Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged life

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Bryan Pregon

Iowa Lawmaker Wants To Bring Back The Death Penalty - 1 views

www.wowt.com/...e-Death-Penalty-182678981.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 10 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • joecarbis on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think life in prison would be worse than the death penalty to begin with
  • ...33 more comments...
  • Natalie Wilson on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think the death penalty is pointless. In my opinion all it does is give horrible criminals an easy way out. If I did something horrible enough to get the death penalty, I'd rather die than serve life in prison.
  • caseyyard on 10 Dec 12
     
    Yup we are for sure with out a doubt falling back into a dark age.
  • garrett lee on 10 Dec 12
     
    i think we should have the death penalty
  • gharvey949 on 10 Dec 12
     
    Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back.
  • Ryan Loye on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think that the death penalty is wrong because they are trying to stop a murderer by murdering him themselves so really it's not much better then what the killer was doing himself.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 10 Dec 12
     
    What would happen if the person was innocent after all?
  • Molly Wyant on 10 Dec 12
     
    Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out
  • blakewilladsen on 10 Dec 12
     
    It will be interesting to hear Sorenson's argument as to why to changes things. Prisons are getting crowded but this is still Iowa. We still have a small population
  • jessicavaldez on 10 Dec 12
     
    I think the death penalty is not a bad idea nor I think it is a good idea. They will suffer in jail or suffer in hell. My opinion is put them in jail. If it is not their time to die yet then it is not. If they did something as bad as kill someone then they do deserve to go to jail and suffer for life.
  • Melissa Christensen on 10 Dec 12
     
    I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions.
  • aaron valdivia on 10 Dec 12
     
    Its not weather which one is worse, its that killing a person for killing another person is not only hypocritical but inhumane to today's society.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 11 Dec 12
     
    I disagree with bringing the death penalty back to Iowa. We've taken it away twice, once in 1872 and the second time in 1965, so I feel that shows that we, as a state, don't want it. Also the death penalty isn't really a deterrent for crime. There is a really interesting website that shows so facts about murder rates and comparing states that do and don't have the death penalty. They have a ton of information and I would recommend that you go through the site a little if you're interested in this topic. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
  • joecarbis on 11 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Aaron, but i also think that justice should be served
  • Dylan Garner on 11 Dec 12
     
    Aaron giving someone the death penalty is acceptable. Having life in prison is worse anyway and it just puts more people in danger if that person is still alive.
  • bvasquez13 on 11 Dec 12
     
    better for the death penalty then life in prison.
  • gharvey949 on 11 Dec 12
     
    Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.
  • aaron valdivia on 11 Dec 12
     
    Mr. Garner, it would cost more money to give somebody the death penalty then to have them spend life in prison. We live in a different type of world then when people had there heads chopped off and dragons happened to be there to save "johns" life. To me that's not what God intended us to do with people that made a mistake and yes a big one but everybody has a reason to something or there could be something seriously wrong with there head to commit a murder but its not always there fault.
  • blakewilladsen on 11 Dec 12
     
    For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1 For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9 For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8 For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
  • jacob whalen on 12 Dec 12
     
    It seems like if the act of violence is bad enough to get the death penalty most of the people kill themselves before the law can.
  • joecarbis on 13 Dec 12
     
    Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!
  • Dylan Garner on 13 Dec 12
     
    Mr. Valdivia how would it cost more to give the death penalty then to keep them in prison for life? That's right, IT WOULDN'T. And I'm not saying give the death penalty for 1 murder. Based on depravity and body counts they should be sentenced to death.
  • dalton burk on 13 Dec 12
     
    unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people
  • Jeremy Vogel on 13 Dec 12
     
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf Dylan pages 20 and 21 of the PDF I linked above, explain why the death penalty costs more to administer than life in prison with out parole. More specifically on page 20 under the heading Time on Death Row it says, "In California, a legislative commission concluded that it costs the state an extra $90,000 for each death row inmate per year compared to the costs of the same inmate housed in general population. With over 670 inmates on death row, that amounts to an additional yearly cost of $60 million solely attributable to the death penalty."
  • joecarbis on 14 Dec 12
     
    Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.
  • Dylan Garner on 14 Dec 12
     
    Well then we can change the process to a quick and easy death without all that court BS. And plus I'm a prison warden so you guys both don't know what you are talking about. Aaron. And Jeremy.
  • joecarbis on 14 Dec 12
     
    FALSE. There is NO WAY you're a prison warden. The minimum age for a Warden is 21, plus you have to have lots of training. So someone of your prestige and experience, (not to mention your practically a 5 year old) would never be able to be a warden. Kthnxbye
  • Dylan Garner on 14 Dec 12
     
    I am prison
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Dec 12
     
    Dylan and Joe, The reason that the death penalty is more expensive (and always will be) is the courts have to make sure that the criminal that is convicted is 100 percent guilty. There can't be any room for doubt. This means that the state has to supply better (More expensive) lawyers for the suspected party, and the trial has to be more in depth, therefor much longer. We can't make this time shorter than it is, because as a country, we are will do everything we can to keep an Innocent man from dying. And to just keep the perpetrators in jail is much cheaper, as there is already a well set system in place, and one more person will not increase the cost of that system to go up in large amounts as much as the singled out attention a person on death row will.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 14 Dec 12
     
    @ Dylan and Joe, if you both still think that the death penalty is cheaper, you are wrong, look at the 20th page Jeremy posted. @ Jared, ethically speaking, shouldn't any person who is accused of murder have an outrageously expensive lawyer anyways? If someone is going to be imprisoned for life, or going to be executed for a crime, should the one being executed receive a better lawyer?
  • Jared Holcomb on 14 Dec 12
     
    I think they should, but the person being put to jail for life has the chance to have new evidence pop up, and potentially let them eventually get out, they have the chance to get out on parole, they have the potential for choices. The man that is getting the death penalty have to be 100 percent sure. They don't have room to make mistakes. Ethically, I believe that people getting put away for life should have the same standards of 100 percent, but as I said, they have choices later on down the road. The dead don't.
  • Dylan Garner on 18 Dec 12
     
    @ Payton. It is cheaper. I know for a fact. I AM A PRISON WARDEN.
  • Emili Davis on 18 Dec 12
     
    I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty.
  • joecarbis on 19 Dec 12
     
    @Peyton Are you trying to tell me its more expensive to keep someone alive in prison? this means that dude lives off our tax money. You will literally pay for his food, housing, and heck, that dude can even go lift for 3 hours a day and run his block! THink about that. State Champ.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 19 Dec 12
     
