World Literature Argument Articles - B

Point Counter Point: World Literature Takes a Position

Is the Space Conquest Of Mars Favorable?

By: Andrew Larsen

Is the space conquest of Mars a favorable and beneficial exploration effort? Such a highly debated question begs an answer not yet conceived. What might be the benefits of traveling to a foreign planet despite the risks and financial failure? The goal of such would be to better our home lives on earth and discover alternatives for future life. These resources that may be found on Mars include minerals, fuel sources, and many more viable materials for humanity to progress society. The opposition might argue that a mission to Mars would be very costly for the taxpayer and may yield ineffective or sub-par results, not to mention high danger risks. The conquest of mars is a favorable leap for mankind due to the tremendous progress available. Three major reasons for such an expedition would be, finance opportunities (minerals and valuable commodities found on Mars), humanity/ societal gain, and future colonization. All three of said factors would make for a successful conquest.

For an expedition to another planet, the Mars expedition would be financially reasonable in comparison to that of expeditions to the moon. Given that, “Sixty six percent of the Mars costs are associated with launching and landing back on earth” “Risks and Challenges”. This is a favorable statistic that as a near guarantee of a safe strong launch from Earth. Not to mention due to numerous launches and one outlier with the Challenger space shuttle launch in the eighties.

Launching and landing on earth is a proven factor in the expedition to Mars. Such a factor is a promising sign to the public the the “Mars One” organization. This leaves very little financial risk involved in the expedition due to the navigation of the mission and the execution of unexpected setbacks. As the article “Risks and Challenges” states “The proposed Mars One budget includes a large financial safety net”. The opposition might argue that with such a large margin for error, execution of the mission will be highly unlikely. This is not accurate because the amount of planning for such mission is unparalleled, and with all calculations the possibility of failure is very slim. Not to mention the low risk variable on the human end of the Mars mission.

The conquest of Mars from a human safety view is remarkably optimistic given the countless space exploration attempts and successions; also shuttle launches that have been successful.

The only real risk posed in both scenarios has been the launching and landing to the spacecraft. Therefore the safety aspect for the astronauts and everybody involved is increased.

As stated in the same article as previously shown “Human space exploration is dangerous at all levels. After more than eighty years of humans traveling from earth to space, the risk of space flight is similar to that of climbing Everest.”

“Risks and Challenges”. A statement of this magnitude illustrates the total risk of humans involved and in all the financial risks, as well and the opposition might argue that the risk is still very prevalent and in some situations unethical, all due to the risk of death associated with the mission. This can be combated with strong calculations of the mission done before hand and fine craftsmanship of a well orchestrated-

planned mission to Mars. The author of the article also stated “With advances in tech, shared experiences between space agencies what was once just an endeavor becomes a routine and space travel becomes more reliable.” “Mars Exploration, Investigating the Red Planet”.

This suggesting that the planned mission will have low risk on the people involved.

A Mars exploration mission could have lasting effects at home with positive connotations, as well as societal gain and the end goal of colonization. First off in terms of lasting effects at home the United States, stock and the Mars One stock could appreciate in value as well as investors eager to invest.

The main points that need the highest concentration of funding are the missions to effectively colonize Mars one sector at a time according to researchers from the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), a Switzerland university and research center focused on the next stage of humanity in space. The expedition’s partial purpose would be to help colonize and send future supplies to the future colonies on mars; and even later in the mission timeline more people. Not to mention it could make other global powers target Mars as a good place to colonize due to the ripe soil and farm-ble geological conditions according to “Mars Exploration, Investigating the Red Planet”. All of the changes that are listed and brought about are only beneficial. Adding to the appeal of the Mars expedition that is more that likely to bring success. The exploration naysayers might approach the possibility of colonization on unknown soil as an unethical manner to solving the population density epidemic our world is now facing. In response numerous studies have been published by a multitude of credible sources such as “Astronamy.com”

and “National Geographic” stating the possibilities of colonizations would work as individual missions and brief shifting stays for new found residents of the red planet.

Another critical argument that is proposed is how life can continue without the proper conditions for such hospitality to take place despite having a direct water source if any at all. This issue was combated in a simulation of organically divided life that the École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), a Switzerland university and research center proposed, this entailed the shipment of water to the desolate planet and a means of withdrawing water from ice previously thought to be located on the red planet. This topic of sustainability extends into the means and growth of edible food sources which is also easily solvable through means of farming due to have the correct conditions to do so. With all of the determined factors above like launching and landing as an almost guarantee and a way to effectively support life on the red planet despite the uncertain doubt the other side might utter.

In conclusion a mars expedition would have positive long lasting effects at on civilization as a whole despite the minute drawbacks. The mission as a whole would be a great step for humanity as a whole. Such a mission has proven to be beneficial in all categories such as: finance opportunities (minerals and valuable commodities found on mars), humanity/ societal gain, colonization. The mission is set to begin in 2023 according to “Mars One” and will entail exploration into the following.

“With advances in tech, shared experiences between space agencies what was once just an endeavor becomes a routine and space travel becomes more reliable.”

Works Cited:

“Risks and Challenges - Mission.”

Mars One, www.mars-one.com/ mission/risks-and-challenges.

“Traveling to Mars? Top 6 Health Challenges.” EarthSky, earthsky.org/ space/human-health-dangers-marstravel.

Lee, Kevin. “The Advantages of Going to Mars From a Scientific Point of View.” What Students Learn From Dissecting a Cow's Eye | Education Seattle PI, 21 Nov. 2017, education.seattlepi.com/advantagesgoing-mars-scientific-point-5563.html.

“Mars Exploration, Mars Rovers Information, Facts, News, Photos -National Geographic.” National Geographic, National Geographic, 28 Oct. 2017, www.nationalgeographic.com/ science/space/space-exploration/ mars-exploration-article/.

Amber Jorgenson | Published: Wednesday, September 12.

“Scientists Draw up Plan to Colonize Mars.” Astronomy.com, www.astronomy.com/news/2018/09/ scientists-draw-up-plan-to-colonizemars.

By. Minghua Zhang

In 2018, there were 17,213,500 light vehicles sold in the USA (“Light vehicle retail sales in the United States from 1978 to 2018 (in 1,000 units)”). Among them, 361,307 were electric vehicles (Pyper).

Although there seems a great expansion, an 81% increase in the sales number of electric vehicles compared with 2017, they only shared 2% of the light vehicles market (Pyper). It is needless to say that the comparisons between conventional vehicles and electric vehicles are always there. In most cases, the winners are eventually the conventional ones. Why does conventional vehicle always win?

Even though consumers probably believe that electric vehicles are the future of transportation and they are more environmentally friendly. In addition, they might save some money on car’s fuel and from government subsidy, they also argue that conventional vehicles are more reliable for being popular in the market with more than 100 years of history and they are cheaper options when purchasing. So which is a better choice for a light vehicle nowadays? Actually, the market has already told us the answer. A conventional vehicle has a lower purchasing price, longer range and shorter refilling time while an electric vehicle is not as green as we suppose, proving that a conventional vehicle is a better choice currently.

Here many proponents of electric vehicles would probably say that an electric vehicle could save you some fuel charges, and the longer you use, the more you save. Admittedly, electricity is much cheaper than gasoline. While in the US, electricity costs averagely only twelve cents per kilowatthour (Jiang) and regular gasoline cost averages about $2.52 per gallon in 2018 nationwide (“Gas prices”). But it does not mean that an electric vehicle will help you save your family budget from fuel charges and oppositely, it might even cost more. As a conventional vehicle always runs with a gasoline engine and a tank, an electric vehicle always goes with a modern electric motor and lithium batteries. In this way, customers need to pay for these advanced technologies on board, which always do not come cheap. The cheapest electric vehicle model in 2018 is a Smart Fortwo ED starting at 23,800 dollars (Loveday), however, the cheapest conventional vehicle in 2018, a Chevrolet Spark, starts at 13220 dollars (Markovich), which is only half as much as the price of an electric vehicle.

