Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged development

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
christa bennett

I wish my mother had aborted me - 6 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...i-wish-my-mother-aborted-me

Government politics news abortion pro-life

shared by christa bennett on 27 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • christa bennett on 27 Aug 12
     
    this article is about abortion which is an important issue in the upcoming presidential election. I just thought that it was interesting to read but I am in no way for abortion.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Alex Snipes on 29 Aug 12
     
    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.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Aug 12
     
    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.
  • Mallory Huggins on 30 Aug 12
     
    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.
  • Alex Snipes on 30 Aug 12
     
    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?
  • Jenny Ord on 30 Aug 12
     
    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.
  • Alex Snipes on 30 Aug 12
     
    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?
  • Katelyn Owen on 30 Aug 12
     
    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.
  • Mallory Huggins on 31 Aug 12
     
    Alex, did you read this article? This article is about how the parent DID have the baby and "took responsibility for their actions" and then abused the child. So, no just because a parent takes responsibility for their actions in the beginning, that doesn't mean the child won't be abused. If you look at it rationally and scientifically, abortion really isn't murder. Abortions are possible through the second trimester, or 24th week of pregnancy. At this time it is impossible for the fetus to live outside of the womb. It has only just started producing blood cells, the eyes aren't developed until the 26th week, the bones aren't developed until between the 31st and 34th week, the brain is still developing even after the 30th week, and the lungs aren't mature until after the 34th week. So is it really 'murder' to abort something that has less consciousness and is less developed than a mouse?
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    I am pro-choice, and agree with Mallory and Kirstina. Sure, it's not fair for the unborn baby, but is it fair for the parent(s). In the situation of rape, definitely not. Giving birth to someones child that physically harmed you, a mother should not have to do that. Not to mention how expensive it is to have a child. Why should a 15 year old have to pay that sort of money to have a child? The real problem, they don't, and the parents have to suffer for their child, which is unfair to them. If you want to say it's still morally wrong, it's just as bad as stealing thousands of dollars from those who gave birth to you just to let that child live.
Payton Whiteaker

Gaming causing issues - 1 views

www.gamezone.com/...playoffs-azubu-frost-fined-30k

shared by Payton Whiteaker on 12 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 12 Oct 12
     
    There is a game called League of Legends that was developed over 2 years ago. This game is gaining massive popularity, primarily because those who succeed enough at this game get payed to play. For example, George Liu, a 23 year old resident of California makes over 500 dollars a day to play this game for 6 hours a day, 4-5 days a week. This is not even the highest they pay. Similar to sports, this is a team game. Recently, like all sports, they began to hold a 3 week "season playoff" game in which the winning team would receive 1 million dollars (Split between 5 people), and anyone who made it to the finals, left with at least 5 grand in there pocket, not to mention an all expenses payed trip to 3 locations in which they would host the game play. Sounds like fun right, getting payed to play a game you like? What's not fun, cheating. North America's #1 team was eliminated the first game, by the Korean team. Many claim the game play to be unfair, claims of map hacking, and many other claims of cheating have been made. So, an internationally popular game is taking away prize money which will be donated to charity, but the issues of this are so dramatic. So many opinions have been formed, that this is getting a little out of hand, over a game.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • Alex beck on 16 Oct 12
     
    This is interesting... There are a couple of games that have done promotions where players can make money by playing, however I rarely hear about a game that does anything even remotely close to this. From reading the report/official ruling, there was a lot of screen hacking going on. I'm not really sure why it is possible for the players to screen hack, (aka screen cheating) but I suppose it is possible that there is a good reason. I will have to look into this in more depth to see what all is going on, but this strikes me as extremely interesting.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 18 Oct 12
     
    I find it interesting that there are over 11million accounts active every month, and more then half of them are from America. This means that about about 1 in every 56 people play this game in the united states. Knowing that this is expanding, (And 11million accounts before published in the popular game informer magazine) I am curious to see if this game is going to cause some sort of international relations to develop, for better or worse. It would be interesting to say the least, that gaming fixed the issues between north and south Korea, primarily since both countries were in the season finals for this game.
  • Alex beck on 19 Oct 12
     
    That would be pretty interesting to read in a history book, but from the way this article sounds, it seems like the game could only make international relations worse, assuming the different countries were on different teams. (I suppose were they a single team, it could certainly bolster better relations of a few nations)
  • Andrew Jensen on 22 Oct 12
     
    i think its crazy how much funding there is toward this game. i can understand the riot because people can get passionate about anything, but they're spending a lot just for a single game.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 26 Oct 12
     
    It's a world-wide competitive game. I mean, I see football players making more then these guys are giving away. Alex, the American teams nationality was from the same nation that had beat them.
Sara Borgaila

Obamacare website developers: Time to point fingers? - 1 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Sara Borgaila on 24 Oct 13 - No Cached
  • Sara Borgaila on 24 Oct 13
     
    Washington (CNN) -- Finger pointing over the technical blunders that gummed up the Obamacare website launch will ensue on Thursday, it appears. Contractors who helped develop the embattled HealthCare.gov website blame each other and the government, but not themselves, in testimony prepared for the first congressional hearing on the problems engulfing the online enrollment system.
  • Mike Bertrand on 12 Nov 13
     