    @ Dylan, you are not a prison warden, keep the topics on this page relevant to the conversation, and have some potential form of evidence to back up what you say. @ Joe, it is much less expensive to keep someone alive then execute them. The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated. Example State: California How much they could save: With life in prison as the maximum punishment for 1st degree murder, they would save over 1 billion dollars a year. Money that could be saved per year for taxpayers: 90,000 dollars a year. Taxpayers save money if they do not use the death penalty. http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 Besides, many murder victims PREFER the idea of Life without Parole. If you do not believe this, check out this site made by the victims families: https://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/death_penalty/Voices_from_California_Crime_Victims_for_Alternatives_to_the_Death_Penalty.pdf I have the feeling that nobody will even look at these links, but they are blunt evidence that it is cheaper, and makes more people happy, then when we use the death penalty. Oh.... By the way, 2nd degree murders (who cannot receive the death penalty) can do all that which you stated before Joe. Why should first degree murders be any different?
  • Molly Wyant on 19 Dec 12
     
    The death penalty is dumb you should just let that sever his/or hers time in prison.
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.
codyself1

Defiant Teen Gets Life Sentences in Ohio Shooting - 1 views

news.yahoo.com/s-ohio-shooting-163920491.html

shooting bad mean awful defiant life sentences

shared by codyself1 on 20 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • codyself1 on 20 Mar 13
     
    There has to be something wrong with this kid. If you read the story and hear what he said to the court and to the families of the victims he shot, you'll understand. It is scary that someone could be so awful.
  • ...6 more comments...
  • Colton Tracy on 25 Mar 13
     
    He deserves what he is getting. I think he new what he was doing the whole time. That school should feel horrible for not having good enough security to let him bring in a gun.
  • courtney wilson on 25 Mar 13
     
    what is wrong with this kid. he is crazy!! now the school should know they need more security so this wont happen again.
  • Madison Clark on 25 Mar 13
     
    Wow, This is shocking. Oddly enough all I could think about the whole time was how do attorneys do their jobs? How in the world could you be strong enough to defend something like that. That young man is sick.
  • Morgan Ronfeldt on 25 Mar 13
     
    That is terrible! At least he got what he deserved. I don't understand how anybody in their right mind could do such things.
  • joshpowell on 25 Mar 13
     
    That kid is sick and twist. He doesn't deserve 3 life sentences he deserves the death penatly
  • Amanda Ringberg on 25 Mar 13
     
    I don't understand why nobody saw that there was something wrong with this person he isn't exactly sane it seem I mean to go and kill people for one, then to go to court and act like he did why didn't anyone try and stop him.
  • Meghan Manifold on 25 Mar 13
     
    People like this don't do well in Prisons. He'll most likely have a very rough life where he's going, especially after what he has said. He'll "get what is coming for him" and I honestly feel no pity, even though I do believe he should be charged as an adult. This is disgusting. I would not have been able to rest easy if I were in that court knowing the guy is in jail after what he had done, let alone what he had said, he deserves way worse than what he got. He obviously took pleasure in killing those innocent students. Good luck in prison, mate, because you are certainly going to need it if you don't want to end up as cold as those concrete walls you'll be surrounded by. Either that or he'll end up as Big Jerry's finger puppet.
  • Kayla Beck on 26 Mar 13
     
    The death sentence would be an easy way out for him. Spending your entire life rotting away in jail having your actions hung over your head is a much better punishment in my opinion. Not to mention, killing someone else will not bring your loved ones back or make you feel better, at least it shouldn't anyway. I read a story about a woman's 6 year old daughter who had been kidnapped and murdered,but she did not wish to have the man killed, because she said, "How do I honor Susie and Susie's life and the goodness and sweetness and beauty of who she was? To kill somebody in her name would be an insult to her memory." I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I just think life sentence without parole is a better option.
Bryan Pregon

Nebraska outlaws the death penalty - CNNPolitics.com - 17 views

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

shared by Bryan Pregon on 28 May 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 28 May 15
     
    "Six states have abolished capital punishment since 2007 -- Nebraska is now the seventh."
  • ...17 more comments...
  • denniseram on 08 Sep 15
     
    I think it was a good idea to outlaw the death penalty, personally because I don't think that you should take someones life in punishment of someone else's. "An eye for an eye." There's always another way to deal with this, not greet it with death. If anything, I'd sentence him to jail for most of his life or his whole life in that matter. But the Government itself can also make a mistake and accuse the innocent of murder and then give them death as a punishment. They'd be in the wrong. Death is more drastic to me then spending a few years in jail, (thinking about it in a family way).
  • seanveazie on 08 Sep 15
     
    Keeping someone in jail for their whole life takes millions of dollars paid from the tax payers. If their crime was drastic enough then I am fully in support of the death penalty. Jail is basically a long term time out chamber for people to get clean and think about what they did. If you have already murdered, or raped, or abused someone a thirty year wag of the finger is not going to change their behavior.
  • tiaross on 08 Sep 15
     
    I believe in the death penalty. Let's say there's a serial killer and he's already murdered a good amount of people. Would you really want that person to go on living his or her life after all the pain he caused for all of those families? I know I wouldn't.
  • amcintosh485 on 08 Sep 15
     
    I believe in the death penalty because if someone has already done a good amount of harm to others and they have died because of it then the person who committed the crime deserves the same. Keeping them in prison is just a waste of money and giving them to much time. They deserve nothing less and being in prison isn't going to change their behavior.
  • bharold850 on 08 Sep 15
     
    As a very liberal person myself, and the death penalty is a conservative policy for crime, I am happy to see a state so close to home abolish this penalty. We have prisons and judges and laws for a reason that will punish those who do bad things. What are we accomplishing by killing someone publicly for killing others?
  • allisonwolff on 08 Sep 15
     
    I belive the death penalty is okay becasue you have to commit a pretty serious crime to get the death penalty and really in that case you almost kind of deserve it because of the pain you caused to multiple people.
  • kaylawalden on 08 Sep 15
     
    The death penalty is a tricky subject to talk about, most people are strictly for the death penalty, or strongly against it. However, in my opinion, I believe that everything has a consequence to a set of actions. Is it necessary to kill somebody though? I think everyone deserves a second chance especially if they know they are in the wrong and trying to change their lives around. The type of crime the person committed is the key. Let's say a person committed murder, would you say "an eye for an eye?" and kill them too through the death penalty? If you were to do this, aren't you doing the same thing that they committed? Overall, I think it was wise that Nebraska outlawed the death penalty.
  • gillyhyde on 08 Sep 15
     