Despite spending some more money, some drivers might recognize that an electric vehicle is more convenient since they can charge their car at home at the end of the day and, the batteries are fully 160000 charged in the next morning. Of course, you cannot 120000 have a gas station right in your house, but one might 80000 argue that charging your vehicles at home is not an 40000 advantage at all. On the contrary, a conventional 0 vehicle usually has more refilling location, longer number range and shorter refilling time, making your vehicle The price differential is about ten life easier. With gasoline engines dominating the thousand dollars, which is worth market over a hundred years, a developed system has approximately four thousand already created for conventional vehicles. gallons of gas. That means when EVAdoption, a website for electric vehicles, tells us the capacity of the tank of a that there are 15,0000 gas stations in the US (“Stat of Chevrolet Spark is nine gallons the Week: Comparing the Ratio of EV Charging and the EPA estimated fuel Stations Versus Gas Stations – EVs Win”). While economy is 38 on the highway electric vehicles only have become competitive in the (“Chevrolet Spark”), these ten past few years, there are only 17,526 charging thousand dollars can refill the car location in the country (“Stat of the Week: Comparing around four hundred and fifty the Ratio of EV Charging Stations Versus Gas times, which can run the car for Stations – EVs Win”). Gas stations are much denser fifteen hundred thousand miles. than the charging station, which indicates that there is Since according to the United no worry about refilling the tank. On the other hand, a States Department of conventional vehicle usually has a longer range than Transportation Federal Highway an electric vehicle. As the most advanced electric Administration, Americans now vehicle, the Tesla Model S (“Tesla Model S”), it has drive an average of 13,476 miles the maximum range of three hundred and thirteen per year (Oldham). To make a five-mile range while most of the conventional long story short, ten thousand vehicles have a range about three hundred and four dollars is the fuel fee for eleven hundred miles and, some even hit the top range of six years of driving. Therefore, it is hundred miles (Demont-Heinrich). Besides, refilling not worthwhile to spend this the tank takes a much shorter time than recharging the amount more to purchase an batteries. In the US, the flow speed of a fuel dispenser is limited to ten gallons per minutes for cars (“Fuel dispenser”). Just say the most popular truck in America, the Ford F-150 has a twenty-six gallons According to the United States Department tank which only takes less than four minutes to of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Americans now drive refill it and, to have a range of five hundred an average of 13,476 miles per year miles (“Ford F-150”). But how about electric (Oldham), which means the price vehicles? The Tesla Model S, specifically, differential is the fuel fee for eleven needs thirteen minutes to charge a hundred and years of driving. seventy miles at the supercharger. Four minutes for five hundred miles or thirteen minutes for a hundred and seventy miles, which is more convenient? So if you fully consider the density of gas electric vehicle, especially for stations, the range and the refilling time, the answer to the purpose of saving. which is more convenient would be on one-side. charging location gas station

Lastly, when it comes to the topic of environmental impact, most of us will readily agree that electric vehicles are definitely greener and, even though an electric vehicle is a financial burden, some environmentalists believe that they are paying for the environment and they do insist that it is worthwhile to be friendly to the Earth. While it is absolutely true that when the electric car is running, it emits much less harmful gases than a conventional vehicle. But none of them recognizes where the electricity comes from and, what is used to store it. People of this mind fail to find out that the process of generating electricity and producing batteries are not as clean as we think right now. According to the US Energy Information Administration, 62.9% of electricity is generated by fossil fuel, 20% is generated by nuclear and only 17% is renewable (“What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?”). So most electric vehicles are actually originally powered by fossil fuel as well. What is even worse is the batteries. Learning from Hartford Courant’s research, “Just to build each car battery — weighing upwards of 1,100 pounds in size for sport-utility vehicles — would emit up to 74 percent more carbon dioxide than producing an efficient conventional car if it's made in a factory powered by fossil fuels in a place like Germany, according to Berylls' findings,” (Courant). Above all, most electricity is generated by fossil fuels and the pollution of battery-making also reminds us that electric vehicles are not as clean as we think of.

Do you still consider electric vehicles are better choices now? Conventional vehicles are more financially friendly, more convenient, and not so environmental polluted convinced us that a conventional vehicle turns to be a better choice currently. But purchasing a conventional vehicle does not mean killing the development of electric vehicles because a greater competitive market will eventually create better products. Since electric power is the future of energy sources, consumers are eager to see more cutting-edge technologies are used in industrial production to make cheaper and longerrange electric vehicles and more super-efficient charging stations globally so that there would be more realenvironmentally-friendly vehicles driving on the roads making our planet greener.

“Just to build each car battery — weighing upwards of 1,100 pounds in size for sport-utility vehicles —

would emit up to 74 percent more carbon dioxide than

producing an efficient conventional car if it's made in a factory powered by fossil fuels in a place like Germany, according to Berylls' findings,” (Courant).

Work cited “Light vehicle retail sales in the United States from 1978 to 2018 (in 1,000 units)”, Statista, Statista, Feb. 2019. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/199983/us-vehicle-salessince-1951/ Pyper, Julia. “US Electric Vehicle Sales Increased by 81% in 2018”. gtm:. Greentech Media. 07 Jan. 2019. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https:// www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-electric-vehicle-salesincrease-by-81-in -2018#gs.gQVsrhZR Jiang, Jess. “The price of electricity in your state”. NPR. NPR. 28 Oct. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2019.

2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-yo ur-state “Gas prices”. AAA. AAA. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https:// gasprices.aaa.com/ Loveday, Steven. “8 Cheapest Electric Vehicles For Sale In The U.S.” InsideEVs. InsideEVs. 02 Jun. 2018. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https:// insideevs.com/8-cheapest-bevs/ Markovich, Tony. “The 10 Cheapest New Cars of 2018”. Car and Driver . Hearst Magazine Media, Inc. 16 Mar. 2018. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g19459503/cheapest-newcars-2018/ “Chevrolet Spark”. Chevrolet. Chevrolet. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https:// www.chevrolet.com/cars/spark-subcompact-car/build-and-price/ features/trims/?se ction=Highlights&styleOne=399827 Oldham, Scott. “What’s the Average Miles Driven Per Year? (Car Lease Guide)”. AutoGravity. AutoGravity Corporation. 01 Nov. 2018.

Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https://www.autogravity.com/autogravitas/ money/whats-average-miles-driven-per-year-c ar-lease-guide “Stat of the Week: Comparing the Ratio of EV Charging Stations Versus Gas Stations – EVs Win”. EVAdoption. EVAdoption. 3 Mar. 2018. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https://evadoption.com/stat-of-theweek-comparing-the-ratio-of-ev-charging- stations-versus-gasstations-evs-win/ "Tesla Model S”. Tesla. Tesla. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https:// www.tesla.com/models Demont-Heinrich, Christof. “What’s your gasoline car’s range?”.

SolarChargedDriving.com SolarChargedDriving.com 13 May. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https://solarchargeddriving.com/ 2011/05/13/whats-your-gasoline- cars-range/ “Fuel dispenser”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dispenser “Ford F-150”. Ford. Ford. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https://www.ford.com/ trucks/f150/models/f150-xl/ “What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?”. Us Energy Information Administration. Us Energy Information Administration. 39 Oct. 2018. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. https:// www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 Courant, Hartford. “The Dirt On Clean Electric Cars”. Hartford, CT, 23 Oct. 2018. Web. 28 Feb. 2019. http://sks.sirs.com/webapp/article?artno=412471&type=ART

Should Violent Video Games be Banned?