    Obama care seems to be failing and no one is really in favor of this bill. Many democrats are not even supporting Obama care. And the website is a complete failure.
  • sarah smith on 14 Nov 13
     
    The website is a complete failure
selena99

S. Korea: North fires short-range projectiles - 1 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by selena99 on 21 Mar 16 - No Cached
  • ltorneten065 on 21 Mar 16
     
    The projectiles flew about 200 kilometers towards the sea to the east of the Korean peninsula, the JCS said in a statement. The South Korean military is closely tracking and monitoring the situation and is maintaining full readiness posture, the statement added. Developing story - more to come
  • selena99 on 21 Mar 16
     
    The projectiles flew about 200 kilometers towards the sea to the east of the Korean peninsula, the JCS said in a statement. The South Korean military is closely tracking and monitoring the situation and is maintaining full readiness posture, the statement added. Developing story - more to come
Bryan Pregon

Mississippi bans abortions at 15 weeks - CNN - 19 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 18
     
    "With a swipe of a pen Monday, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law a bill that prevents women from getting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. His state, effective immediately, now holds the distinction of having the earliest abortion ban in the nation."
  • ...11 more comments...
  • taylorknickerson on 21 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • chaseburns on 21 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • Connor McHood on 21 Mar 18
     
    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.
  • Haley Costello on 31 Aug 18
     
    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.
  • pfrederiksen on 31 Aug 18
     
    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.
  • sydmccorkle on 31 Aug 18
     
    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.
  • jakesimons on 31 Aug 18
     
    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?
  • ehoodmuffin on 26 Sep 18
     
    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.
  • Brooke Wohlers on 26 Sep 18
     
    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.
  • rochsam on 26 Sep 18
     
    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
  • camrynkinser on 26 Sep 18
     
    i agree with the law too because they are well developed at 15 weeks
  • kojelly on 26 Sep 18
     
    I feel that is still too late.
  • bret758 on 06 Dec 18
     
    i believe this is fair because in some states the law is 6 weeks and most women do not know that they are pregnant at 6 weeks. 15 weeks most women would know that they are pregnant and would have time to make a decision.
Bryan Pregon

Steve King removed from committee assignments following racist comments - CNNPolitics - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 Jan 19 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 15 Jan 19
     
    "Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa has been removed from committee assignments following racist remarks, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced Monday, the latest development in bipartisan condemnation of King's recent interview that appeared to lament that the term "white supremacist" is considered offensive."
mcaamal

Second Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine Has Stronger Side Effects - 22 views

www.healthline.com/...ely-have-stronger-side-effects

shared by mcaamal on 22 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • jackiegonzalez on 22 Mar 21
     
    I think that even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, all of us should consider taking it. At this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.
  • ...24 more comments...
  • kredding147 on 22 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • hannahliwai on 22 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • rosellyrosas on 23 Mar 21
     
    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?
  • carsonschaa on 23 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • milo_nordman on 25 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • sydneykolln on 26 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • masonmascarenas on 29 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • carsonschaa on 29 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • gbrochu915 on 29 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • bflores247 on 29 Mar 21
     
    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.
  • abbidominguez on 13 Apr 21
     
    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.
  • vperez191 on 13 Apr 21
     
    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
  • ericschmidtberge on 14 Apr 21
     
    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.
  • arosas733 on 14 Apr 21
     
    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.
  • lhunter952 on 19 Apr 21
     
    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.
  • nick_rice on 19 Apr 21
     
    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.
  • kredding147 on 19 Apr 21
     
    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.
  • allisonwalker on 19 Apr 21
     
    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.
  • saraivargas on 19 Apr 21
     
    It's still in the works so of course it's going to have different/stronger effects.
  • bklopp601 on 19 Apr 21
     
    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.
  • eballenger on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think that people should be able to decide if they want the second dose or not, but I hope they do.
  • jtaulborg103 on 19 Apr 21
     
    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.
  • kinziekat02 on 19 Apr 21
     
    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"
  • redrose99875 on 20 Apr 21
     
    I think we should stick to the vaccine that we KNOW works best
  • peytongrenoble on 18 May 21
     
    I think that since it is common for everyone to have these worse effects, it is going to be known as not affecting certain people. If the effects are only covid symptoms that aren't super deadly, then I think it should be okay? I think that the people who are getting it are being vulnerable and helpful for those who are nervous and reluctant to get the vaccine.
  • mgerman776 on 24 May 21
     
    Side effects of a vaccine are totally normal, it's like when you get the flu vaccine some people do get sick. Either way, it's your best hope is not getting covid. What else are you gonna do besides harm others more prone to the disease?
Bryan Pregon

Trump Admits to Massive Tax Write Offs, Calling It 'Sport' | Time - 4 views

time.com/...trump-tax-write-offs-sport

shared by Bryan Pregon on 21 May 19 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 21 May 19
     
    "President Donald Trump on Wednesday acknowledged taking massive tax write offs for real estate losses topping $1 billion from the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, calling it "sport" among developers like himself during that period."
Bryan Pregon