    I don't believe in the death penalty, because by killing someone who killed someone else it's hypocritical. I think it's wrong to kill anyone, even if they killed someone else. The death penalty also put innocent lives at risk, someone could have been framed for the murder. The death penalty also costs a lot of money, people think that it's okay because they think that it saves the government from spending money but we are still spending a lot. There are a lot better ways to avoid the death penalty, and there a lot of mentally ill patients killed by the death penalty.
  • sophiataylor001 on 08 Sep 15
     
    I believe that outlawing the death penalty is the right thing to do because you shouldn't fight fire with fire. It is wrong to show that killing, or any other act of the sort, is wrong by doing the same thing. It is also a good thing because there have been wrong accusations in the past, and the death penalty cannot be undone. If you argue for a just prosecution, they can live with the guilt of their crime in prison. If they felt no remorse then the person should get pyschiatric help to correct the situation. There is also data that says the death penality costs more than housing the prisoner because of the long appeal process.
  • katiepetersen005 on 08 Sep 15
     
    Spending jail time is to help you become a better person because you did something bad. Killing someone does not help them become better as a person.
  • kdamgaard on 08 Sep 15
     
    I believe in the death penalty, if someone has committed a big enough crime.I don't think it should be outlawed becuase If someone has tortured and/or murdered multiple people than they should.
  • ryanlegg on 09 Sep 15
     
    Moms freakin out by this she wont shut up about it its hilarious
  • Julia Gibler on 09 Sep 15
     
    I think it is good that states are starting to outlaw the death penalty. If someone kills someone why does it make it right for them to be killed even if its by the government. Today we see punishments like the electric chair as barbaric and years from now people will say the same thing about the death penalty.
  • austindueling1 on 11 Sep 15
     
    I think we should keep the death penalty why should we have people murder other people and live in prison the rest of their lives we should show them what the did to people i mean the deserve so i think we should keep the death penalty
  • jacobdizona on 11 Sep 15
     
    We should keep the death penalty because if you take a persons life or multiple peoples lives then yes the state should take yours. Only if it was on purpose, because you get in a car crash and kill someone from the impact that shouldn't really count because it wasn't intended. Also if someone gets life in prison they get everything pretty much handed to them and they don't to pay for it. For example Nikko Jenkins killed multiple people on multiple occasions and no justice happened for the family's who had to deal with the loss of a loved one because hes just going to prison for life.
  • casandrabristow on 11 Sep 15
     
    I think the death penalty is okay to have in every state. If you are willing to murder a person then you should be murdered yourself. The crime they commit should be used in the same way against them.
  • ryanlegg on 14 Sep 15
     
    but are you willing to take it yourself for a crime that's the question everyone fears.
  • chris563 on 17 Sep 15
     
    I think its okay if the person that going into it haves killed like 40 people and they in joy doing it but if you just kill some one on accident then its not right just to give them the death penalty, instead they should just be locked up.
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 15
     
    Bumped for discussion on Political Ideology.
Bryan Pregon

Ohio's 'heartbeat' abortion bill awaits Gov. Kasich's signature - CNNPolitics.com - 11 views

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

shared by Bryan Pregon on 07 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 07 Dec 16
     
    "Ohio state lawmakers have passed a controversial "Heartbeat Bill" that would ban abortions from the moment the heartbeat of a fetus can be detected -- which usually occurs about six weeks into a pregnancy."
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Faith Otten on 07 Dec 16
     
    There have two different attempts at this in Arkansas and North Dakota, were found unconstitutional in court when they tried to make it a law. It hasn't been said if the 'heartbeat' abortion bill will apply to victim's of rape or in the case of incest. There are too many variables involved to make a clear cut decision.
  • sydney matheny on 07 Dec 16
     
    I feel like this bill will cause women to do abortions illegally and go back to old methods. In one of the paragraph it said they wont do abortions even if its rape or incest. it gives me a little hope that he said he is pro-life when it come to rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
  • Mallori Wagoner on 07 Dec 16
     
    I think that if someone was raped they should be able to have an abortion because that could affect their life in a lot of bad ways if they had a baby from someone that raped them.
  • mwheeler21 on 07 Dec 16
     
    I can see both the pros and cons of this bill. I hate the thought of ending a life before it has barely begun, but if a woman had the reason of abortion because she was a rape victim 6 weeks might not be a long enough time to reveal that she is pregnant. Women are scarred from these experiences and by telling her she has to keep proof of the memory may be worse than abortion. A new life is suppose to be celebrated not forced into someone's body. I don't like abortion, but I can see why some women would.
  • gracie1bradley on 12 Dec 16
     
    Everything that Macy said, I agree with. I don't agree with abortion but the reasoning behind it of rape makes sense and is an exception. Keeping something that'll remind the mother is torturing herself, again celebration not force.
  • mckenzie spanjer on 12 Dec 16
     
    I agree with Macy. I also think that abortion is a bad thing and you shouldn't be able to end someones life just because you weren't responsible enough, but what if someone was rapped and had to live with that because they didn't realize they were pregnant until after 20 something weeks. I think it's unfair in those situations.
  • dallastomasello on 12 Dec 16
     
    I agree with everything Macy said. 6 weeks may not be enough time to fine out you're pregnant. If it was rape women should be able to abort the child. No woman should have to have a that mans baby. Would scar her for life.
  • lmcdowell956 on 12 Dec 16
     
    I think that having an abortion is your choice so you should be able to make it. If you are raped you should be allowed to get an abortion because having the kid would make you remember getting rapped and people don't want to remember things like that.
  • savannah131999 on 12 Dec 16
     
    I would say it should be the state's choice if it's majority agrees and votes on it then I believe that it should be passed. My own opinion out of it, I think that 6 weeks is far enough time to make the choice, with other things that you can do.
Bryan Pregon

Parents consider legal action after South Dakota police use Taser on 8-year-old girl - ... - 4 views

usnews.nbcnews.com/...e-use-taser-on-8-year-old-girl

shared by Bryan Pregon on 10 Oct 13 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 10 Oct 13
     
    "The parents of an 8-year-old South Dakota girl want the police officer who stunned their daughter with a Taser disciplined, but the police chief said Wednesday that the officer acted properly and may have saved the little girl's life."
  • ...7 more comments...
  • amber1996 on 10 Oct 13
     