By: Austin DeCoster 90% of kids play games rated E10+ or

Type to enter textOne group would play GTA

above(HealthLine). With the controversy that

5 (a violent game), the second group

violent video games should be banned, and even

played Sims 3,(a relaxed game),

President Trump saying that they cause violence

and the third group played a

in kids, It's time to convince America why

controlled game. Each group played

violent video games should be banned. Violent

the video game for two months. During the

video games should not be banned because

two months, after every gaming session, the

research has shown violent video games do not cause aggression. By banning video games, a lot of people will lose their jobs, and video games are actually away to socialize.

researchers tested them right away, then after the two months, the researchers did another test after two months had passed.

What they found after the last test was there was no change to any of the groups

Violent video games should not be banned because research has shown that video games do not cause violence. Test after test of no results or mixed results, six researchers in

members aggression or emotions(KĂźhn et al). By saying violent video games are the problem, is using these games as the scapegoat, just like rap music was

2017 put three groups together to study if there

once. Millions of people play these games

were effects on the brain after playing violent

but only a very tiny group of people cause an

video games.

act of violence.

That leads to a more serious question of if people

Type to enter textThat is just accounting for the

who commit these acts of violence have a mental

gaming developers and the people working at these

health problem. According to the Los Angeles Times,

studios, it doesn't include all the youtubers and

59% of 185 public mass shootings that took place in

streamers that play these games for a living, and

the United States between 1900 to 2017 had been

have huge followings. Video games Are expected to

diagnosed with a mental disorder or had shown signs

grow from $137.9 billion in 2018 to more than

of a mental illness prior to the

$180.1 billion in 2021(Takashi). The

attacks(Duwe and Rocque). By using

industry is still growing but with banning

violent video games as the reasons to

violent video game the video games

these attacks people are looking past

industry would come to an halt. Out of the

the bigger picture of what causes the

top five best selling video games, according

majority of these attacks. The developers and companies of these games would be the only ones affected by banning violent video games.

“Video games Are expected to grow from $137.9 billion in 2018 to more than $180.1 billion in 2021.�

Video games are a huge

to (B., Thomas), two out of the five are all violent, and one could make a case for two of the other ones are violent as well with the game modes they possess. 66% of video game sales

industry, and by getting rid of violent video games, a

come from games rated E10+ or above, which 90%

lot of people would lose their jobs. In the U.S.A alone

of those games rated like that have violence in

there are 2,457 gaming companies that consist of

them(ProCon.org, Healthline). Those sales just come

220,000 employees (Takahashi). By getting rid of

from what kids are playing, not factoring in the fact

theses video games, the majority of these companies

that gamers 18 or older make up 70% of

would not be around and when these companies are

players(ProCon.org). By banning these games, the

not around than the majority of their employees

industry would be hit really hard, as well as the

would not have a job to go to.

players who play these games a lot with their friends.

Video games are a way that kids and adults

attended to watch, 100,000 more people than the

can socialize with friends and family that they don't

Super Bowl, and more than 46 million people

see everyday and a way to meet new people from

watched online(Armstrong). Violent video games

across the world. For example, this weekend I was

bring a lot of people together and by getting rid of

playing a video game with my friends and brother,

them people would not come together like they do at

and we were playing with a kid who was from

these big events.

Washington state, and because of video games, this interaction can occur. Yes, this interaction could

These are the reasons violent video games need to stay. People can and will say that players can

possibly occur with non-violent

play other games or that the

video games, but with the violent

industry can bounce back after

video games, there's more of a team

the ban, But banning would lead

aspect to it. At conventions like E3,

to the disappearing of franchises

thousands of people come to get

that people love, the limitation of

excited about new games that are soon to be released.

new games, put people out of jobs, and the industry

At these conventions people love to talk to each other

being severely crippled.

about their new favorite game that is coming out or

Violent video games do not cause people to

speculating on games that are in development and will

act violently, and it's time to join together in support

be out in a couple years. Video games also have a

of keeping violent video games around. Kids love

professional league called esports. At these esports

these games and many others do too. With these

events tons of people come bringing them all together

games being banned, companies would vanish,

to watch video games like people watch sports games.

people would be out of jobs, and people could not

In 2017, at the The Intel Extreme Masters World

make the same kind of great memories with friends

Championship, in Poland, 173,000 people

on other games.

Work cited: Armstrong, Paul. "+46 Million Watched Live Esports Event (+10 Million More Than Trump Inauguration Broadcast)." Forbes, 16 Mar. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/ paularmstrongtech/2017/03/16/ 46-million-watched-live-esports-event-10million-more-than-trump-inauguration-bro adcast/#10e5b14791f4. Accessed 4 Mar. 2019.

B., Thomas. "Top 10 Best-Selling Video Games Of All Time." EXP Original, 25 June 2018, exp.gg/en/exp-original-en/49297.

Accessed 1 Mar. 2019.

HealthLine, "Do Video Games Make Kids Saints or Psychopaths (and Why Is It So Hard To find Out)?" Healthline.com, www.healthline.com/health-news/ video-games-saints-or-psychopaths-082814#1.

Duwe, Grant, and Micheal Rocque. "Actually, there is a clear link between mass shootings and mental illness." Los Angeles Times, 23 Feb. 2018, www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/ la-oe-duwe-rocque-mass-shootings-mentalillness-20180223-story.html.

Accessed 1 Mar. 2019.

KĂźhn, Simone, et al. "Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study." Nature.com, 13 Mar. 2018, www.nature.com/ articles/s41380-018-0031-7. Accessed 4 Mar. 2019.

Takahashi, Dean. "The U.S. game industry has 2,457 companies supporting 220,000 jobs." Venturebeat.com, 14 Feb. 2017, venturebeat.com/2017/02/14/ the-u-s-game-industry-has-2457-companiessupporting-220000-jobs/. Accessed 1 Mar. 2019.

Takashi, Dean. "Newzoo: Games market expected to hit $180.1 billion in revenues

in 2021." VentureBeat, 30 Apr. 2018, venturebeat.com/2018/04/30/

newzoo-global-games-expected-tohit-180-1-billion-in-revenues-2021/.

Accessed 4 Mar. 2019.

ProCon.org, "Video Games & Violence Infographics." 9 July 2018,

videogames.procon.org/ view.resource.php?resourceID=003627.

Accessed 1 Mar.

2019.

Cellphone at School

Phones can help teach A recent Pew Research lessons, one of those “A recent Pew Research Center study found that 92 apps . It is great percent of American teens Center study found that 92 because you can have go online daily, and the competitions and study percentage increases to 94 percent of American teens and at at the same percent for teens with access go online daily, and the to a smartphone. (“Should time. “These tools can Cellphones be Allowed in also teach students to Schools?”) Cell phones at develop better study school have been perceived habits, like time as bad. However, cell phones are management and good as well. There are many organization skills” (“Should reasons why cell phones are good and they can be a great teaching Cellphones Be Allowed In tool. They have a positive impact Classrooms?”) If students on parents when it comes to safety. love to be on their phones, Lastly, there is so much information give them the tool so that at students fingertips.

Cell phones could be a good teaching tool if student student can look up stuff if they don't have the definition for a word they can look it up . “ Student have access to endless array of options available to help them learn.” (“Pros and Cons”) There is a lot of positive and important information that can be accessed through the internet and with phones. This informative information can now be in students reach with just one click of a button this help when students need help it will give them information .

Moreover,“There are hundreds of educational apps to help students keep on top of their schedules and coursework, such as Moodle and Duolingo to learn new languages ( “Should Cellphones Be Allowed in School?” ).

they can play and learn at the same time.

This makes learning a lot more fun. Also when student have to take notes, they usually write them and then put them in their bag never to see them again. But, if they have their cell phone, they will always have their notes with them all time. This is good for teachers to know their student will have their notes.