Children Exposed to Nicotine in Utero Have Lower Reading Scores | SciTech Daily - 1 views

scitechdaily.com/tero-have-lower-reading-scores

shared by Bryan Pregon on 22 Nov 12 - No Cached
Jonah Haug liked it
  • blakewilladsen on 27 Nov 12
     
    Interesting that they assume nicotene does this. 20% lower scores is pretty concrete results though.
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Dylan Garner on 29 Nov 12
     
    I would like to see this put to test in AL or Council Bluffs and see if it is still accurate.
  • Emili Davis on 29 Nov 12
     
    Interesting
  • jessicavaldez on 29 Nov 12
     
    It was not as surprising to me that these tests have happened. To me being exposed to nicotine while they are still in the developing process is very harmful. I don't think mothers should ever expose babies to that, if they want them to have a brighter future.
  • dalton burk on 30 Nov 12
     
    if they were exposed to marijuana the would have had better reading scores
  • Mallory Huggins on 30 Nov 12
     
    I don't find this surprising. Nicotine is a known mutagen, so I think it's actually foolish to assume that it won't affect fetuses which are exposed to it. It will be interesting to see if this study actually gets any media attention, though. Unfortunately, I doubt it will. People, especially Americans, are usually content to overlook any negative consequences to their actions.
  • Mallory Huggins on 30 Nov 12
     
    A quick google search for the effects of nicotine on fetuses came up with a number of medical journals on the subject. Research into this subject has been done at last as far back as 1996, and smoking cigarettes during pregnancy is documented to have a large number of possible adverse outcomes even worse than poor reading skills, including spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, and sudden infant death syndrome. Here's a link to an article from the Oxford Journal on the subject. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/116/2/364.full
Emili Davis

Group pushes for teen tanning ban - 1 views

www.ketv.com/...index.html

shared by Emili Davis on 07 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Emili Davis on 07 Jan 13
     
    A lot of money will be lost if this is followed through with and alot of angry girls under the age of 18
  • ...16 more comments...
  • joecarbis on 08 Jan 13
     
    Tanning causes skin cancer. This will benefit health and prevent girls from looking like basketballs
  • patrick boian on 08 Jan 13
     
    if people want to increase the chance of getting skin cancer then they should be allowed to tan because its a choice just like anything else
  • Dylan Garner on 08 Jan 13
     
    I think that its more of a personal choice and if parent let their kids do it so be it. I don't see anything wrong with it.
  • Bryan Pregon on 08 Jan 13
     
    Not sure of my opinion on this topic yet, but I thought this was an ironic statement... "Doctors, however, said it's not about the money. It's about health." It seems more and more, those two issues are tangled up in our health care debates.
  • gharvey949 on 08 Jan 13
     
    I totally agree with Joe!
  • jessicavaldez on 08 Jan 13
     
    Tanning= Skin Cancer I also think that it is their choice they know the risks and It would cause a lot of controversy over money and lets admit white is not cute
  • Dylan Garner on 09 Jan 13
     
    Racist^
  • Payton Whiteaker on 09 Jan 13
     
    Brushing your teeth = Weakens you enamel. Should we ban teens from brushing their teeth simply because it can harm them? It's (in my opinion) a matter of choice.
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    "You just didn't want to stick out in a crowd being white" That's the problem right there. We've got a bunch of teenage girls, whose reasoning capabilities aren't fully developed and who quite literally aren't as capable of comprehending long term effects as adults are who have been convinced that it isn't okay to look like themselves. Our society has been convinced to believe that normal, or natural, can't be attractive. Society convinces women that to be attractive they have to be tan and then offers them an easy way to become tan. A way which, incidentally, causes cancer. But teenagers don't comprehend the risks well, and are only concerned with trying to make themselves attractive. And let's just admit it, orange is not cute.
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    Also, I don't know about the rest of you, but I think cancer might be a little worse than possibly having weaker enamel.
  • joecarbis on 09 Jan 13
     
    @Peyton you cant even compare this to brushing your teeth. Brushing your teeth gives you way more benefits over a "weak enamel" I'd rather have a weak enamel rather than have brown teeth with holes in them, and i'd rather be white and cancer free than look like an old leathery football.
  • jessicavaldez on 09 Jan 13
     
    Im not racist. but pale is not cute that's why so many people tan.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 11 Jan 13
     
    You should have gone with pale is not cute in the first place, and that would just be weird if everyone tanned. Everyone would look the same in a way.
  • garrett lee on 14 Jan 13
     
    i think if your tanning the its at your own risk. its not like people haven't heard what could happen if they tan
  • Ryan Loye on 14 Jan 13
     
    tanning beds are an unnatural way to tan and people should just wait till summer to tan again but either way tanning in the summer outside or in a bed is still dangerous and will lead to someone getting skin cancer.
  • Natalie Wilson on 14 Jan 13
     
    Going back to Jessica's comment: I'm a pale teenage girl, but I'm perfectly content with my skin color. Other girls, however, aren't and it's comments like that that force young girls to tan and be at a higher risk of getting skin cancer. I'm not attacking you, Jessica, I'm simply giving my opinion.
  • Kirstina Michl on 15 Jan 13
     
