Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged pro-life

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
christa bennett

I wish my mother had aborted me - 6 views

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

Government politics news abortion pro-life

shared by christa bennett on 27 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • christa bennett on 27 Aug 12
     
    this article is about abortion which is an important issue in the upcoming presidential election. I just thought that it was interesting to read but I am in no way for abortion.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Alex Snipes on 29 Aug 12
     
    Abortion is never the way to go no matter what circumstance. Whether its an accident, and inconvenience or cause by rape, abortion is never the answer. People who get abortions are selfish, if rape is the issue and you don't want to have the kid because you don't want to be reminded of that instance in your life, then give the kid up for adoption. Whether you have the abortion or not, you will always have that memory. So give that life a chance, just as you had a chance when you were born. Everyone deserves a chance at life, no matter the reason they were brought into this world.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Aug 12
     
    Here's the way that I see the whole abortion issue: Personally, I am pro-choice. Even though it could be considered ethically wrong to get an abortion, it's the mother's body, and she can do as she pleases with it. However, it IS wrong to use abortion as birth control. I think the issue is that some people think that they don't have to use proper birth control, and can just get an abortion. But abortion should definitely be allowed in situations of incest, because inbreeding is just never good. It causes the child in question to have problems, and while people with physical or mental issues are accepted in society, it's just common sense to prevent it when it CAN actually be prevented, like incest (don't abort the child if it's not incest). I also think that teenage girls deserve the right to get an abortion, because they're typically going to still be going to school, and I imagine that going to school pregnant is hard in every way. Of course, the best option is proper birth control, but it unfortunately isn't available in certain situations.
  • Mallory Huggins on 30 Aug 12
     
    I agree with Kirstina, abortion shouldn't be used as birth control, birth control should be used. I also think that abortions need to be available in cases of rape, as well. It's easy to say "just give the kid up for adoption" but it's much harder to guarantee that the child will actually be adopted into a good home, or will even be adopted at all. Many children spend their lives in foster homes. Besides, you would still be forcing the mother to carry a fetus for nine months, putting her life on hold for something that isn't even conscious.
  • Alex Snipes on 30 Aug 12
     
    Being morally correct is so much more important than being politically correct. Abortion is in so many ways is morally wrong. To be for something that should very well be considered murder is absolutely absurd. I agree, everyone has the right to do what they want with their body, but that doesn't mean that what they're doing to their body IS right. That is like being pro drugs. Yes, if people want to do drugs, I guess that's their right, but is it right that they're doing drugs? No. That applies to abortion. And yes, "just give the kid up for adoption" IS the better way to go, because whether or not they go to a good home shouldn't be your biggest concern, it's whether or not they even HAVE a home. So give the poor helpless baby a chance, just like you had a chance, because that baby could grow up and do great things. Whether it was raised in a foster home, orphanage or by an unfit family, if you (the one who's pregnant) feel like your unfit to raise your child, wouldn't you think anything else would be better for it than killing it without ever giving it a chance?
  • Jenny Ord on 30 Aug 12
     
    i think in cases like that abortion should be allowed. i am pro-choice but when a dumb 15 year old gets an abortion just because they chose to have unprotected sex is not right. they should take responsibilities for their actions. but if the situation is like this, when the kid will be abused and poor and neglected i believe abortion should be allowed. it was sad to read this article but also good to read.
  • Alex Snipes on 30 Aug 12
     
    But when you're pregnant, how do you know they will be abused, if the parent would just have the baby and take responsibility for their actions in the beginning then they wouldnt be abused. Wouldnt you make sure of that? for the sake of your child? or are you just going to give up, take the easy way out and kill it?
  • Katelyn Owen on 30 Aug 12
     
    Its really sad to think that someone would have wanted their mothers to abort them. Even if it was what could have been best for them.
  • Mallory Huggins on 31 Aug 12
     