    If the girl was really threatening her life and possible even the cops or the baby sitter than it was good that the cops Tarazed the girl. it probably saved her and maybe even another life.
  • Hayli Erickson on 15 Oct 13
     
    Personally, I believe that it was wrong to tase the 8 year old. It could have possibly NOT saved her life. What if she fell and stabbed herself in the process. I do think that it was not, but I don't think that the officer's intention was to hurt her, just save her.
  • Sara Borgaila on 15 Oct 13
     
    I think the police officer did the right thing because the girl was crazy. And there was really no other way to help the situation. I think that the police officers should maybe have another taser that would be better for children who are crazy!
  • Victoria Kirk on 15 Oct 13
     
    The parents are just mad because this is most likely reflecting on their parenting. They just need to shut their mouths, don't press charges, and get help for their little girl. I just feel bad for the babysitter for having to go through that and for the police officer because he was just doing what he thought was the right thing to do at that time and who is it for the parents to judge what would best be done when they weren't even there.
  • ladasia on 15 Oct 13
     
    Ok, yeah, tasers should not be used on children because kids are just super sensitive to certain things, but honestly, a knife is a knife and although the choice made was difficult, it was very smart. The only other option would be to shoot are tackle her. Tackling can lead to the knife accidently stabbing her and shooting could lead to death. Using a taser as I see it was the best option.
  • Ryan Camden on 15 Oct 13
     
    no way a child needs tasered. i mean they do but they dont feel free to taze anyone as long as its in your head but never tazer a little kid..
  • sarah smith on 16 Oct 13
     
    The police officer felt like he had to in order to save the little girl,the only reason i can think of on why the parents would be suing him is because they are afrais it wil hurt their repetation as a parent.
  • Jessi Gallagher on 17 Oct 13
     
    If the girls life was in danger or the officers I would see why he would use a tazer but other wise he should of used a different approach.
  • Sara Dunn on 21 Oct 13
     
    She was endangering herself and the officer, he used the least harmful weapon he had. He saved that girls life he should not be getting sued. Obviously the parents are blind to their own kids problems, that's what they should be focusing on.
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.
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.
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.
Emmalee Adams

Greys Anatomy Actually Saves Someone's Life - 11 views

www.aoltv.com/...helped-a-daughter-save-her-mom

shared by Emmalee Adams on 05 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Kristin Molgaard on 06 Dec 11
     
    Thats really cool to know something like greys anatomy actually saved somebody's life
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Anna Gahm on 07 Dec 11
     
    Who would have thought a drama filled TV show like Greys Anatomy, could save someones life
  • Megan Rief on 07 Dec 11
     
    That is sweet, who would have thought you could learn life saving techniques from watching television.
  • Ziada Karbowski on 07 Dec 11
     
    This is crazy, I've done a lot of research projects on discrimination and violence in the media and it shows bad influences on kids. This is good, it shows that some kids are looking at shows differently.
Janeth Cano

Why be against same sex marriage? - 37 views

front.moveon.org

politics protest

shared by Janeth Cano on 05 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Janeth Cano on 05 Dec 11
     
    A student from ISU stands up for same sex marriage as he tells his story. Very powerful!
  • ...30 more comments...
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Dec 11
     
    This student's name is Zach Wahls and this was a very powerful speech. Here is another link for the story with some more details http://goo.gl/LfiKK . I also know that he did a reddit AMA recently but I can't find a link right now.
  • awest520 on 05 Dec 11
     
    "marriage- ... 3) an intimate or close union" i think that if you asked a random person on the street what they thought marriage was this would be close to what they said, so why WOULD we be against it?
  • Katelynn Hunter on 06 Dec 11
     
    If they are together the same as a man and a women are, why shouldn't they get the same benefits? I mean their relationships generally last longer then "legitimate" marriages so why shouldn't they be treated the same? By not allowing them to get married, are you doing anything? Besides denying them the benefits of that little piece of paper...such as lower insurance rates, higher health benefits, what happens if their partner dies? Then simply because they weren't ALLOWED to be married, the living partner does not get their belongings unless it is in the written will, they wont get any of the insurance money because that only goes to family, so if they are just "dating" they don't get any money to help them through the hard times...I think they should allow same sex marriage simply because if they are going to be together whether or not you allow them to get married, they should get the same benefits as everyone else.
  • anonymous on 06 Dec 11
     
    I don't mean to start a fight or anything like that, I just don't think it's right in the biblical sense. I am very close minded about this topic, and can't seem to change and I don't plan on it. I can see where people come from, but I bet some of those people don't believe in God, or the bible. It even states it in the bible that is wrong.
  • Bryan Pregon on 06 Dec 11
     
    I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments. Discussion groups like these can easily turn into arguments with little information on either side. Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/BFKIo
  • Brice Johnson on 07 Dec 11
     
    I don't think that religion can play a part in what marriage is in today's world. Marriage now in the eyes of our government is a way for 2 people to share benefits that the government gives them.
  • robert jungferman on 07 Dec 11
     
    casue it sthe same sex it shold not be
  • broxton anderson on 07 Dec 11
     
    this is a hard question to answer. I believe very strongly that gays have the right to be together and form a union, so i think that marriage is all well and good, but there is another issue. No matter what the dictionary says what the definition of marriage is, it doesn't take superiority over the bibles definition, which clearly states marriage is only to be formed between a man and a woman. Some say that the bible was not very clear on that, and that it is up for debate, but if one looks at leviticus 18:22 it states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I don't think it is abominations, but the concept of christianity, and judaism does, which is where it gets tricky. Does the government have the right to force the church to do things against their belief such as allowing gays and lesbians to marry? quite frankly i don't think so. Its not like the pope can just say, hey gays are ok now. It would be blasphemous. the only way gays would be allowed is if God himself came down from heaven and made it publicly known that he has changed his mind on the concept. If i was lets say jewish and had my own resteraunt, and i didn't serve pork due to my belief that pork was a dirty meat, would you go to the mayor and convince him to force me to change my rule even though its against my religion, and causes the lord to look down on me with disdain? I dont think you would because its preposterous. So i believe we need to meet in the middle. Make a union that gives gays all the same rights and privileges as regular marriage, but make it a different term than marriage, or at least make it known that the church is not ordaining it. The trick is not to force people to do things against their will, but to find new methods to do things so that we can all co exist without such petty argument.
  • Tuan Chau on 07 Dec 11
     