    There's nothing wrong with being tan or pale. It indicates nothing other than how much time it appears you spend in the sun. And yes, this will cause businesses to lose money, but as for the girls who want to be tan year-round, there are other options that would probably actually be healthier, such as tanning lotions, bronzer, actually going out in the sun, etc. Or maybe they should work to make tanning beds safer so that the risk of skin cancer decreases. Maybe the tanning salons could work to sell tanning lotions and bronzers and spray tans so that they don't loose as much money.
  • jessicavaldez on 16 Jan 13
     
    okay i gave my opinion too Natalie and if your fine with it then okay i just said i wouldn't like it and a lot of girls don't either that's why they tan i was being sarcastic in my comment
problero

Families Prepare to Receive the Dead From Colombia Crash - 1 views

abcnews.go.com/...e-dead-colombia-crash-43920724

shared by problero on 02 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • problero on 02 Dec 16
     
    Families are preparing to receive the bodies of the victims of this week's air tragedy in Colombia as experts develop a clearer picture of how things went so terribly wrong with a charter flight that slammed into a mountainside. Many of the 71 killed were players and coaches from a...
Emmalee Adams

Twins found dead in trunk - 9 views

abcnews.go.com/...-charged-twins-deaths-15340748

shared by Emmalee Adams on 12 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • Katelynn Hunter on 13 Jan 12
     
    There are plenty of other ways to deal with an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy. Several things in this case just don't add up; did she really think no one would notice that her "baby bump" just went away, and there were no babies? How could she kill not one, but two of her own newborn children? She just carried them around for nine months...and she couldn't think of a better option such as adoption, giving birth at a hospital and then deciding she should drop them off at a safe haven, or if she really didn't want children, she could have had an abortion, though it is pretty much the same as what she did now, she wouldn't have given her children nine months to develop and live...it's a tricky situation.
jborwick

New study finds no link between MMR vaccine and autism - CNN.com - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by jborwick on 22 Apr 15 - No Cached
  • jborwick on 22 Apr 15
     
    The study, published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, is the latest piece of research to debunk the myth associating the MMR vaccine with autism. Using a claims database from a large commercial health plan, the researchers paid particular attention to children who had older siblings with autism, or ASD, which puts them at a higher genetic risk of developing autism.
Julia Gibler

The women on the front lines of the new abortion battle - CNNPolitics.com - 14 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Julia Gibler on 03 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • Julia Gibler on 03 Sep 15
     
    At 21 weeks, the pregnancy had been going well. But the look on the technician's face as she examined the images told Zink that was no longer the case. Further scans revealed that the fetus' brain was badly malformed. Two hemispheres should have formed by then, but the right side of the brain had not developed at all.
  • ...4 more comments...
  • kaylawalden on 14 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • marisademare on 14 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • gillyhyde on 15 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • denniseram on 17 Sep 15
     
    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.
  • gillyhyde on 17 Sep 15
     
    I think that it's wrong to say that women should have more right to an abortion if they had been raped or wouldn't be financially stable. Women should also be able to have as many abortions as they want, and it shouldn't be limited. Also I'm wondering what limit there is? And why you think that there should be one if that's what you meant. It is the womans choice, and it's her life and she can do with it as she pleases, so she doesn't have to have a "good reason" or have others think that it is okay if she has one.
  • bharold850 on 17 Sep 15
     
    Women have a right to their own body and abortion is exercising that right. Wanting an abortion is the only reason a woman needs in order to get one. Being raped or a victim of incest are seen as more understandable reasons to get an abortion but those are not the only reasons that should be seen as acceptable. All women have a right to their bodies and a right to decide what they want to do with their bodies.
Bryan Pregon

Scientists reverse ageing in mammals and predict human trials within 10 years - 16 views

www.telegraph.co.uk/...ls-predict-human-trials-within

shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Dec 16
     
    "Using a new technique which takes adult cells back to their embryonic form, US researchers at the Salk Institute in California, showed it was possible to reverse ageing in mice, allowing the animals to not only look younger, but live for 30 per cent longer."
  • ...3 more comments...
  • delaniehubbard on 04 Jan 17
     
    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.
  • hmiller403 on 04 Jan 17
     
    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.
  • Austin Webster on 04 Jan 17
     
    "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
  • Alex Thacker on 04 Jan 17
     
    I think it's really good science has gotten so far that it is today because it helps us learn new things and better things and I think it will definitely keep advancing in the future.
  • Landon Mohr on 09 Jan 17
     
    This could help millions of people on earth. If the body can stay younger for longer it decreases the chances of ageing related diseases.
Bryan Pregon

The Morning: 'Covid zero' isn't happening - 25 views

messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/...oakv2

shared by Bryan Pregon on 24 Feb 21 - No Cached
  • sydneykolln on 01 Mar 21
     
    This article really opened my eyes to see how the flu compares to the Coronavirus. Even with the vaccines rolling out, Covid cases will still happen even if they are decreasing. It will take numerous years to get back to "normal" and hopefully, this pandemic opened our eyes to realize just how serious these diseases and viruses can be.
  • ...18 more comments...
  • zeaksorensen on 01 Mar 21
     
    i have thought from the beginning that covid will not disappear. but it will get better like the flu, thanks to vaccines and people becoming immune.
  • zoedeveney on 01 Mar 21
     