    Alex, did you read this article? This article is about how the parent DID have the baby and "took responsibility for their actions" and then abused the child. So, no just because a parent takes responsibility for their actions in the beginning, that doesn't mean the child won't be abused. If you look at it rationally and scientifically, abortion really isn't murder. Abortions are possible through the second trimester, or 24th week of pregnancy. At this time it is impossible for the fetus to live outside of the womb. It has only just started producing blood cells, the eyes aren't developed until the 26th week, the bones aren't developed until between the 31st and 34th week, the brain is still developing even after the 30th week, and the lungs aren't mature until after the 34th week. So is it really 'murder' to abort something that has less consciousness and is less developed than a mouse?
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    I am pro-choice, and agree with Mallory and Kirstina. Sure, it's not fair for the unborn baby, but is it fair for the parent(s). In the situation of rape, definitely not. Giving birth to someones child that physically harmed you, a mother should not have to do that. Not to mention how expensive it is to have a child. Why should a 15 year old have to pay that sort of money to have a child? The real problem, they don't, and the parents have to suffer for their child, which is unfair to them. If you want to say it's still morally wrong, it's just as bad as stealing thousands of dollars from those who gave birth to you just to let that child live.
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.
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.
Ericka Davis

Police Officer Saves Man Who Stepped In Front Of Train [VIDEO] - 1 views

jobs.aol.com/...e-officer-saves-man-from-train

shared by Ericka Davis on 24 Apr 13 - No Cached
  • Ericka Davis on 24 Apr 13
     
    Coincidentally he walked past the man just in time
  • ...9 more comments...
  • Tori Caddell on 24 Apr 13
     
    The fact that he still risked his life for a complete stranger, makes him a hero
  • amandacombs on 24 Apr 13
     
    That is just absolutely amazing. The police officer definitely has some good karma coming.
  • joshpowell on 24 Apr 13
     
    Faith in humanity restored
  • codyself1 on 24 Apr 13
     
    Holy crap, that was super close. The officer did his job like a pro!
  • Brandon Colpitts on 24 Apr 13
     
    That's pretty awesome!
  • lesvia on 24 Apr 13
     
    wow thats a good officer,He got the man in time
  • olinde on 26 Apr 13
     
    it was a good thing that the cop just happened to be walking in that area at the right time because if not someone would have lost one of their loved ones but they have th cop to think for saving the mans life.
  • Colton Tracy on 29 Apr 13
     
    They should give him a raise or something!
  • Logan Mohr on 29 Apr 13
     
    that was cool
  • Carlos Villarreal on 13 May 13
     
    Praise the lord!!
  • jasminemarie16 on 03 Sep 13
     
    Policemen aren't always the bad guys, cops are good in many different ways.
Bryan Pregon

Teachers with Guns - 31 views

www.cnn.com/...teachers.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 14 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 14
     
    AFTER viewing the story/video, which side would you take? Teachers with guns could be first responders or do more guns create more gun violence in society?
  • ...40 more comments...
  • tcomulada881 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that the teacher should be able to have the gun but very protected from anybody except themselves. The teachers should always should check them everyday so they know if its still there.
  • austenclaar on 03 Dec 14
     
    In my opinion teachers with guns is a good idea, although I don't want some teachers thinking that gives them a sense of bigger authority.
  • fwyldes753 on 03 Dec 14
     
    It is a good idea for them to have guns, it would help with safety.
  • lwilcoxen309 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't agree with the right of just teachers being able to carry a gun if someone takes a 4 hour class to know to take the gun out and use it in the right way, someone that is professionally trained should be hired because nobody knows if a teacher is going to be able to take a life of someone else.
  • darianhubbard on 03 Dec 14
     
    In my opinion, teachers having the right to carry a weapon is okay. For protection and safety purposes, I completely agree. I think it would give us a sense of reassurance, knowing that we would have a fighting chance, if a person(s) with a weapon entered the school.
  • Erin Wolff on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that teachers should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to school, if the case is that the first responders would arrive to the scene too late.
  • Emma Leisinger on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that its dangerous that the teachers have guns but in this situation I think its okay. The best thing about this situation is that the students don't know where the guns are and how to access them. Also another reason that the guardian plan is so necessary for this town in Texas is because the response time is so long and I would definatley agree that the teachers should be able to have guns.
  • deanaroth on 03 Dec 14
     
    I would take the side that I think guns would be an okay idea. I think that before a teacher is handed a gun they should be trained on how to use it. I also think that the guns should be put in a safe, somewhere out of the reach of the children. But on the other hand I believe that their should be an officer in every school, I think this would prevent a lot of violence.
  • Sydney Wilson on 03 Dec 14
     