The next reason why it is good to have a phone at school is because it gives parents a sense of safety when their kid has a their cell phone with them. “Parents know that in an emergency their child could be contacted and vice versa” (“Pros and Cons”).

Parent like to make sure if there is a problem at school they can be contacted. “In addition, more and more cellphones and smartphones contain GPS devices that can be tracked if necessary”(“Pros and Cons”). This is very good for so many reason.

With all that is happen in America for example school shooting and other crazy thing. Parents want to know where there child is. There is a lot of app that can protect their child. Another great thing is you can install security apps to block out predators. When some kid are from a different country their parents want to talk to them as much as possible because the need to know is there alright.

“In addition, more and more cellphones and smartphones contain GPS devices that can be tracked if necessary”

Another reason why cell phone are beneficial is because is there is a lot of information.“With internet access, children can be exposed to a world of creative ideas outside of their bubble” (“Pros and Cons”) Kids having access to the internet can receive all the help they need without have it ask anyone to stop to assist them. ”This also gives students the ability to get an answer to a questions they may feel uncomfortable about asking in class. If a teacher uses a term or a topic that the student don’t understand, they can find the answer discreetly, and without interrupting the class.” (“Pros and Cons”)

This also helps with the student’s confidence level. It is a great tool to assist them with their work.

Some may say phone are a distraction. “With the temptation of social media and texting in their hands, students may focus solely on their social life instead of the lesson plan.” (Pros and Cons) However,what they fail to take in to account is In the class a lot of thing can be distraction, but the class has rule to stop student from getting distracted. The teacher makes rules that phone cannot be used without permission. Like with every rule student have to follow it or it will be consequence Having a cell phone in class in a good thing if used for lessons or as a teaching tool. Also parents feel safe when their kids have their cell phones on them at all times to know that if there in a emergency and if they are unable to contact a teacher their child can be contacted.

Lastly, phone can be a useful tool and if used for the right reason under the right directive, there is a lot at one fingertips.

They should be allowed in classroom, in fact, they are already there.

Every child has one so why not utilize them as teaching tools instead of punishing kids for a device the 92 percent of student now possesses.

Work Cited

“Should Cell Phones Be Allowed in School?” American University School of Education, soeonline.american.edu/ blog/cell-phones-in-school.

“Should Cell phones Be Allowed In Classrooms?” Oxford Learning, 15 Dec. 2017, www.oxfordlearning.com/ should-cell-phones-be-allowedclassrooms/.

“Pros and Cons: Debating the Usage of Digital Devices in the Classroom.”

Concordia University-Portland, 30 July 2018, education.cu-portland.edu/blog/ classroom-resources/pros-and-cons-ofallowing-digital-devices-in-theclassroom/.

Extinction

By Dominic Zimmel

“When the first humans reached Australia about 45,000 years ago, they quickly drove to extinction 90% of its large animals.

This was the first significant impact that Homo sapiens had on the planet's ecosystem. It was not the last.” This phrase was taken from Yuval Noah Harari, who is an Israelian historian. This speaks to the things that we have been doing to our planet and how we are continuing to do. The planet that we call home has gone through many changes because of the human population, some for the better but others for the worse. Many scientists believe that we are closing in on the sixth mass extinction event and we are helping speed it along because of the many factors that we have present now like global warming, habitat loss, and something must be done to stop this event from coming much earlier.

Many scientists believe that by the mid to end of the Twenty-First century 50 percent of all living species on the planet will be heading towards or already extinct. “It is believed that the background rate of extinction which is one to five species every year has multiplied by 1,000 to 10,000 times.” This falls directly in line with human interaction, because unlike the previous extinctions that the world has seen that have been caused by events like volcanic eruptions, asteroids, and natural climate change such as the ice age, the current crisis that we are now facing is largely threatened by human activities, such as habitat loss, and global warming. All of these events are likely to snowball in the coming decades to ultimate extinction. Global warming is one of if not the most dangerous threat to the planet.

Global warming is one of if not the most dangerous threat to the planet. The planet is warming to a degree beyond what many species can handle,

changing an entire ecosystem, reducing food sources, and even directly “It is believed that killing the background species rate of extinction that which is one to simply five species every year has can’t multiplied by stand the heat.

“Scientists predict that if we keep going along our current greenhouse gas emission rate, climate change will cause more than a third of the Earth’s animal and plant species to face extinction by 2050 and up to 70 percent by the end of the century.” The animals that have been visibly affected by global warming are those in the Arctic, where the impacts of rising temperatures have been felt more extreme than anywhere else. This warming of their climate also contributes to another big problem that we see, which is habitat loss. All the animals that live in this region depend on the ice that is melting away, it is what their existence depends on for

hunting, shelter, and other key life activities. This is a severe degree of habitat loss that could wipe out multiple species.

Another example of habitat loss would be our rainforests being cut away. “More than half of the rain forests that were spread around the globe have been lost because of human demand.” If these forests were to disappear it would be incredibly catastrophic for the planet because one in ten of all known species lives here. “Around half of the world's original forests have disappeared, and they are still being removed at a rate 10x higher than any possible level of regrowth. As tropical forests contain at least half the Earth's species, the clearance of some 17 million hectares each year is a dramatic loss.” These forests are also large that there is a link between their health and the health of our planet by the amount that the rain forests help stabilize the climate. It does this by absorbing huge amounts of carbon dioxide. That means when the forests are cut down and then burned all of the carbon will be released into the atmosphere. These things that we are doing to our planet demand action but some people fail to see this and continue to think that we are not doing anything to our planet.

Skeptics about this matter have said that there is no consensus about global warming and that it is not as bad as scientists say it is to be. But the truth to this claim is the complete opposite, 98 percent of scientists all agree that climate change and other things that we do to our planet are killing it and something needs to be done. The other claim is also false it has been proven multiple times that the negative things we do for agriculture and the economy far outweigh the positive things. It is widely agreed that something must be done for the sake of our future and well being. Ideas of what we can do have been quite broad but some of the most popular ones have been; putting up wind turbines to try and prevent as much habitat destruction as possible and not have to flood forests for hydroelectricity or burn them down, Rain forest restoration is ` another idea that has been proposed. This would require protecting the land and having workers maintaining the forests if this was to work it would bring down CO2 emissions considerably, which would, in turn, bring down climate change and global warming.

In the end, the world has begun to change dramatically a few being for the better and other for the worst. Multiple believe that we are driving our planet towards the sixth extinction of

all living creatures, by the

many factors that we have that are accelerating this.

Something must be done about this for the future of the planet that we call home.

Work Cited “Global Warming and Life on Earth” https://www.biologicaldiversity.org 2/24/2019 https:// www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/ climate_law_institute/ global_warming_and_life_on_earth/ index.html “The Extinction Crisis” https:// www.biologicaldiversity.org 2/23/2019 https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ programs/biodiversity/ elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ “Rain Forest Threats” https:// www.nationalgeographic.com 2/24/19 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/ environment/habitats/rainforest-threats/ “Losing their homes because of the growing needs of humans” https:// www.worldwildlife.org/ 2/27/19 http://wwf.panda.org/our_work/wildlife/ problems/habitat_loss_degradation/

Down Syndrome Abortion

By Guillermo Jofre ‘21

The other day I saw a video on the internet of a Spanish politician who agrees with the abortion of Down Syndrome persons. He said that if the parents decide to have a child with Down Syndrome can be declared as damages against humanity. This video makes me think of a person.

In my old team we had an fan with down syndrome that always came to every game and I had a special affection for him. When I came back in winter break, he saw me and he started to cry about how happy he was. I've never seen anyone so happy, just because of seeing me. He was happy all the day just because of seeing a regular guy. People with Down Syndrome can be the biggest source of happiness, often they are happy. When it comes the topic of Down Syndrome abortion, most of us will readily agree that is not the solution to kill a human. While some are convinced that they should live, others believed that they shouldn't, that they are retarded and useless.