    I think this article kinda showed me a perspective that I didn't really think about. I kinda just blew off everyone saying it was gonna go away because obviously, that's just people being optimistic. But reading about the number of serious cases covid/flu wise made me realize that it is managable.
  • carsonschaa on 01 Mar 21
     
    I thought from the beginning that covid will not disappear and life wouldn't be life anymore, but I wasn't going to think about bad so I thought to myself, it will get better like the flu, thanks to vaccines older people have a better chance of becoming immune.
  • vperez191 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I did not expect that the covid deaths were going to be that high than the flu deaths until I saw the graph that the article has. I'm glad that the covid vaccine is out so it can help sick people.
  • lamador794 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I also believed that it was going to be very hard to get rid of or at least control covid but now I realize how our Nation has used all types of advanced technology and knowledge to stop it. Ieven see how we have achieved such as great overcome, the cure.
  • hannahliwai on 01 Mar 21
     
    "For fully vaccinated people, serious illness from Covid is extremely rare, much rarer than serious illness from the seasonal flu." i think this is great! seems like the vaccine is working! I have a question though... any update on the age limit for vaccines? i know when they first started, it was 16+ and then it was 18+... in china, they were vaccinating children as young as two.
  • bklopp601 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I believe that covid cases will happen even when they are decreasing. I looked at the chart and was surprised at the difference between covid and all of the other diseases.
  • jdogan on 01 Mar 21
     
    I think the thought that Covid is just going to disappear with the preventative measures has mostly just been a necessary lie or at least has intentionally not fully been explained just for the consequences of people seeing it as never going away. People already don't want to follow guidelines, but if it's never going to go away I think that would embolden a lot of people to completely disregard guidelines unrightfully.
  • aburianek421 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I think that if we had acted faster and with more intention at the beginning of the outbreak, we could've been back to normal already. Australia had some of the harshest quarantine restrictions before things really got bad and they're essentially back to normal already. As long as we don't get overconfident maybe we can avoid extending this quarantine longer that it needs to be... again.
  • ericschmidtberge on 01 Mar 21
     
    In the first few weeks, I did think covid would just blow over but after a year of living with it clearly didn't. I think that as time passes hopefully in the next year or two the vaccines will help create immunity and keep people safe and eventually we can return to a somewhat normal life. I've heard the analogy of covid being like how airport security came to be. A sad tragedy occurred but because of that event, we learned to put precautions in place to prevent it from happing. I feel like once covid gets under control we will be better equipped to not only survive another virus if that is the case but we are also better equipped to prevent the sickness and death from existing ones as well.
  • tsilva588 on 02 Mar 21
     
    We're still gonna be dealing with losses while covid is around but the vaccine can hopefully start to clear this up for people. So I think that within the next year these cases will go down.
  • milo_nordman on 05 Mar 21
     
    This article was definitely an interesting read. I think that even with the vaccine being given out it will take time to get back to normal, especially when people are still disregarding safety guidelines.
  • carsonschaa on 08 Mar 21
     
    I agree with tsilva588 because we are still gonna be dealing with losses while covid is around. But the whole world hopes that the vaccine can hopefully start to clear this up for people because I think within the next year these cases are going to go down.
  • thomaschau on 08 Mar 21
     
    With the Covid vaccine rolling out, I think the number of fatalities from Covid will go down, But I think the number of people getting infected won't be going down by a large percentage since people don't trust the covid vaccine and people even then don't want to wear a mask. I think life won't be normal for the next 2-3 years.
  • arosas733 on 08 Mar 21
     
    This article was interesting to read and very true, it won't go away completely but hopefully, soon we will be going back to normalcy. We have been learning to live with it and just like any virus, it is going to die out but we should always be cautious no matter what. Keep clean and take care of ourselves, as it overall doesn't have as much of an effect on healthier people.
  • bflores247 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I agree, while yes it may still go down, this pandemic reminds us how bad things can get, we are lucky to brush with a not so deadly disease, yes people still die from it, but the mortality rate is exceedingly high, thanks to huge advancements in medical research and development, and, on the optimistic side of things, many good ideas and products came out of this, restaurants being able to deliver, seeing loved ones on a screen to be able to connect with them more easily, and widespread connectivity with everyone.
  • mcaamal on 08 Mar 21
     
    this was interesting because the situation was put into perspective. They say that is should be kinda normal around the summer and that is such a good new because that means senior year will be more normal. I was kinda hesitant about the vaccine but apparently it is really helping even though there are some people who still do get sick is has come down to less people.
  • jtaulborg103 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I thought this article was interesting because it helped me gain a better perspective of COVID-19. Even with vaccines coming out, the world will not be put back on its axis because of all the damage that´s been done. It will take a while for things to return normally. Even with the decreasing number of cases, there will still be people who get it. It will still spread around like any other virus. I knew it was obviously a bad problem but it really put it into perspective for me.
  • rosellyrosas on 15 Mar 21
     