    Although it might be risk to have teachers carry guns at school, it could also potentially save lives because they could be the ones to stop a shooting or whatever else may happen in the school. I think that as long as the teachers keep them hidden and everyone is on board, then it should be okay.
  • taylorcrinklaw13 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I believe that some teachers, who have gun permits and all the legal things, should be able to carry guns. But I think they should be hidden so that students cannot get to them.
  • amcclain946 on 03 Dec 14
     
    After viewing the video and reading the article, I am for the fact that the teachers at this school should be able to have guns because they're in a rural area. It takes the first responder 30 minutes to get to the emergency site. A lot of "bad" can happen in 30 minutes. Although I previously stated I was for the carrying of guns, I also am against because I think that if the teachers are going to be carrying guns, they need to be properly trained. If they're not properly trained, bad things can happen too. So all in all, I am for it if the teachers and school board members receive proper training.
  • jordan fichter on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't think teachers should have guns, because the gun violence will increase. More kids will think they could start to carry weapons, and most schools already have an officer.
  • anthonymoreno on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers should be able to have guns in safes in their class room for safety reasons.
  • kaitlynflenker on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't think teachers should have guns because I think gun violence might increase and we already have a cop that has a gun so I don't think it's necessary for all teachers to have them
  • samanthaahern on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that teachers should be able to have guns. they would be protected and i dont think that them having guns would cause more violence because they would be using it for safety of them and the children at there school so there teaching student to be responsible and how to act it that kind of situation.
  • melissabenkis on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers having guns would be a good idea as long as they keep them put away until needed.
  • escheffler on 03 Dec 14
     
    I do not think that teachers should have guns because some teachers get mad easily and we don't know what they would do with them. Also students could be looking through a cabinet and find it and tell other students who might take it and possibly use it against the school.
  • austin807 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers should have guns to protect themselves and others but they should check the gun everyday.
  • chrislindqvist on 03 Dec 14
     
    Teachers are teachers and there is other people that should take care of violence and shooting at schools. I wouldn't feel more safe if more people start carrying guns I would feel more threaten. If something should it be more difficult to get a gun in some of the states.
  • davyana on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that it's a good idea to an extent. There are some teachers who, under the circumstances, probably would be to afraid, or just in shock to act in the situation. Over all though, I think it is a good idea.
  • Alexandria Bates on 03 Dec 14
     
    Being in a rural town it is easier to approve guns and I beileve is ok, in small towns everybody knoes everybody. Many people "Pass through" small towns where there isnt much authority and public safety in the town but there is in the town miles down the highway. Therefore in rural schools I think it is right to be able to carry guns for the students saftey. In urban areas there is public safety patroling the town on a regular basis, there is police inside schools with guns and weapons to protect studnets and staff. In Urban areas I do not think it should not be allowed for teachers to carry guns inside schools.
  • djones036 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers should be able to carry concealed guns, but I also think they should have background checks to make sure they are good people to have guns. I would feel safer knowing that a good person has a way to protect us.
  • bllandon on 03 Dec 14
     
    To Sydney - I agree. I think that it should be an optional thing and if you do carry a gun as a teacher you must take a class/course in order for to be able to permit it in the school building.
  • aharding484 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think giving licensed teachers guns in rural areas would be beneficial. It may be simpler to have one or two police officer in the school, but have the teachers have guns would also be okay as long as they were trained with a gun and could handle an intense situation. As some were saying about how students might find the gun, the school would probably have a locked up location for the gun, therefore the students would not be able to access it.
  • Jensyn Hanson on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't think teachers having guns is a good idea because they aren't trained properly in that area. That's why we have a school cop who should be the first to handle situations like that. I'm sure if something like that happened here there wouldn't be an issue with the amount of time it would take the police to get here.
  • daniwoolsoncroft on 03 Dec 14
     