    I just think people come up with poor excuses for gay marriage not to eligible..
  • broxton anderson on 07 Dec 11
     
    they do, but many people are scared of change. its going to change i believe, but its going to take time.
  • Dakota Classon on 07 Dec 11
     
    I think that if a gay couple want to be want to be married, why can't they? There isn't a negative effect of a gay marriage, and you can see from the young man in this video that they can be just the same as a straight marriage. Infact I think that man was in more successful than any of us coming from opposite sex parents would be at that age. I also think that they provide a better family life for their children as well. His family seemed alot closer than most families today. So theres no reason a gay couple can't be married. Sure you can say that its wrong because its against Gods will and all, but being gay isnt a choice. Its who you are. God created man, and if being gay is really as terrible as they say it is, then God wouldnt have made them gay. And to the guy who says people that are for gay marriage aren't christian or don't belive in God, guess what? I go to church, believe in God, and I am for gay marriage. Who's to say that gay people can't have the same rights as straight people? The only difference is the gender we prefer. Why should gay marriage be outlawed and ridiculed? Where has prejudice ever gotten us?
  • Sierra Risner on 07 Dec 11
     
    I do not think religion has anything to do with marriage. After all atheists can get married can't they? Also if you have read the entire bible there are more things that god has said is wrong then gays, and i guarantee everybody has done something god has said is a sin. It is up to the people getting married whether they want their marriage to be religious or not. If we let religion be a part of our everyday lives we would go insane with all of the "rules" the bible states. Who is to say that gays shouldn't have the right to get married? If that is the case then maybe we should limit what straights can do.
  • Alexis Daniels on 07 Dec 11
     
    Dakota, If you look at Americas past there has always been prejudice. And in the end it united America. Look at the way people treated colored folk, or women for that example. There has always been prejudice in the past and there will always be in the future. People are going to voice their opinions no matter how ignorant or naive they are.
  • Derek Large on 07 Dec 11
     
    I am against gay marraige but I also think that people have the right to chose what they want. they can make their own choices and I will make mine. I have friends that are gay and I have no problems with them or the way they act. I may not like it but im not going to hate them for it.
  • broxton anderson on 08 Dec 11
     
    i actually have read the whole bible, and i spent 7 years of my life in a private christian school. it doesn't matter if you stole an orange or killed a man, a sin is a sin. what you dont understand is that god weighs all sins the same, and quite frankly if i really should tell the truth gay people are going to burn in a pit, just as that guy with the orange will if they dont change their ways and repent. The church is like a private club, and they say gays cant marry. end of story. they dont care if your not christian, they care about anatomy. anything else people want to ask questions about so i can answer them? or how about making false statements i can shoot down? listen unless we find an alternate to marriage, we should not and i will not stand up for gay marriage. perhaps if it was termed differently and done done in the name of god, i would just say more power to them. no matter how much you want to, you cant change the laws in the bible and call them legitimate.
  • awest520 on 08 Dec 11
     
    "broxton anderson " so your saying that the homosexuals need their own form of union instead of marriage? I thought that most marriages were now legal constructs with religious ceremonies being a personal choice? Does anyone else think this touches on separation of church and government? Should there be a true separation between the phrases "civil union" and "marriage" or is there already and some of us just can't see it yet?
  • Jay Cook on 09 Dec 11
     
    From a biblical point of view God made women for man and man for women, not man for man and women for women! #RealTalk
  • broxton anderson on 12 Dec 11
     
    yes it should be a "true separation" that way it removes itself from religion which leaves religions no room to complain. I feel that a civil union should give ALL the same benefits as marriage to. must people truly complain so much over two words? its the same thing, just a different name, and can prevent millions of wasted arguments.
  • Katelynn Hunter on 20 Dec 11
     
    for those of you that say it is wrong according to the Bible, what happens if you were gay? It's not like you can change how you feel...and if "God" created all people "equal" why shouldn't they actually be treated equal? And i honestly think that simply because gays are the minority, they are being picked on...it's wrong...so why would "God create" people just to send to the deep south? ...just a thought
  • xhotxsoccerbabe on 09 Mar 12
     
    Broxton Anderson- You have read the bible, yet you chose to use the most uncredible source in the bible. Using Leviticus is ridiculous. Leviticus also states that it is okay to own slaves and that if one performs the act of beastiality, that person is to be murdered and so shall the animal. It also states that you may not speak to a women on her menstrual cycle and it is also forbidden to touch pig skin and for men to cut their hair. You are completely fine with ignoring these very radical notions, but when it comes to gay marriage you instantly are against it? Seems to me like there is a lot of hypocrisy in your ways. I am a Catholic, but I fully accept the institution of gay marriage. I myself am not gay, nor do I plan on becoming gay. Leviticus is outdated and does not apply to our modern lives. Do not pick apart the bible and try to sound as if you know the way people should be. Anyone can misquote the bible. If you have a problem with homosexuals, keep it to yourself. They have just as much rights as everyone else in this world and should not be denied rights such as being married. A few men who disliked gay people have started this constant circle of quoting Leviticus in order to make their way sound just. If anything, they are doing more wrong by corrupting the bible to use it to justify their personal views.
  • xhotxsoccerbabe on 09 Mar 12
     
    Same goes to Jay Cook. Talking on something you do not understand, or even researched, makes you arrogant and naive. If you are so fine with not allowing gays to be married, then you should be put back into slavery. Fair trade, yes? From a biblical view?
  • Brittany Bourlier on 09 Mar 12
     
    I compltely agree with you^ Most people that are against gay marriage claim to say they are against it mostly because its against the bible while over half of them have no idea what they are talking about and likly havent read the bible. I think people should be able to marry who they wish the gender should not matter.
  • Captain Crunk on 15 Mar 12
     
    It's too bad the bible is a bunch of tall tales exaggerated, can't trust religion for anything, it's a petty excuse for any argument.
  • kevindickey on 16 Mar 12
     
    From an evolutionary stand point homosexual relations don't have an impact other then thinning the human gene pool. Not that I'm against gay rights, but since everyone dismisses religion I thought it would be important to note that in the commonly held belief of evolution, unless a person has offspring, it's as if never existed. Just some food for thought...
  • Sean Barrett on 16 Mar 12
     
    Obviously what he is saying that from the stand point of evolution. He wasn't saying the homosexuals provide nothing to their societies.
  • kevindickey on 16 Mar 12
     
    If you think about it the bible states go forth and populate, and that's the premise of evolution....
  • Brittany Bourlier on 16 Mar 12
     