Abortion of a fetus with Down Syndrome is wrong because of three reasons: the first reason is that this is discrimination; the second reason is that they are useful they can work and they can give a lot to this world; the last one is why the parents decide to abort a fetus?

There is a great discrimination towards aborting Down Syndrome. “Pushing moms to abort babies diagnosed with Down syndrome isn't about respecting a woman's privacy, it's about lethal discrimination.

(National Right to Life News). This is a reality in this world, moms in some countries like Iceland, that there are not Down syndrome because they have a 100% of Down syndrome abortion. They ares pushed to abort because of the law, If a woman doesn't want to, you have to go against the law and is not an easy journey to keep the child. This is a big discrimination against the women and against Down Syndrome children.

But the other point of view is that those countries they don't want to have this people because of the cost of their maintenance. “Abort it and try again.

It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.(National Right to Life News) One big part of the world's population thinks that having a Down syndrome child is immoral and not ethical. But why is not ethical having a human baby and not killing it, because of a genetic change, this is not excuse to kill human, because yes, they are humans and they have rights like you and me.

because they are afraid, they are scared. They are In a study published in the American Journal of scared because they don't know what to do with their Medical Genetics: “Researchers surveyed 284 child, how to take care of their child, what the people people with Down syndrome ages 12 and older are going to think. Some believe, “If you believe that and asked them questions about their happiness abortion is equivalent to murder, the taking of a human life, then of course you would make a different choice. and life-satisfaction.They found: 99 percent But that is not my belief, and the Supreme Court has said they were happy with their lives, 97 affirmed my freedom to have that belief and act percent liked who they are, 96 percent liked accordingly” (Ruth Marcus). Other reason is the point how they look, 86 percent indicated they could of view that person or couple has, they dont think that abortion is killing, murdering because you are taking make friends easily, only 4 percent expressed someones live or is just to early to be a human when sadness about their life”. (The Reason Why So you abort him so is not killing. But why you have to Many People Want to Eradicate Unborn kill a human person, why you can not give it in Children with Down syndrome). Why you adoption and someone is going to receive him with all their love. And a human is fecundated one week after should abort a child that in a 99 percent of the sexual act. probability is going to live happily? Why you should abort a child that in a 96 percent of They might argue that they are not going to live probability is going to like how he is and what well, that they are not going to be happy and is they do? People with this genetic change had a better to abort so they are not going to have a good joyful and happy life. live. “But accepting that They are the biggest “Researchers surveyed 284 people with essential truth is different source of happiness, Down syndrome ages 12 and older and from compelling a woman they never complain asked them questions about their to give birth to a child about anything and they happiness and life-satisfaction.They w h o s e i n t e l l e c t u a l are lovers. They like to found: 99 percent said they were happy capacity will be impaired, learn and they can be with their lives, 97 percent liked who whose life choices will be autonomous. They can they are, 96 percent liked how they limited, whose health may live long, without extra look, 86 percent indicated they could be compromised. Most help. In fact, “People make friends easily, only 4 percent c h i l d r e n w i t h D o w n with Down syndrome syndrome have mild to expressed sadness about their life”. attend school, work, moderate cognitive participate in decisions impairment, meaning an that affect them, have meaningful relationships, IQ between 55 and 70 (mild) or between 35 and vote and contribute to society in many 55 (moderate). This means limited capacity for wonderful ways” (Down Syndrome facts). independent living and financial security; Down They can work usually as helpers or cleaners syndrome is life-altering for the entire but they can work and gain their own money. family.” (Ruth Marcus). Maybe they are not going They can have relationships like us but never to be really smart and they are not going to have had children. They can vote because they have excellent grades and the best job, but they are the same rights as us and help in a lot of ways going to be the happiest and productive workers, and contribute to this world. So why abort if if educated them well, that anyone has ever meet. they can be autonomous, they can work, they can have relationships, they live happy, they People with Down syndrome are worthy. In this have a full live. world they are discriminated against but they are But what happened with most of the babies? going to fight to endure and they are going to give “Tragically, the great majority of babies who reasons all day to explain to those who think that are diagnosed with Down syndrome while still they shouldn't live that they should. They are in the womb are never welcomed into a family. going to show that they are useful, they can work.

Of those parents who are told their unborn They can have a meaningful relationship and they child has Down syndrome at least 90% choose can be autonomous. And finally we can to abort the baby.” (Down Syndrome facts). A understand and be compassionate of the fear of the 90 percent of the parents that notice that their parents but they have to be strong and believe in children has Down Syndrome decide to abort, all children. but why? One of the main reasons why the parents decide to abort is

Work Cited:

Taggart, Jen. "Abortion thrives on discrimination, on the inhumane belief that some lives are better than others." National Right to Life News, Apr. 2018, p. 33. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,http://link.galegroup.com/ apps/doc/A542802595/OVIC?u=heb76203&sid=OVIC&xid=5e27f1ba.

Accessed 25 Feb. 2019.

Coolidge, Ardee. The Reason Why So Many People Want to Eradicate Unborn Children with Down Syndrome. www.care-net.org/abundant-life-blog/the-reason-why-so-many-peoplewant-to-eradicate-unborn-children-with-down-syndrome. Accessed 25 Feb. 2019.

Shelmon, A. (2017, October 25). Discriminating against People with Down Syndrome. Retrieved February 25, 2019, from https://www.str.org/blog/ discriminating-against-people-down-syndrome#.XHP9_JNKgkg Down Syndrome Facts | National Down Syndrome Society. (n.d.).

Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.ndss.org/about-downsyndrome/down-syndrome-facts/ "KIDS: Confronting the Abortion of Children With Down Syndrome."

National Right to Life News, Feb. 2009, p. age 11. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A204073077/OVIC? u=heb76203&sid=OVIC&xid=6dc14cce. Accessed 25 Feb. 2019.

Accept or Deny Did you know that by the regulations of the state of Maine in order to enter kindergarten each child must have four different types of vaccines?

Then, to keep going into seventh grade they must have two addition vaccinations, and finally to complete the twelfth grade they must have one more additional vaccination (Division of Disease Surveillance).Some people will say that the government should not have the right to require vaccinations and others might say their kids should be able to go to school without their vaccinations. While other people believe that the government and school districts should have control over vaccinations, that it will lower the possibility for diseases to spread, and that the school should have the authority to accept or deny a student based on whether they have had their vaccines or not to ensure the health of all the other students. Some may also say that by requiring these vaccinations they are taking away parents rights to raise their children; However, the government should have the power to regulate vaccines for kids and schools should have

Kaila Mank

the power to regulate vaccines for kids and schools should have the right to deny a student if they are putting the health of other students in danger. Vaccinations should be mandatory, and even though parents rights matter, they should not be putting other people in danger in the process.

Finally, the Supreme Court has decided that vaccines should be mandatory in 1922. For kids to complete schooling up to 12 grade, they need to have a total of seven different vaccines throughout their schooling years. As it stands right now, all fifty states require specific vaccines for school-age children, although each school may grant exceptions for students unable to be vaccinated for a medical reason. In nineteen out of fifty states it is now allowed for parents to opt their children out of vaccines claiming it is a personal moral or religious beliefs (Urist, Jacoba). Researchers have also found that for vaccines to work in a school, 92% or more of the student population must be immunized against the disease.