    I agree that teachers should be allowed to have guns, but check on the gun everyday to make sure students don't mess with the gun
  • bdiaz971 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I don't think every teacher needs to carry a gun but the district should designates certain teachers to allow them to carry guns. They should also be properly trained and be monitored. In the time it takes police to arrive to a call for a school shooting countless students could already be dead, but with the designated teachers there they could put a stop to the shooter.
  • hunterhale31 on 03 Dec 14
     
    bllandon- I agree. I believe that certain courses and classes should be taken in order to be an armed teacher. If i had to trust my life to a teacher in a dire situation like a school shooting, I'd prefer it to be in then hands of a calm under pressure, capable shooter.
  • kquinlan591 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I believe that teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons but as long as they have some type of professional training. It wouldn't do any use to carry a gun of you can't use it and use it safely. Also the gun should be used as a last resort in an extreme situation. I agree with Emily when she's says some students might try and take it but it should definitely be in a safe place where no one but the teacher would have access to it.
  • John Scheffler on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think it is a good idea. The only concern I have is the teacher viewing him/herself to have more authority over others. The students should not know which teacher carry's a weapon. Though the teacher should have to go through many training courses in order to do so. It's one thing to carry a gun, it's another to kill a person and be in a firefight. Not everyone can handle it.
  • matuszeski on 03 Dec 14
     
    I Think Teachers should be allowed to Concealed Carry as long as they pass certain requirements, like in the video the administrator says they have to be accurate up to a certain point in order to be able to carry said gun. As well as the do training he mentioned that the teachers have been trained in hostage situations. In my opinion with the correct training and practice it would be a great idea.
  • tonybonner on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think teachers should not be aloud to carry guns we don't live in a small town in Texas where it would take 30 mins. for people to respond .Plus most school already have a trained officers in their schools we don't need untrained teachers to carry weapons.
  • mhart079 on 03 Dec 14
     
    In regards to what fwyldes753 said, I believe that teachers shouldn't be able to carry guns because we don't live in a rural area and cops are in a close distance. I wouldn't trust teachers to carry a weapon. We also have a school cop that would respond immediately.
  • jjohnson749 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think schools teachers should be able to have concealed weapons on them as long as they go through a gun safety course and if they are too far away to be able to wait for police.
  • jgroenjes on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that teachers should be allowed to carry guns, but under very strict circumstances. The gun should be on the teacher at all times (never put in a cabinet or a safe, as kids could more easily find a way to get to it), the teachers should go through gun safety and training (which they apparently do), only teachers with gun permits should be allowed to have them, and they should be completely concealed at all times. Although I think this idea is most likely going to stay in rural schools (they have less students, and are farther away from law enforcement), I could see it traveling into city schools in the future. So yeah, all in all I don't think this is a bad thing at all. It could save a lot of lives in the event of a school shooting.
  • kschwindt on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that there intentions are great and in a rural town with not many armed forces around to help it might work. But what if a kid were to get ahold of it? I believe that they'd have to be in a safe where the students don't realize what it is or can't see it. But with that they won't have the whole quick to help plan they are hoping for. It would be faster then the cops getting there though.
  • justin988 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that if the location of that school is very dangerous then teachers should be able to carry guns but out of sight from students at all times. because if students can see the gun, it would make them too uncomfortable to even learn.
  • malr2528 on 03 Dec 14
     
    After viewing the video and reading this article, I feel that it is appropriate for staff and board members of a school to carry guns. As for schools located in a area where first responders are able to access the situation more quickly, I don't think it would be as necessary. Although I think school teachers carrying guns is a good idea, I believe that it only makes sense for these teachers to go through the proper training before doing so.
  • estuckey767 on 03 Dec 14
     
    I think that it should be allowed for some teachers in rural areas to carry guns. As long as the guns are kept in a safe place and locked away from the students. I don't think that every teacher needs a gun but because they are in a rural area and it will take longer for police to get they should have someone there who can protect them the moment a situation happens. We have a police officer at our school at all times ready to protect us, why shouldn't they have someone who can protect them. If teachers are allowed to carry guns they should have to go through a class/course before being allowed to have a gun at the school.
  • ravenmaine on 03 Dec 14
     
    I'm not sure about teachers being able to carry guns in school. You have to put into factor how it would be concealed, which teachers have access and or carry it, and things like if the students would think it was okay for them to bring some sort of protection, whatever that may be. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think people would have to be much more cautious in all senses. The barrier between feeling safe, nervous, or afraid around someone would be different for everyone. Carrying weapons might also deter some of the schools wanted achievements for the future, for example attendance averages.
  • Jaimi Shiller on 04 Dec 14
     