    This article was very eye-opening. A lot of people think that the coronavirus will soon end, according to the article, it says that the coronavirus will be not be extinguished anytime soon. The University of Johns Hopkins says that people thinking the virus will end sounds like a fantasy and not a reality. The virus caused a lot of people harm and sadness. Many things were ruined by the virus and have opened a lot of people eye's to appreciate and value what they have. Having the vaccine it'll help us make the virus manageable, just like the flu.
  • gbrochu915 on 22 Mar 21
     
    I liked this article because it gave me a better view on how corona is and how long it will take for people and us to get back to our "old world" and how it compares to other viruses.
ataylor074

Virginia move to abolish death penalty part of broader wave of change - CSMonitor.com - 27 views

www.csmonitor.com/...nalty.-What-s-behind-the-shift

shared by ataylor074 on 15 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • ataylor074 on 15 Mar 21
     
    Do you guys think the death penalty should still be around?
  • ...23 more comments...
  • jackiegonzalez on 15 Mar 21
     
    It's hard to say because it's not right to take someone's life. I'm sure morality is a big part of why they're taking the death penalty away in Virginia. However, I've watch a lot of true crime shows to know that there are evil people in this world. Serial killers kill for fun and have no compassion for victims. It gets to the point where one wonders if they deserve their life because they've caused so much destruction. So, I guess, there's too many factors for me to have a set opinion.
  • tsilva588 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I do think that the death penalty still has its uses. Though it is still flawed the most recent method of lethal injection is still done incorrectly so I believe that once we find the most reasonable way it should be in play.
  • kredding147 on 15 Mar 21
     
    There are so many different factors that go into whether the death penalty is appropriate or not. Part of me thinks that if you do something horrible enough it's fair for people to want to take your life in exchange for what was taken from them. But part of me says that it's the coward's way out, that rotting in jail for the rest of their life is better than being able to just die and get away from it. You look back on cases like that of Jeffrey Dahmer and think "wow, why didn't he get the death penalty?", but he was beaten to death by fellow inmates later on in his sentence, so either way he was going to die. You look back at Ted Bundy and the horrific murders that he committed and you're glad he got the death penalty, right? A life for a life, it seems fair. There are just so many things that go into it and it's so personal and complicated for everyone.
  • nick_rice on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think that if somebody did something where they truly do deserve the death penalty then it should stick around for those terrible people who only harm society.
  • allisonwalker on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think the death penalty shouldn't be a thing anymore. Even this woman who lost her father at a young age doesn't want her father's killer to receive the death penalty. She wants justice, however not in the form of the death penalty. It should no longer exist anyway, it's cruel and people should have to pay for their crimes.
  • peytongrenoble on 15 Mar 21
     
    I agree yet disagree with the death penalty. First, I would say that it would give certain families who are for it justice for loved ones that were lost or hurt. Second, I would say that it would prevent future crimes from occurring if that person only had received a life sentence. On the other hand, I would say it is an "easy out" and certain families could be against it for that reason. Additionally, if that person was wrongfully killed, that would be completely on the court system and no justice would be served, it would be a longer, more "drug-out" process.
  • samhovey on 15 Mar 21
     
    I agree with Allison. The killing of a perpetrator is not justice. The death penalty is outdated and should be abolished.
  • aidan093 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think the death penalty should still be a thing but I think that they need to change what crimes fit the death penalty.
  • eballenger on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think the death penalty should remain however I think it should only be if you killed another person on purpose or multiple people.
  • bklopp601 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I think it shouldn't be abolished because there are still many criminals out there that have done several bad things and but I also think that the death penalty should change the crimes it's in.
  • sydneykolln on 17 Mar 21
     
    I understand that there are bad people in the world and that the death penalty is sometimes used on those people. However, I believe that the death penalty is not morally right. The methods that are used can be flawed and not always go right. In the end, it's difficult to pick sides because I can see both reasons as to why it should or should not be used.
  • milo_nordman on 17 Mar 21
     
    I agree with Sydney, I don't think the death penalty is morally right. Even though there are awful people in the world, killing them doesn't bring justice to the people they've hurt.
  • saraivargas on 22 Mar 21
     
    The death penalty I feel is an oxymoron on its own. How are you going to prevent killing by killing? It makes no sense. I feel if the crime was super severe, maybe the family of the family could come up with a punishment. I just don't think it should be allowed, especially if it is for a petty crime. We are the only developed nation in the world that still has the death penalty.
  • vperez191 on 22 Mar 21
     
    They should punish the people that do bad things instead of giving them the death penalty because death is not scary
  • zeaksorensen on 22 Mar 21
     
    I think that the death penalty is a sort of necessity. If we don't have it, then murders and serial killers will be able to live, even though they contribute nothing to society.
  • arosas733 on 22 Mar 21
     
    I think that if someone committed a terrible crime such as murder or rape, the death penalty is reasonable. How can you let someone of that nature still live? I personally believe it would be giving them what they deserve, prevent it from happening again from that same person, and save jails money rather than basically giving them free food and shelter. Of course with major restrictions on why someone should get it, but I think it should most definitely still be around.
  • abbidominguez on 30 Mar 21
     
    I have mixed emotions about the death penalty. I know some families would consider the death penalty justice for those who have lost loved ones due to a murder or something of that sort. I also believe life in prison can have more of an effect on the person who committed the crime and they would have to think about what they did for the rest of their life knowing they will no longer have freedom. I don't really have a definite stance on the subject.
  • mcaamal on 30 Mar 21
     