    Yeah thats a good point but maybe thinning the human population isnt all a bad thing. Also have you even considered how many children gay people adopted from other countris and places were they probably would have not had a good chance in living a good long heaalthy life. I dont understand how people can be so one minded about things. What if you were gay and wanted to marry a person you loved and you couldnt because judgmental people didnt approve?
  • Jake Radford on 16 Mar 12
     
    I'm cool with gays as long as they don't try and make a move on me.
  • Riley Barton on 16 Mar 12
     
    I agree with Brittany, everyone as a human being has their rights
  • katilyn olinde on 20 Mar 12
     
    i totally agree with riley its peoples life and they have their own rights
  • kevindickey on 20 Mar 12
     
    Thinning the gene pool is a bad thing. Genes that don't get passed are lost, and it could have devastating effects. Also I never said they don't contribute through adopting. I said that in the eyes of evolution ANYONE who fails to pass on genes is nonexistent.
  • Riley Barton on 20 Mar 12
     
    I believe Brittany said the human population, not pointing out simply the gene pool. The human population rate needs to slow down. It's increasing at a ridiculous rate and with adoptions instead of births it will decrease slightly. However, more people need to understand that everyone has a right as an individual and if a man-man or woman-woman couple wants to get married or adopt children or have their own, I say let them.
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.
mya_doty

90-year-old Florida man charged for feeding homeless people - 28 views

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

shared by mya_doty on 05 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • mya_doty on 05 Nov 14
     
    (CNN) -- Arnold Abbott handed out four plates of food to homeless people in a South Florida park. Then police stopped the 90-year-old from serving up another bite. "An officer said, 'Drop that plate right now -- like I had a weapon,'" Abbott said.
  • ...24 more comments...
  • efigueroa871 on 05 Nov 14
     
    Whats wrong with that.
  • michaelaheilesen on 10 Nov 14
     
    I think that's awful and definitely shouldn't be against the law. Providing the homeless with a meal doesn't necessarily keep them on the street, rather them starving and not having any energy to even try to turn their lives around is.
  • jchristensen043 on 10 Nov 14
     
    Instead of it be against the law, they should be encouraging more people to feed them. If we just let them sit there and starve they will die, I would rather have homeless people living, then a bunch of dead bodies laying around the city. Maybe all they need to get the motivation to get up and get a job, is by other people showing that care about them, and want them to live a healthy a life.
  • amcclain946 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think this is absolutely ridiculous. How could the government of Fort Lauderdale be so ignorant and selfish? Granted, some people are homeless because they've made bad decisions to get to that point but some are homeless because they honestly can't help it. Who knows? But I think it should be okay for people to feed the homeless. It should be comforting knowing that people have caring hearts and are willing to give the less-unfortunate people food. I hope the banning of giving food to the homeless never becomes illegal in the state of Iowa because I have given homeless people food countless of times and I will not stop.
  • fwyldes753 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I don't think it should be against the law, its just help. Just because someone fed one person doesn't mean everyones going to go and be homeless.
  • pkleppe761 on 04 Dec 14
     
    Reading this story upsets me because no one should be charged for feeding the homeless. That is the same as arresting and charging a man/woman for donating to charity. I do believe that some people are homeless because they got themselves there from their life decisions and choices, however others have no other way out. For example, a veteran could be very ill after coming back home and maybe having PTSD and feel helpless and lost. They do not know where to go or who to ask for help. Helping the homeless lets them know that someone cares and wants to help, and I feel this act of kindness might just be the motivation they need to get themselves together and fix their life. This helps them know they are not alone. Florida is ridiculous for charging that man. Instead of it being a bad thing, let us encourage it.
  • djones036 on 04 Dec 14
     
    People should be able to help whoever they please. I think the man shouldn't get in trouble because he is helping them by giving them meals. This could also help them save money and eventually buy/ rent a house in the future.
  • kschwindt on 04 Dec 14
     
    Every town has some sort of poverty and not feeding the homeless isn't going to get rid of them.
  • matuszeski on 04 Dec 14
     
    Feeding the homeless should not be a crime. It is helping someone in need which is what citizens of a community should be doing is helping people in need and getting the back on there feet.
  • kquinlan591 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I don't believe that Abott should be arrested just because he was doing a good deed. I understand the views of the policeman and how they're just doing their job but it's not fair to Abott that he was just trying to be a good person. There is no reason why he should be arrested and think it's crazy that people are getting upset for helping the homeless. They should just leave him alone because it doesn't affect their lives in a big way.
  • bllandon on 04 Dec 14
     
    I do think that feeding them food -may- keep them in that cycle. MAY. I highly doubt it does though, because those homeless people probably have nowhere else to go at this point. And how are they suppose to "break" the cycle if they have nowhere to go? No job? If Florida isn't letting these people feed homeless people, then how about THEY do something about it rather than just giving everyone fines and acting without thinking.
  • John Scheffler on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think the city had made this a law in order to give the homeless an incentive to get a job. Which I personally believe is a terrible idea. No one likes living homeless, everyone needs a helping hand sometimes. I would think the officers of the city would have enough morals and ethics to not enforce this law. To be ignored and simply done away with in a few months. It's a sad day when helping becomes illegal.
  • jjohnson749 on 04 Dec 14
     
    i don't get why feeding the homeless is against the law, whats wrong with it? your helping a person maybe even saving their life.
  • malr2528 on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think the law against public food sharing is ridiculous. These kind of rules don't encourage the homeless to start getting back on their feet. Yes, they rely on the food given to them but all the law is doing is pushing the homeless out of Fort Lauderdale, to other areas. Rather then enforcing this new law they should come up with program that provide the homeless with job training and experience so they can really start off productively on their own.
  • ravenmaine on 04 Dec 14
     
    To put it lightly the banning of public food sharing is a stupid, stupid law. Credit, however, to Seiler for saying, "Providing them with a meal and keeping them in that cycle on the street is not productive." He made a valid point, yes, but a homeless person is just the same as a person who owns four houses, they just don't have as much luxury. I think homeless shelters, or even what Arnold Abbot does, feeding the people in need on a beach, that's their luxury. How are you going to take away something like that, for most, it might keep them hopeful. It shouldn't be up to the law who we as people want to help.
  • justin988 on 04 Dec 14
     
    this is a joke, how can you not feed another human being??
  • mhart079 on 04 Dec 14
     