    I think it's a good idea. Obviously they are going to have to take a class and get a back ground check. The guns would be kept in a safe secured place away from the students. They don't have a police officer like we do so they don't have someone that is there to protect them.
  • pkleppe761 on 11 Dec 14
     
    I believe that teachers with guns has its pros and cons. For example, I believe that guns do not kill people, but the people behind them do. You can do background checks on anyone, but at any time someone with a gun can become angry and upset and shoot a person. Guns for teachers can be useful in smaller, rural areas where medical attention or police could take longer. But for teachers in urban areas should be more limited. I feel as long as they take a class to learn to shoot, to carry it, and as long as it is locked up in the classroom or only allowed to be out when needed can be very beneficial.
Bryan Pregon

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

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

shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Dec 16
     
    "Using a new technique which takes adult cells back to their embryonic form, US researchers at the Salk Institute in California, showed it was possible to reverse ageing in mice, allowing the animals to not only look younger, but live for 30 per cent longer."
  • ...3 more comments...
  • delaniehubbard on 04 Jan 17
     
    I don't know how I feel about this, I think scientist are super smart people but there not using there knowledge to the best of there abilities... I personally find making animals live longer and possibly in the future creating a "medicine" or treatment to transform adult cells back to there embryonic form disturbing. It will probably cost a whole lot of money to. Its awesome how far they have come, but its weird when you mess with the life span of animals... it could also mess with natural selection.
  • hmiller403 on 04 Jan 17
     
    I think that it's amazing that science has come this far and they might be able to do this, but I don't think that we should reverse aging because we don't know the side effects on humans. I think they should just know they can do it but not use it because it could be harmful.
  • Austin Webster on 04 Jan 17
     
    "The breakthrough could also help people stay healthier for longer. The ageing population means that the risk of developing age-related diseases, such as dementia, cancer and heart disease also rises. But if the body could be kept younger for longer then it could prevent many deadly diseases for decades." It has a lot of pros and cons to this i think they shouldn't mess with the life span of make cells younger because that means there will be more people and the world could come over populated. But living longer would help a lot because you will learn more and be able to educate young people with better knowledge
  • Alex Thacker on 04 Jan 17
     
    I think it's really good science has gotten so far that it is today because it helps us learn new things and better things and I think it will definitely keep advancing in the future.
  • Landon Mohr on 09 Jan 17
     
    This could help millions of people on earth. If the body can stay younger for longer it decreases the chances of ageing related diseases.
Mallory Huggins

Hobby Lobby: The First Martyr Under Obamacare? - 0 views

blog.christianitytoday.com/...st-martyr-under-obamacare.html

shared by Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    Someone posted this, but it wasn't possible to comment
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    First point: I fail to see how denying a single cell the chance to go through mitosis is abortion. It's no more aware than bacteria. Also, the author is referencing the morning-after pill. For some reason there's a lot of confusion about how the morning after pill actually works. It prevents the egg from joining the sperm, or depending on where the woman is in her cycle, prevents the ovaries from releasing eggs. Contrary to what pro-life proponents apparently believe, conception does not happen immediately after having sex. If using the morning-after pill is abortion, we may as well call abstinence abortion. Secondly, "the mandate requires private citizens who are also employers to purchase private goods (health insurance services) with private money from non-government companies." This is clearly written by a sensationalist. What it really means is that a company has to use its own money to provide healthcare. (And everyone seems to be forgetting that employees don't just receive healthcare plans for free). There is a difference between being a private citizen and being an employer. Owning a public company and employing people is about as far from private as you can get. "Requiring private citizens to pay for abortifacients is more akin to requiring the Amish to use their own money to purchase weapons from a private gun dealer or be forced into bankruptcy. Or kind of like forcing anti-pornography legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon to buy pornography for her law students." This is simply ludicrous and shows that the author clearly doesn't understand what a business is. It's a corporation, it employees people, it isn't a private citizen. I will admit that if Hobby Lobby employed only people who were in complete agreement with the beliefs of the owners I would support them in their case. However, the reality is that many of Hobby Lobby's employees don't share the exact same beliefs as the owner. And it would in fact be illegal for Hobby Lobby to choose their employ
  • Mallory Huggins on 09 Jan 13
     