    I dont agree with the death penalty. I dont think that they should have the power to take someones life away. And in some cases people used be given death penalty for things that they did not even do. I think that a life in prison is would be better because the wont be free they wont have a life anymore and they will die there. and in my opinion that is a good punishment.
  • lhunter952 on 12 Apr 21
     
    I think the death penalty should still be around. There are some extremely disgusting or disturbing things that people could do that deserve death. The only problem is that they need to be 100% sure the person is guilty so they don't kill someone for no reason.
  • samhovey on 12 Apr 21
     
    I believe that the accused should be able to decide between life in prison or death in these situations.
  • joeypo10 on 12 Apr 21
     
    I think the death penalty should still be around. Personally if I had one of my family members killed I would want the killer to have to suffer for life in prison rather than not having to face their consequences. The death penalty is just way of reassurance to make sure they wont do anything bad again.
  • tsilva588 on 12 Apr 21
     
    I believe that the death penalty has its uses in certain situations like on terrorists or mass killers. It's simple they killed many and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again and that's the cruel but necessary action. If someone that I cared about was gone because of someone id want my peace.
  • eballenger on 12 Apr 21
     
    I think they should have kept it for certain times where it was the best course of action.
  • samhovey on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think that the accused should be able to choose between life in prison or the death penalty.
  • vperez191 on 19 Apr 21
     
    they should not have the death penalty anymore. If someone does something really bad, they should get life in prison because they will forever suffer.
Melissa Diaz-Aguilera

Juvenile Justice: Too young for Life in Prison? - 10 views

abcnews.go.com/...story

Politics News Juvenile Prison

shared by Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 29 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Natalie Wilson on 30 Nov 12
     
    I feel like you should be able to charge juveniles as adults. I think it would be absurd to just let kids away with committing crimes, especially the one this kid did. If an adult did something like this no one would even think twice about arresting them, why is it different in this case? I think that he needs to be put behind bars and he needs some sort of counseling because obviously something is not right with him. It might also help to know what kind of background the kid has, to see why he did it. There has to be a reason.
  • ...27 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 30 Nov 12
     
    If we as a society won't allow juveniles, sixteen year olds in particular, to vote or to sign their name to a legal contract and the justification for that restriction is because they aren't "mature enough" or that they "don't/won't understand" the lasting consequences then how can we expect them to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime? If sixteen year olds are old enough and mature enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime then shouldn't they also understand the lasting consequences to the things I mentioned above?
  • Jared Holcomb on 30 Nov 12
     
    I agree with Jermey, we need to not set a double standard. We need to rehabilitate young offenders, because if you are not a hard criminal before you go to prison for 20 years of one of the most impressionable times of your life, you will come out of it as one. These are kids that probably grew up in broken homes, and this was the only path they were going to take, because it was the only one they saw. So lets rehabilitate, and give them productive lives, not ones that are going to keep the cycle going.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Nov 12
     
    I agree with you for the most part Natalie. Although if it's a really small crime and the juvenile is unarmed, then they should go to juvenile court. But for crimes bigger than that example, they need to be charged as an adult would be charged. There's actually this reality TV show (that I can't remember the name of) where, in each episode, a group of kids who are on the streets and in gangs, etc. are taken into a jail as a form of rehabilitation, and they go through a day of being in jail and they also hear stories from people who are in jail at that time, and they always say that one doesn't want to end up in jail. I think there was one particular episode where a girl went with her mother to watch her mother plan a funeral for her. It's pretty interesting, and it does seem to help a lot.
  • Natalie Wilson on 30 Nov 12
     
    Jared, I understand what you mean by some kids growing up in broken homes and having bad lives growing up BUT you always have the option to not go down that road. You have the option to try to better yourself and make something of yourself. Although most people don't do that, they don't always pull a gun on a cop. That is a serious offense and I feel like you guys are so focused on the fact that he's our age that you're blinded by what he did. Jeremy, I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me so if you could maybe clarify that would be great. Thanks. Kirstina, I do get what you're saying. Most kids need to see what can happen but this kid is plenty old enough to know right from wrong.
  • Jared Holcomb on 30 Nov 12
     
    I realize that, but the people that are the most likely to pull a gun are the ones that have the most messed up life beforehand in most cases. We should try them as children, and try to rehabilitate them. Before your 18, and move, a large part of what you do, and know is influenced by your parents, and other senor figures in your life, and even friends Until you reach adulthood, its hard to be your own person, especially in the environment that generates this type of person. There is the odd person in there that is just a bad person, and it is all there fault, but we need to try to rehabilitate them as a child, not as an adult.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Nov 12
     
    Jeremy, there's a major difference between crime and legal contracts. They don't have anything to do with each other. Sentencing teens like adults is important because it protects us. It's a safety issue. Plus it tells other kids, "You break the law, you get in huge trouble." And they don't allow people under 18 to sign contracts without parental consent to protect them from making stupid decisions.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 03 Dec 12
     