    To me this is not just and feeding the homeless isn't against the law. My assumption is that the cop had hard feelings against the homeless guy and was enforcing illegally.
  • Erin Wolff on 05 Dec 14
     
    I don't think that this should be an actual law, what's the harm in feeding the poorest of the poor people? Cops are cracking down way too hard on the wrong "laws". There are criminals out there killing people, dealing drugs, stealing, and we're giving them jail time with possible probation, but feeding a homeless man is a serious crime? Think again.
  • brooklynschroede on 05 Dec 14
     
    I think this is ridiculous. We give our police too much power. Feeding the homeless is not a crime and it never should be. We have soup kitchens and things for them. How is it any different? The cops are pretty much taking away our rights and telling us not to be nice? Totally wrong.
  • tcomulada881 on 05 Dec 14
     
    I think Abbott has a right to feed the homeless. They don't have anything so we don't just want them to die in the street for starvation that's inhumane. They're just homeless people that are trying to eat the police should have their attention on things that are more important crimes. Besides feeding homeless people isn't a crime.
  • chrislindqvist on 05 Dec 14
     
    This sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.
  • davyana on 09 Dec 14
     
    I don't understand what is so wrong with feeding the homeless. I'd do the same exact thing if I could. Police officers are suppose to protect and that means everyone, even the homeless. If a police officer became homeless, losing his job, house, family, etc. I'm sure his friends and past co-workers would feed him too. So what makes him any different than the "random homeless guy on the street." ? I don't think Abbott should get charged.
  • justin988 on 09 Dec 14
     
    his sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.
  • estuckey767 on 09 Dec 14
     
    I don't see what is wrong with feeding the homeless. These people are at the lowest point in their lives and need all the help they can get and they fact that the city just want's to look the other way while these people suffer and hope that they go away is heartbreaking. People should help the homeless, help them get back on track and get their lives in order not treat them like a rat. There are actually criminals that get to go free and an old man who was helping the homeless gets put in jail? That's ridiculous.
  • deanaroth on 10 Dec 14
     
    There is nothing wrong with feeding those who don't have food. But I also believe at some point these people should have done something to prevent themselves from getting to the point that they can't afford food. Everybody gets a chance to try to find a place where they can support themselves. But I also believe it is wrong to prevent someone from trying to help them along, all they are trying to do is make their lives a little bit easier. There is no reason this man should be put in jail, he has done no wrong.
  • jordan fichter on 12 Dec 14
     
    I don't see anything wrong with giving to the homeless, but instead of giving an giving I would try and get them a job or help them
Bryan Pregon

HB 481: Georgia law criminalizes abortion, subjects women to life in prison. - 0 views

slate.com/...s-women-to-life-in-prison.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 09 May 19 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 09 May 19
     
    "On Tuesday, Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a "fetal heartbeat" bill that seeks to outlaw abortion after about six weeks. The measure, HB 481, is the most extreme abortion ban in the country-not just because it would impose severe limitations on women's reproductive rights, but also because it would subject women who get illegal abortions to life imprisonment and the death penalty."
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.
Kayla Beck

Teen who killed baby sentenced to 90 days - 5 views

www.hlntv.com/...-killed-baby-sentenced-90-days

shared by Kayla Beck on 05 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • Kayla Beck on 05 Mar 13
     
    Admitting he killed his child should not lesson his sentence, nor get him off the hook for anything. He should serve just as long of a punishment as someone would get for manslaughter.
  • ...16 more comments...
  • Madison Clark on 05 Mar 13
     
    I agree with Kayla. Admitting to the murder does not change the fact that the little girl is dead.. So what, if I get mad at my baby sister, throw her down the stairs, and she dies, as long as its my first murder and I admit to it I wont get in that much trouble? Ridiculous.
  • Alivia Bascue on 06 Mar 13
     
    This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. Why did he get so little punishment for killing someone? No matter how old the victim is, or how unlikely the person is to commit this crime again, doesn't make the crime any less bad than it was. This man should have gotten much worse. The fact that he got away with this, with only a few punishments, sickens me.
  • Jesse Sayles on 08 Mar 13
     
    90 days isn't a long enough punishment for killing a baby, even if it was an accident.
  • Jamie Cash on 08 Mar 13
     
    He should be sentenced for longer or even for life. If I went out and killed someone they wouldn't let me free just because "I was scared to tell someone so I lied" and "It was an accident" Just because he admitted to murdering her that doesn't mean they should take away from the punishment.
  • madacyn on 08 Mar 13
     
    I agree with everyone. If you kill someone, no matter what your age is you should be punished for a lot longer than 90 days.
  • Carlos Villarreal on 08 Mar 13
     
    Admitting to his faults shouldn't of shortened his sentence. He had killed his kid, 90 days in prison is nothing to what he should have really gotten.
  • Tori Caddell on 08 Mar 13
     
    19 or not, he should have much more than 90 days. They are basically saying, that even if a 35 year old man killed his child, that its ok because the guy does not have a criminal background.... That is not how things should be.
  • sbecke2013 on 08 Mar 13
     
    I am in shock! He killed his daughter and got 90 days! I know people that did little crimes compared to that and got 15 years in prison! I cannot believe it. Who ever was the judge is literally crazy! They need to go back and put him on trial again, and sentence him for life!
  • shelby urich on 08 Mar 13
     
    He should be put in jail no matter what his criminal record is. He murdered someone and when he said he forcefully put her to bed then obviously he was intending to hurt her. That doesn't exactly sound like an accident.
  • trocha404 on 08 Mar 13
     
    this is so unreal how stupied it is 90 days really!!! i could go kill someone and get life right now it dosent matter how old u are if you kill someone u should get the full punishment the law will leet u get
  • Emmali Greenwalt on 14 Mar 13
     
    90 days is hardly a sentence, just because they think he isn't going to do it again doesn't mean he should get any less then an average person would get.
  • joshpowell on 14 Mar 13
     
    You kill a child you should be sent away for a long time. Do the crime do the time.
  • courtney wilson on 15 Mar 13
     
    who would kill a innocent child ,like really that messed up!!!
  • cbonar311 on 08 Apr 13
     
    WOW when and/or if someone were to kill an infant they should get more than 90 days. I completely disagree with this sentencing.
  • Jessi Gallagher on 13 Sep 13
     
    He should get longer than 90 days. Who kills a child
  • sarah smith on 16 Sep 13
     
    This is a cruel world ,why in the world do people have to kill others especially little ones?!
  • amber1996 on 16 Sep 13
     
