately.

I believe that this letter is sexist. I think that the school could have easily got their point across on what to wear for girls in a sentence, not four paragraphs. Girls know what is tasteful, and what isn't and if they choose to follow the dress code is a choice not because they were unsure on how to dress.

With no context this letter may seem like they care more about what girls look like. This is probably not true, with a guy there is a a lot less you can mess up and look not modest. With guys it's just a shirt and pants, what can really besides them not wearing a nice shirt and pants. It is not unreasonable for a private school to want their kids to dress modestly. I'm also willing to bet at that school and probably every private school there are at least four times as many dress code violations for girls than boys, thus warranting four paragraphs to the boys one.

I feel like this letter is sexist. The reason being is because I feel like girls should be able to wear what the want whiten reason. Dress code should be appropriate. However it shouldn't separate between boys and girls.

I believe this to be very sexist because of the length and repetition they use. I do agree with Ron Burgundy(anchor man movie), stay classy but this is to extensive. In repeating don't show off and telling them exactly what to wear. They could have left it at dress classy and lady like.

I agree with alexander4434 that women have more types of clothes then men do and that it is not sexist. And men don't have much different types of clothes and women have more to choose from and need to cover up and not show so much.

I feel like this letter is sexist. Seeing only two sentences for men and four paragraphs for women that would be sexist. I think the school could have worded it better for the women. I also think it is kind of rude to make men shave. I don't see how that matters in high school.

I fell like the article is not sexist because some girls don't dress like a lady would, so that would help them look more presentable. The guys didn't have a lot of instructions because they don't have a lot of styles to choose from like the girls do. The school shouldn't tell someone how to dress but if they see something that someone would not wear to a fancy place they should correct them.

I think it's a good dress code but had way more expectations for women than it did men. They could have made it just as simple as the mens with less detail as to what they can and can't wear. The men did't have anything listed that they weren't allowed to wear. Something in particular was the shoes comment saying they had to wear dress shoes, then going into detail saying if there shoes they wear to the beach, then they cant wear them to school, also no high heels. But with the mens all they said was "dress shoes" no elaboration or what they can't wear as they did with the women. I can see how people would think it sexist, it has way more expectations and standards for girls which isn't fair. But i also can see where they're coming from because girls express themselves through clothes i think more than men do.. So maybe they needed to be clear on what not to wear, whereas its pretty self explanatory for men.

This letter is not "sexist". It may be degrading or offensive, but it's not sexist. In this day and age, it is common knowledge to know girls don't dress to standard. Look around and you will see many examples of this at almost every turn. Short skirts/shorts, tank tops, low cut shirts, and many other revealing articles. The school is trying to be official and you are to abide by their rules and if you are offended by the letter, you might be one of the girls who need to change the way they dress. The only reason the guys did not have as long or in-depth of a letter because they simply don't need it. More often than not, guys are not violating dress code.

I think that the letter is sexist. They drag out the girls section which could have been summed up, like the boys was. Most of the time the dress code is followed, sometimes its stretched a bit short. I think that it was like they were being sarcastic almost, in the girls section.

This is not a sexist letter. I think many people may find it extreme because they can't wear legging to school , and no leggings are NOT pants. I think the facial hair part for guys is a little much but it's only for the school get over it. The part for ladies I agree had to be a bit more explanatory because people will push any and all boundaries, especially if they are not specified.

As we discuss OUR school dress code, do you think Dowling has created a sexist policy for students?

I feel like its a little sexist towards women. They have a lot more rules to follow than the boys do.

No its not it just needs more explanation for girls because the different things they can wear. The students are making a bigger deal then it is.

I feel its kinda sexist that the women have to be explained what to wear in complete detail compared to the men but then again they just want their school to look nice for the ceremony

I think this dress code is fine.Staff just want students to be dressed appropriate.

I think they went overboard. I think it's sexist for them to say "you are a woman and covered enough to show your a lady". They have a lot more rules for girls then guys. Yes I think it's very sexist.

I think this is sexist because, it is telling guys to just be classy but girls have to dress a certain way we either feel pretty or show our achievements. We should be able to wear what we want that makes us feel comfortable in our own skin.

I think this is not a sexist letter. The part where it says dress modest enough to be a lady but pretty enough to be a woman. Many girls do dress that should not be so skimpy. But these people are honors students. The code should have just said dress formally and follow the dress code.

It's wrong that they treated women like that sexist it very detailed for the women and the men just says be classy so yes it's sexist

I think it is sexist because the girls have a lot more rules than the boys do.

I feel like the policy was not written equally between Boys and girls. The four paragraphs written for girls seems very excessive. The boys and girls should just be told- "Dress formally"

I feel like it is sexist, mostly because of the detail it goes into about the woman's dress code. It would have been much simpler to just say dress nice like they did for the guys, but they blew it out of proportion.

I believe its sexist, it does have some lines that are sexist, like the line "Choose an outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show yo are a lady." And it's very detailed, especially when it comes to the skirt.

I wouldn't say it is necessarily sexist, but I wouldn't agree with some of the things that were said in the letter. These women know how to dress appropriately for formal events. They didn't need to read a whole book to know how to dress.

This dress code letter had good intentions but the way that they gave the boys 2 sentences and the girls 4 paragraphs was not fair to the girls, making them feel like it was sexist.

I believe that it intended well, but definitely could have been worded better. That could have easily been summed up as dress professionally. If they are inviting students because of their smarts, surely the students would be able to figure out what that meant. The paragraphs were too excessive.

I think that it should be for both genders not just girls. I don't want to see any one's butt or chest.

There is no doubt about it being sexist, but that is only because of the excessive "putting down," saying such and such should attract attention to this, and not this. If they would have stopped at a basic "be classy, keep it modest, and make it conservative." Then all would have been fine.

I don't know how I feel about this, I think scientist are super smart people but there not using there knowledge to the best of there abilities... I personally find making animals live longer and possibly in the future creating a "medicine" or treatment to transform adult cells back to there embryonic form disturbing. It will probably cost a whole lot of money to. Its awesome how far they have come, but its weird when you mess with the life span of animals... it could also mess with natural selection.

I think that it's amazing that science has come this far and they might be able to do this, but I don't think that we should reverse aging because we don't know the side effects on humans. I think they should just know they can do it but not use it because it could be harmful.

"The breakthrough could also help people stay healthier for longer. The ageing population means that the risk of developing age-related diseases, such as dementia, cancer and heart disease also rises. But if the body could be kept younger for longer then it could prevent many deadly diseases for decades." It has a lot of pros and cons to this i think they shouldn't mess with the life span of make cells younger because that means there will be more people and the world could come over populated. But living longer would help a lot because you will learn more and be able to educate young people with better knowledge