    Natalie I'm sorry for the confusion. I was replying more to the article then directly to your post. To clarify I disagree with your position about putting juveniles into adult court that commit violent crimes. At least with the current system we have in place. Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting. As long as our society wants to say that sixteen and seventeen year olds aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of something like voting then how can we expect them to understand these violent crimes that they commit. I'm all for placing older teens in adult court when they commit an adult crime but only if they aren't subjected to an unfounded and unreasonable double standard. Either sixteen year olds are on the same maturity level as adults or they aren't.
  • jacob whalen on 03 Dec 12
     
    i think it is totally understandable because it shows that this kid is planning on doing crimes in the future.
  • garrett lee on 03 Dec 12
     
    i think that they did the right thing by arresting him if you are 16 then you are old enough to realize that shooting a cop isn't a good idea and you will have a punishment for it
  • jessicavaldez on 03 Dec 12
     
    Natalie i agree with your point of view on this article. If he is 16 he already knows what he is doing. We are all in high school and know well the consequences if we did that. I also agree with what you said about his background. It seems like this is a record and he already knows the consequences. So in my opinion he should be charged for adult crime.
  • KImberlee Keller on 03 Dec 12
     
    I believe this kid should get charged as an adult because like they said in the article. He is a threat to society and to himself.
  • mandyvorthmann on 03 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Natalie, everyone in the right mind should know shooting at someone; especially a police officer is wrong. And know their will be consequences to follow. So yes, juveniles should be charged as an adult depending on the circumstances.
  • Melissa Christensen on 03 Dec 12
     
    I agree with charging juveniles as adults. People should know the right from wrongs at an early age and receive the consequences though an understanding of what they did wrong.
  • joecarbis on 04 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Melissa, people should know the difference from right and wrong, they definitely know the incentives for doing wrong as well.
  • Natalie Wilson on 04 Dec 12
     
    Jeremy, I don't quite understand where you stand on the issue. You said that you realize there's a difference but then you said, and I quote, "Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting." You're contradicting yourself there and in your original comment.
  • Hayley Hochstetler on 04 Dec 12
     
    Obviously there is something wrong with society if we have mere teenagers pulling out weapons and assaulting people to the point of felony. I think that the punishment is completely fair for such a sick individual. Criminal behaviors are not taught, but learned so he had to have learned this from someone he knew or a parent with a criminal record. Either way, what he did was wrong and he deserves to be behind bars.
  • gabby valdez on 04 Dec 12
     
    I agree with charging minors as adults because this article is one of many where the felon was a minor. I did research over this in another class and i found many articles where they were charging a minor with adult charges because of how brutal the murders they committed where. Like i argued in my other paper "is your loved one's life any less valuable just because they got murdered by a minor"
  • Natalie Wilson on 04 Dec 12
     
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/sport/football/dutch-linesman-killed-football/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Here's another case of teenagers committing violent crimes. They beat this man to death. There were two 15 year-olds and a 16 year-old.
  • bvasquez13 on 04 Dec 12
     
    they should charge minors as adults because they will be out in the streets again and doing more crimies. its there own fault that they get charged thats why they should face charges alone.
  • gharvey949 on 04 Dec 12
     
    I think if you do the crime, you pay the time whenever the government wants you to.
  • jordan bywater on 04 Dec 12
     
    i say same charge for everyone no matter what
  • Emili Davis on 04 Dec 12
     
    if you're willing to make the decision to break the law and commit a serious crime with the consequences of an adult then you should definitely suffer the same consequences no matter your age.
  • Lydia Navarrette on 04 Dec 12
     
    if anyone commits a crime they should be charged the same no matter what age
  • Sidnie Lewis on 05 Dec 12
     
    I agree with the idea that no matter your age, if you commit a serious crime, you should suffer the consequences. Say a teenager decides to murder someone... Just because they're a minor, should they be charged with a lesser offense than an adult would have? NO. If you are willing, capable, and have the mental capacity and audacity to commit such crimes, you deserve prison and whatever other punishment you receive.
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Dec 12
     
    Great discussion guys! Here is some more food for thought. People who do bad things need punishment, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that teenage brains are in a state of development that doesn't excuse bad acts, but can help explain it. http://goo.gl/MXEAd Ask yourself if you are the "same person" you were when you were 5 years old? I can tell you, you will make decisions differently when you are 25, and probably 65.
  • Jared Holcomb on 05 Dec 12
     
    This is a good point i have to say. That's why I think we need to do our best to reform kids, not just punish them. Make it clear that their will be consequences, but try them as hardened, adult criminals is not the way to do it.
  • blakewilladsen on 05 Dec 12
     
    This is an extremely touchy subject. It's hard to lay out things like this without stepping on toes of other controversial subjects like voting age and military eligability
  • KImberlee Keller on 05 Dec 12
     
    You both make a good point, but when a kid gets charged with a felony, he obviously has done wrong. Sometimes you do bad things, but its not as bad compared to other things. Though when you get older, you can continue to do bad things, and the bad things can turn into crimes, etc. Sometimes charging teens as adults is the way to go, even if it doesn't seem fare. Maybe not fore life, but two years, or even one, wont do any harm.
  • Hyejin Park on 14 Dec 12
     
    I think if someone did crime, they should be punished no matter their age. so make them realize how bad it is.
1 - 20 of 22 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page