    If your having problems put the baby in a safe place don't leave the house but just go to another room and cool down for a little bit.
  • ladasia on 17 Sep 13
     
    I understand but I don't. It was not on purpose, when we are angry our better judgement is clouded. I believe he could be forgiven and all, that's a really short sentence either way. Perhaps the family requested his sentence to be shorter to support the mother. ... I don't know. This
Mallory Huggins

Oops, I left my sexual orientation at home - 5 views

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

shared by Mallory Huggins on 19 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 22 Oct 12
     
    I think that is crazy, why people think that some people would choose to be tortured everyday is beyond me. I mean come on. I think this issue should just resolve like now, yes I understand that in the bible it says that homosexuality is a sin. But God made you who you are. People have to understand that, obviously there is a plan, it just hasn't showed itself to everyone yet. Being Homosexual is a life, if a Heterosexual stepped into a Homosexual's life for one day they would understand that they go through so much crap constantly. I think if it was just passed as a law people would forget about it. And everything in the world would be a lot less hectic. P.S.... I love the translation at the bottom!! That is hilarious!! :D
  • Jenny Ord on 23 Oct 12
     
    my whole view on this is that it is ridiculous. gay people should get their rights already.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 26 Oct 12
     
    In all reality..... If Religion is your reason to say, "Being gay is not okay," then you really need to know your history. First, Christmas, if I recall the documentary that I watched not to long ago correctly, was a time for grown men to beat there wives, and go out and have "gay sex" with each other? So, if you denounce gay marriage because of Catholicism, or Christianity, you just denounced Christmas. Second, for those of you who are Hindustan, you have a celebrated holiday that is for 2 guys, and 1 girl, to "get it on." It's called Karma Sutra. Yeah, religion should not be allowed to interfere in America's choice to permit/deny gay marriage, and not just for those 2 reasons. (Those reasons being that the religions allow it themselves, yet say it is not okay.) Let's just read out constitution. We've all heard, "Freedom of Religion," before, right? Well, right there, religion should not be allowed to found a reason as to deny gay relationships. To add, let us look at the Declaration of Independence, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness includes marriage correct? If so, define marriage Religion definition: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Actual definition: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. Just by out constitutional freedoms, and foundations, most of it points in the direction of gay marriage should be legal, which Jenny, is why I agree with you. As for being gay being something you can fix, don't think so. I don't see people changing there skin color. (Except Micheal Jackson, but we all still know that he was not as light-toned as that.) Do you see people choosing there eye color? Either that is one expensive (or failed) surgery, or it does not happen. I don't think you are capable of changing the way someone is born, (unless it changes your physical appearance, which does not change you
aharding484

Former Dolphins player Robert Konrad speaks about 16-hour swim for his life - 9 views

www.cbsnews.com/...bout-16-hour-swim-for-his-life

shared by aharding484 on 13 Jan 15 - No Cached
  • aharding484 on 13 Jan 15
     
    After he found himself stranded in the ocean, former Miami Dolphins fullback Rob Konrad harnessed the mojo of his former team's mascot in order to stay alive. Konrad fell off his fishing boat off the Florida Coast and swam nine miles to save his life.
hphillips147

DonaldTrump on father's 'small' $1 million loan - CNNPolitics.com - 0 views

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

shared by hphillips147 on 26 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • hphillips147 on 26 Oct 15
     
    "My whole life really has been a 'no' and I fought through it," Trump said Monday at an NBC-sponsored town hall here. "It has not been easy for me, it has not been easy for me. And you know I started off in Brooklyn, my father gave me a small loan of a million dollars."
  • ryanlegg on 03 Nov 15
     
    thats terrible, he should've just earned it himself, earned more votes that way.
  • Julia Gibler on 04 Nov 15
     
    I saw a video of this on facebook, I think it's dumb for him to say that he has had a hard life. Most americans don't even see a million dollars and he was given it because he was fortunate enough to grow up in a wealthy family. I don't think he cares much about those who don't have the same opportunity that he did. He didn't have a hard life at all.
scott9677

Iowa Bans Most Abortions As Governor Signs 'Heartbeat' Bill : The Two-Way : NPR - 21 views

www.npr.org/...-governor-signs-heartbeat-bill

shared by scott9677 on 31 Aug 18 - No Cached
  • audreyduffy on 26 Sep 18
     
    I am glad this law has been put in place. It still protects unborn life but makes exceptions for "rape, incest or medical emergency". I hope other states decide to put this law in place.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • luke_banta on 26 Sep 18
     
    I agree with Audrey, we should be able to protect unborn life, but also make an exception for if she was raped,or if it is an incest baby
  • Brooke Wohlers on 23 Oct 18
     
    I think this is a good decision to put this law into place because it allows exceptions for "rape, incest or medical emergency" but can still protect an unborn life.
  • erowland613 on 23 Oct 18
     
    I feel that the law is too restrictive because most women do not know they are pregnant and if you are 18 and have a kid then you might not be financially stable enough to take care of the child, then we have another kid not growing up with their parents or going into a foster care program.
  • scott9677 on 23 Oct 18
     
    I highly disagree with this. Women have the right to control what goes on with their bodies if they don't want to carry a child at all they shouldn't be made to do so. Just like if a women is married and doesn't want to have kids she should be able to get herself "fixed" she should be required to have two or more children before doing so or get approval from her spouse.
  • hayleigh35 on 06 Dec 18
     
    I feel this ban in unfair, as most women wouldn't know they are pregnant until it is too late. With this ban in place it eliminates the women's choice whether they want the child or not.
  • vclark366 on 06 Dec 18
     
    I agree with hayleigh35, most women can't even tell if they're pregnant by 6 weeks, so the bill really doesn't work in that sense, but I am glad that they put the exceptions of rape, incest or medical emergency. When they're raped, women don't get to choose whether they want to have a kid or not because it is forced upon them. In that case, they should be able to abort the child.
  • jhendrix813 on 06 Dec 18
     
    I disagree with this. These people are not going to care about them once they are born so why does it matter or effect them in any way?
  • pballer107 on 06 Dec 18
     
    i disagree because women should have a choice on what to do with that baby
  • bprice233 on 06 Dec 18
     
    I disagree with this. At 6 weeks there is a very slim chance of knowing whether you are pregnant or not. Many women have irregular periods and can be off by two weeks even. This can lead to people being unable to get abortions before they even know that they are pregnant. Even though this may make exceptions in the terms of "rape" it still is not an effective way or limit
1 - 20 of 112 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page