Some people believe that getting vaccines is dangerous for their kids because of the chance that it will not work. Although what they fail to see is that 93% of all vaccines work, and they also fail to see by not giving their child that vaccine they are putting in danger all the other children lives that he or she is going to school with (Urist, Jacoba). If somebody is willing to risk the lives of others, they must have some reason not to want that vaccine. I highly support not wanting the vaccine for religious or medical reasonings, but if one chooses not to get the vaccine to prove a point, they are risking the lives of many others to getting a disease that will then spread quickly.

Now some may say that having a properly run volunteer system could produce higher vaccine rates while also protecting parents rights, but others say no, mandatory vaccinations have greatly reduced the many diseases spread that should have been maintained ("Should Parents Have the Right to Refuse Standard Childhood Vaccinations?�).

Now to go off the idea of a properly run volunteer system, many citizen and healthcare provider groups have called for an end it to requiring infant vaccinations for entry to school, infant daycare, and participation in childhood activities. Now what they might be failing to see is that by opting their kids out of having these vaccinations, they could be ostracizing them from participating in events.

Now to go off the viewpoint that mandatory vaccines have greatly reduced and maintained many diseases is that each year hundreds of thousands of kids were killed, deformed, or crippled by a villain that can neither be seen nor heard.

Tiny germs and bacteria had the ability to invade sites one person at a time spreading like wildfire with a simple cough or sneeze. It seems like a mistake that anyone would choose not to take advantage of such a life-saving technology especially when vaccines have been proven safe and effective by the leading medical experts in the world.

For every twenty children infected with diphtheria, thirty one will die, one out of a hundred children will die from Perseus, one and 1000 will die from measles, as many as 30% of people infected when Tendinitis will die ("Should Parents Have the Right to Refuse Standard Childhood Vaccinations?"). Now in that comparison when these people could have gotten their vaccinations for these diseases none have been conclusively linked to a single death when vaccines do cause side effects they are usually very very minor ( "Should parents have the right to refuse standard childhood vaccinations?"). Now it is true that vaccines contain bacteria or viruses, but they have been either killed or weakened to conference immunity to the child without causing infection. Now you might be thinking why should parents be forced by the law to have to have their children vaccinated?

Vaccines are an effective method of which took over 40 million lies stopping epidemics and preventing worldwide. No problem that took place diseases, but they are not entirely safe nor not too long ago that refreshed the are they always 100% effective. However, United States Supreme Court decision those who were declined to have their was the smallpox epidemic reassured children vaccinated are often ostracized by the decision of requiring the school authorities or other childhood vaccinations by the 1980s ("Should events. The nonParents Have the Right to vaccinated children Refuse Standard Childhood are much higher risk Each year hundreds Vaccinations?�). The question for getting the lingering in everyones mind is of thousands were disease some claim how safe are vaccines? It is killed, deformed, or that unvaccinated proven that vaccines are ripped by a villain children become among the safest form of infected, they also that could be neither medicine ever developed in the pose a greater threat current vaccines supply in the seen nor heard. to others in the United States is the safest on population. Some studies do reflect a trend record. Over the past four decades, of increased childhood diseases as parents several countries have tried to decrease opt for no vaccination. Another possibility vaccinations. In Great Britain, Japan, to take into consideration is the cost of and Sweden cut back on vaccinations in taking away the freedom of choice of the 1970s and 1980s as a result of parents in the matter of deciding about concern over the vaccine safety. Soon what they think is best for their children, after this decision an epidemic in great but the majority of childhood vaccines are Britain infected more than 100,000 administered now in the course of wellpeople and killed 36 in Japan. Causes baby care by private physicians.One might rose from 393 in 1974 when the wonder why is there even a reason for the vaccine rate was about 80% to 13,000 current debate? In 1905 and then again in cases in 41 deaths in 1979 when the 1922 the United States Supreme Court vaccine rate cell to about 20%. In decided that the government could require Sweden the animal case among vaccinations to prevent the spread of children ages 0 to 6 roes from 700 cases diseases that threaten death and disability in 1981 to 3000 in 1985 ("Should and serious illnesses not only to individuals Parents Have the Right to Refuse but also the population as a whole ("Should Standard Childhood Vaccinations?�).

Parents Have the Right to Refuse Standard Even now the Measles epidemic Childhood Vaccinations?�). The Supreme infected 55,000 and killed 120 people.

Court decision was the result from Since then coverage levels have risen to experience of the deadly influenza about 90%, and annual measles cases in epidemic after World War I, the entire western hemisphere

are now fewer than 500 a year ("Should Parents Have the Right to Refuse Standard Childhood Vaccinations?").

Its so amazing how a few simple shots can save so many lives. Its understandable if somebody is allergic to the vaccine or it is against your religion but if somebody is not giving their child the vaccine to try to prove a point thats not OK. It is possible that is it is a choice between life and death for their child. It is possible that it is the choice of the sickening one kid a verse sickening an entire school; it is the difference between right and wrong or acceptance and denial.

Work Cite Division of Disease Surveillance.Maine.gov: About Maine: Facts, Accessed 27 Feb. 2019.www.aine.gov/ dhhs/mecdc/infectious-disease/immunization/family/ kindergarten-guidelines.html Urist, Jacoba. How Schools Are Dealing With AntiVaccine Parents. The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 29 Jan. 2016, Web. Accessed 27 Feb. 2019. www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/ schools-may-solve-the-anti-vaccine-parentingdeadlock/385208/.

"Should parents have the right to refuse standard childhood vaccinations.". Should Parents Have the Right to Refuse Standard Childhood Vaccinations.â₏ The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed, Encyclopedia.com, 2019, www.encyclopedia.com/ science/science-magazines/should-parents-have-rightrefuse-standard-childhood-vaccinations. Accessed 27 Feb. 2019.

Why buying a weapon in the US is so easy …

By: Luis Langer

Gun control and in general weapon laws in the US have almost been always a big topic, national and international, especially in Europe. Guns can be very important if somebody is in danger, but you wouldn’t be in danger, if the person, who took you in danger, doesn’t have a gun, because he bought it, and didn’t even need a license.

People in the United states, can get weapons, such as riffles, handguns or knives too easy, compared to other countries. Because of that, gun laws should be stricter in the US, because of regularly school shootings, you get a weapon too easy and with stricter gun laws, there are less criminal cases.

School shootings are especially in the US pretty popular, national and international, because they happen regularly, and are always unexpected.

Since 2016, there were 68 shootings or tries to do a shooting, only on high schools, which is a lot, compared to other countries(After Sandy Hook, More Than 400 People Have Been Shot in Over 200 School Shootings, The New York Times) In whole Europe and Australia there were no school shootings in the last 17 years. The last school shooting in Europe was in Germany in 2002 with 16 killed people. School shootings are mostly based on a motive, such as bullying, seeing no value in life or mental illness, which is almost always the reason, why a person is shooting. The problem is, that nobody can do anything against this . Parents or mental health doctors, who are there to find a solution against topics like these, can’t do anything against this, because they have no influence to children, who are getting bullied and are mental ill at the same time.

I think the problem is the mix between the laws, which allows, that you can buy a weapon almost without a license and the fact that you can’t do something against bullying, as long as nobody says something, who is involved or knows about the situation, because if this happens, the victim can buy a weapon and start a shooting.

Because of the already named school shootings, there is the problem, why you can buy a weapon so easily, if there are so many shootings going on. Except for five states and cities, such as, Vermont, New York or Minnesota, you can buy a weapon, if you are 18 and you don’t need a license which confirms, that you can shoot or that you have done a training.

(What age can you buy a gun in America?,Metro).

In these states and cities, where you need a shooting license, you just need to be 16, to get even a rifle. I think that doesn’t make sense at all, if you may drink alcohol with 21, but you can buy a weapon with 16 or 18, which kills people faster than alcohol Compared to other countries in Europe for example, you need a lot of license to buy a weapon, such as a absolved training which takes 3 months, a license, which confirms, that you signed up with the government. And then, you need to refresh your license, every two years. The most important point about buying a weapon without a license, is the second amendment that says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The second amendment basically allows, that you can protect yourself with a weapon which kills people with one move with your finger.