    ees because of their beliefs. And the last time I checked, in America we don't make people follow certain religions or beliefs. In fact, the law isn't supposed to be based in religion. I know it sounds shocking, but it actually isn't okay to force a religion on people, or to make everyone live in accordance with one belief system, which is exactly what Hobby Lobby, and everyone who argues against this provision in the new health care law, is trying to do. Lastly, the author says repeatedly that this law essentially discriminates against Christians, which is a complete lie. Christians is a broad term. There are Christians who believe in all kinds of birth control and then there are those who think all birth control should be outlawed. There are even Christians who get abortions. So, and this is a message to anyone who writes articles of this kind, stop saying just saying Christians. Tell the truth and call yourself a Fundamentalist. Saying Christians make it seem like the majority of people who believe in Jesus Christ agree with you, and they don't. You're a minority, and you need to accept that. And maybe read a little about how our government works. It's a majority rules system.
Ember Groover

Todd Akin, GOP Senate candidate: 'Legitimate rape' rarely causes pregnancy - 2 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...e-rape-rarely-causes-pregnancy

shared by Ember Groover on 21 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 22 Aug 12
     
    This is really having some political fallout for Akin's comments even within his own party... http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/08/22/ryan_called_akin_to_get_him_to_drop_race.html
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Mallory Huggins on 24 Aug 12
     
    I can only hope that he does drop out of the race. I don't believe that anyone as ignorant as he seems to be is fit to be a Senator. I would have hoped that if someone were a pro-life advocate they could at least take the time to understand the reproductive system. Not to mention that "legitimate rape" is possibly one of the most offensive things you could say when discussing this issue. Is he trying to imply that there is non-legitimate rape or does he just not realize what he's saying?
  • Hope Philbrick on 27 Aug 12
     
    From reading the article I feel as tho they did not get the most current and correct medical information about this subject. I also think candidate Romney is trying to back peddle and correct what he said in a earlier interview and he is not actually legitimately concern with this controversy.
  • Rainie mccubbin on 27 Aug 12
     
    i agree with Mallory I really would not want someone that ignorant being in power of anything
  • Michaela Koopmeiners on 28 Aug 12
     
    I don't think anyone ignorant and has no respect what so ever should have any power.
  • Holly Jensen on 30 Aug 12
     
    This is something I've heard about for the last few days and I really wish I could tell this man how ignorant and stupid he sounds. Does he really think that's true, because if he does then there's obviously something wrong and he needs to get help.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 30 Aug 12
     
    I just wanted to point out that Todd Akin is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Which I think makes his statement even more ridiculous.
Bryan Pregon

2018 NRA annual meeting: Guns will be banned during Mike Pence speech. Parkland student... - 6 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...arkland-students-see-hypocrisy

shared by Bryan Pregon on 30 Apr 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 30 Apr 18
     
    "The National Rifle Association has championed the idea of "a good guy with a gun," but no firearms will be allowed when Vice President Pence speaks at its annual meeting - sparking criticism from Parkland, Fla., students, who say schools should be afforded the same protection."
  • ...3 more comments...
  • rtanner112 on 01 May 18
     
    This event does seem very hypocritical. This is pretty much saying government officials need to be safe, but schools do not.
  • Mackenzie Frush on 01 May 18
     
    "As a result, firearms and firearm accessories, knives or weapons of any kind will be prohibited in the forum prior to and during his attendance," I find this event to be extremely hypocritical. It is basically a slap in the faces of all the Parkland victims. Why are they, and other citizens, not being treated with the safety precautions that politicians are. I find this very offensive for Pence to do this.
  • ashlynperaza on 01 May 18
     
    Agreeing with rtanner112, it is hypocritical and very ironic. It seems like the "higher up" only care about themselves, and not the common people.
  • cjones560 on 01 May 18
     
    I understand why they wouldn't want guns, just because it is a political event and it is for the protection of the vice president. However, it does seem hypocritical that they're pro-gun when they're in the right hands, yet won't let their members carry them at the meeting.
  • marrissa_842 on 01 May 18
     
    I don't understand why schools be afforded the same protections the VP was allowed. Where is the difference between the two? He doesn't want to put his life at danger, so why are school students forced to?
1 - 9 of 9
Showing 20▼ items per page