But there is no word, that describes if there is a line to kill a person because the person attacks you or not. And the second amendment is also in general not very good for the US, because it is hart to realize it. Another point which reflects, that too many people in the US have a weapon is, that the United States have a very high criminality and with that point, a lot of prisons. The US have a total of more than 1.700 prisons for around 325.000 citizens. From this number are 102 federal prisons, 942 juvenile prisons, and 79 Indian Country jails(Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2016, prisonpolicy.org).

In the United states are around 2.3 million people in prison, which is also compared to different countries in other continents a lot, for example, in Germany are 62,194 people in prison right now and in France are 70,710, and both countries have a population of around 80 million citizens. With stricter gun laws wouldn’t so many prisons exist. Especially the number of juvenile prisons are pretty showy. That shows, that a lot of young people and adults have to do with criminal cases, which corresponds to 62% with illegal weapons possession. And that also shows, that young people, who are not allowed to buy weapons, still can buy guns and other dangerous things.

Sources:

Coughlan, Sean. "2018 'Worst Year

For US School Shootings'". BBC News, 2019,

https://www.bbc.com/news/ "World Prison Brief | An

business-46507514. Accessed 12 Dec 2018.

Online

The Use Of Imprisonment Around

Database Comprising Information On Prisons And

The World". Prisonstudies.Org, 2019, http://prisonstudies.org.

www.alfred.edu. (2019). Why Do

Shootings Occur? | Alfred University. [online] Available

at: https://www.alfred.edu/about/news/

studies/lethal-school-violence/why-do-shootings.cfm.

Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2016". Prisonpolicy.Org, 2019,

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/

reports/pie2016.html. Accessed 14 Mar 2016.




Initiative, Prison. "Mass

Lindsay, Jessica. "What Age Can You Buy A https://metro.co.uk/2018/02/16/age-can-

Gun In America? | Metro News". Metro.Co.Uk, 2019, buy-gun-america-7318177/. Accessed 16 Feb 2018.

Mercy Killing

by Moeen Shaikh ’20 “To save a man’s life against his will is the same as killing him” - Horace. Euthanasia is a way of killing a patient and ending his or her suffering by giving them high doses of drugs. Although it is illegal in many countries due to religious and sentimental reasons , some countries still practice it. Euthanasia should be legal and should solely be the a decision of the patient and their family because it end the suffering of the patient, helps other patients who can be cured, and helps the economy of that county and also the patient’s family.

High doses of drugs make the patient numb and immune to pain which helps them to die painlessly and with dignity. A study on cancer patients was carried out in the Netherlands in which out of 148 patients who were asked to participate 76 (51%) entered the study. The studied population were 64 patients who were followed up until death; 27% explicitly requested Euthanasia, which was performed in 8% of the patients. The final interview per patient was analyzed.

Unbearable symptoms were present in 94% of patients with an explicit request for EAS and in 87% of patients without an explicit request (" Ruijs, van der Wal, Kerkhof, and Onwuteaka-Philipsen"). This study vividly described the need for euthanasia using results and facts. The symptoms of the patients are termed to be ‘unbearable’ so making euthanasia an

option for the patients can really help them die with dignity. If a man or woman only has months to live and do not wish appear sick and weak when the day comes, euthanasia can make this possible without inflicting more pain (“6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Euthanasia”). This means that euthanasia can help patients to die faster and without pain when they have no chance at life and are going to die anyways.

Hence, the method of euthanasia is very effective way to help patients suffering form incurable diseases. Patients who are suffering from such diseases show interest in euthanasia, which shows how helpful it is in ending suffering. In addition to helping the patient get rid of their suffering, euthanasia can also help other patients.

Euthanasia can be a great advantage for other patients who can be cured and are suffering from bearable and less serious diseases. Several Dutch and Belgian doctors have proposed legal reforms to increase the popularity of combining euthanasia and organ donation in the Netherlands and Belgium (“Cook”). This idea can be a major reason for saving lives of other patients by giving euthanasia to the patients who wish to die without suffering. The organs from the patients of euthanasia can be donated, saving lives of several other patients.

Euthanasia can help other patients by freeing beds. It would be wise to keep the beds for the patients who can be cured than occupying them with patients who have no hope of living and who are suffering from unbearable pain and want to die in peace. It would save so many patients as hospitals will have beds for treating and saving patients who are in serious yet curable condition. This is a one of the important things the government should consider; they could save so many other lives if euthanasia is legal. Moreover, euthanasia not only benefits humans but also benefits the economy in different way.

euthanasia is a difficult decision, families usually come to terms with it; therefore euthanasia should be legalized as it helps reduce family pressure and problems even thought it is a difficult decision to make.

These are the reason how Euthanasia helps families by reducing pressure and problems and economy by increasing revenue and funds.

Most people and countries are still against euthanasia. Some people are against euthanasia due to religious beliefs. They believe that only God should decide when we diethe Bible says “ if we live, we live for the lord, and if we die, we die for the lord, so that alive or dead, we belong to the lord” (“Argument For Euthanasia”). On the other hand, they fail to acknowledge the good effects of euthanasia. They fail to understand that Euthanasia can save so many other lives which is a really good deed according to many religions. Holy books like Bible and Quran believe that saving a persons life is as good as saving the whole humanity. Even though people might think that euthanasia leads to people committing sins, on the other hand, it leads people to do much more good deeds.

Moreover, some people argue that euthanasia is seen as murder in lots of countries, and murder is against the law and the Ten Commandments (“Argument For Euthanasia”). People think that killing another person is a murder and they are encouraged to believe so due to the law and religious beliefs. People of this mind do not consider that euthanization is not an idea of harming someone by breaking the law, it the process of ending the suffering of a person by their consent, their families consent, and the government’s consent. Moreover by the

Euthanasia… is simply to be able to die with dignity at the moment when life

One of the primary reason to legalize euthanasia could be that it helps families and the economy of the country.

Healthcare funding allocations, shortages of beds and nursing staff, as well as an increasing elderly population in the future, will undoubtedly influence policy makers and doctors to look at euthanasia as a means of cost containment (“Economic Aspects of Euthanasia”). This denotes how euthanasia could help the economy by raising money. Euthanasia can free beds, which makes it profitable for the hospitals because they can get more patients.

Euthanasia frees nurses gets more patients which is why hospitals will have to employ more nurses to treat the increasing number of patients which increases employment in the economy. Increase in employment causes an increase in tax revenue which further leads to increase in the total revenue of the economy and contributes in economic growth. Family members may exert pressure on the patient because they are spending too much of their own money on healthcare.

Patients themselves may opt for assisted suicide to save money as a duty to their loved-ones (“Impact of Euthanasia on the Family”). Although forcing a patient to die is

definition provided by Merriam Webster describes murder as crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought. killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Euthanasia is not done with any malicious thoughts, thus, the meaning of euthanasia does not relate to the definition of murder at all. Lastly, many people point out the fact that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, which means that they are obliged to preserve life wherever possible (“Argument For Euthanasia”). They say that the job and responsibility of a doctor is to save life and not end it, but these people fail to think about the other half of the phrase which says “wherever possible”.

Doctors cannot save all lives, especially of patients suffering from incurable and unbearable symptoms, but they can use euthanasia to save hospital beds and get organs which will help other patients who are his need and can be cured. In addition to it, the beds can be used to treat the poor who are suffering from diseases like malnourishment for free. Hence, even though people point out the disadvantages of euthanasia due to how harsh it seems to be, it has many advantages that can help people in their lives in the future.

Euthanasia can be of great help in the future if carried out properly, with the consent of everyone and without breaking any law.

Everyone should come together and help make euthanasia legal. It can help individuals like patients by making beds and organs available; it can help families with their financial problem; and it can also be helpful to individuals indirectly as it can help improve economy which will help the people of the economy with money and help businesses with funds. Saving a man without

their will is as good as killing him, so we should let the family and the patient take the decision of euthanization and not let others be in charge of individuals should do.

Countries must think about legalizing euthanasia and recognize the fact that it could help people in the future. Everyone should benefit from the freedom to choose euthanasia one day.

Zoos: The Greater Affect By. Paige Bourgoin

“Polar bears, lions, tigers, cheetahs and other wide-ranging carnivores do so poorly in captivity that zoos should either drastically improve their conditions or stop keeping them altogether” (Derr).

This quote goes to show you that no animal should have to live out their lives in a cage. That’s just not how they should be treated. They should be able to roam the wild and be at peace with where they are. Animals shouldn’t be in zoos because they cannot provide enough sufficient space, zoos can change an animal's behavior drastically, and they are zoos that are struggling financially to provide the care their animals require.

Animals should be able to have unlimited space to roam. They shouldn’t have to be caged, as they are in zoos. Animals need the space for them to truly live their life. This can be seen in the, “High infant mortality rate and a tendency to pace around the cage - - are related to

the size of it” (Derr). The babies can’t even handle the small space and the small cage leads the

parent’s to pace in depression. Some people will argue that if they go into the wild they are more likely to be hunted, but that’s not true because they have the animal instincts to stay alive in the wild because that is their home.

Moreover, zoos don’t have enough space; “Some captive polar bears spend 25 percent of their day in what scientists call stereotypic pacing, and infant mortality for captive animals is about 65 percent” (Derr). Stereotypic pacing is part of the stereotypic behaviours and it is usually caused by being in an enclosure. This leads back to the infant mortality. If polar bears and other animals in captivity are losing infants, why aren’t the zookeepers doing anything about it? They need to find a better solution to the enclosures that don’t harm the animals. This can also lead to the change in the animals behavior.

When an animal’s behavior is changing, it can be harmful to those who they are sharing a cage with that animal and to the people going to see the animals.

Some behaviours include, “Grooming to the point of baldness, feather plucking and other selfmutilation behaviors are compulsive behaviors” (Lamont). This is just some of the things they do when they are depressed. They are hurting themselves and that is not okay.

Some people may try to argue that it is just part of how the animal acts.

But that is not true. There have been studies that show animals in captivity are more depressed than the animals in the wild.

There should be something that is helping the animal’s feel like they are in the wild.

Something that is making them feel at home. Zookeepers need to work harder to introduce elements from their natural habitats because, “All the behaviors are caused by the absence of some natural necessities” (Lamont). We should be worried about the animal’s well being because of their state of mind being locked up in a cage. When an animal has lived in the wild for years and then all of a sudden they have to adapt to the zoo life, it can be hard on an animal’s mental state. When they are in the wild they kill for their food,

they protect their babies, and they protect themselves. All of those natural instincts they would do in the wild are taken away from them in the zoos. The zookeeper's bring them their food and they are separate from other animals, in addition have a number people taking pictures of them all day, and they don’t even have anything to do in the enclosures besides for just sit around. Zoos struggling financially can also affect the wellbeing of an animal because of the budgets cuts they have to make can affect the animals.

When Zoos finally have to make the decision about budget cuts what are they going to choose to cut? It can lead to them finding new homes for the animals or even in some cases termination; “ At the Staten Island Zoo, officials are eliminating overtime and cutting back on supplies” (Fountain). By eliminating overtime you might not always have the help you need to take care of the animals. By cutting back on supplies, that means they have to cut back on food and treats.

The workers aren’t the only ones being affected, it is also affecting the animals.

They are losing food and treats because the managers didn’t use the money wisely. If the animals were in the wild, they wouldn’t have to worry about having budget cuts.

Some people believe zoos will solve their financial issues. But, if they got themselves in the mess, it is going to be even harder to get themselves out of the situation because they have probably been struggling for awhile, in fact, “At the Maryland Zoo in Baltimore, a budget crisis earlier this decade led to the removal of about 10 percent of the animals, including snow leopards, gibbons and red pandas, and an entire section of the zoo was closed” (Fountain). It is not known where the animals were brought or what happened to them.

Plus, by getting rid of all of these animals, it has made the zoos less appealing to the public. A lot of the people who go to zoos want to see the interesting animals not just the farm animals or the big cats. So not only do they have to get rid of some animals, but it is also affecting the public. They have created a domino effect. Therefore, if they lose people coming to them they are only making their financial issues worse than they already were. As one can see animals are affected greatly by living in a zoo. There just isn’t enough space for them.

This leads to a change in their behaviors, and the zoos are struggling financially and that affects the animals. We need to do something about this. If an animal isn’t endangered or hurt, then why are they in zoo?

“If the animals were Are they in zoos in the wild, they mainly wouldn’t have to for our entertainment and amusement because those aren’t very good reasons. Animals deserve to be treated right and live in their natural habitat. As humans we like to live in our houses and be comfortable in our own beds; therefore, how would we feel if we were locked up in cages to live? work cited Fountain, Henry, H.F. "In Zoos its Man VS. Beast." The New York Times, © 2019 The New York Times Company, 17 Mar. 2009, www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/arts/ artsspecial/19zoo.html. Accessed 24 Feb. 2019.

Derr, Mark, M.D. "Zoos Are Too Small for Some Species, Biologists Report."

The New York Times, © 2019 The New York Times Company, 1 Oct. 2003, www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/science/ zoos-are-too-small-for-some-species-biologistsreport.html. Accessed 24 Feb. 2019.

Lamont, Di, D.L. "Beyond the Zoo: How Captivity Affects the Mental Well-Being of All Animals." One Green Planet, www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/ how-captivity-affects-the-mental-well-being-of-allanimals/. Accessed 24. Feb. 2019.

Border Problems By: Kai Proctor

“The love of one's country is a splendid thing.

But why should love stop at the border?” -Pablo Casals. Is the border wall the best thing for the United States to build? We shouldn’t build the wall. We shouldn’t build it because most of the drugs that come through the border are actually smuggled through legal crossing points. The wall also will cause huge environmental damage and changes. Also, most of Americans don’t agree with building the wall. Some that agree with the wall think it will stop all havoc that has been happening lately and will it do what they think, or will it do nothing at all.The border wall has become a large topic lately due to these reasons and more.

When people talk about drugs coming through the Mexican border illegally, they are wrong.

Even though some might think Trump and his officials are telling the truth about the Mexico and U.S., they are not. Trump and his team are telling us false claims about drugs being smuggled into the USA when in fact, “ According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, 90 percent of heroin seized along the border, 88 percent of cocaine, 87 percent of methamphetamine, and 80 percent of fentanyl in the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year was caught trying to be smuggled in at legal crossing points.”( Gomez). Alane Gomez acknowledges that most of the drugs come through legal points and not illegal points of the border. While Trump used drugs as one of the largest reasons to build the wall he leaves out one part.

“While Trump's officials usually mention that 90 percent of the narcotics that enter the U.S. comes across the southern border, they have usually left out the way in which those drugs cross,” (Gomez) Alane states that Trumps officials fail to say one of the most important component parts on how the drugs enter the U.S. the drugs cross the border every day in many ways the largest is by car with millions of people crossing by car every day. Some less recognized ways drugs come through are planes, trains, and submarines. People get it through by hiding it in secret compartments in their luggage and the submarine was intercepted by the Coast Guard when there were drugs found throughout the vessel. Drugs more likely to come through legal ports of the border.so buildings the wall will not keep drugs out.

One thing that wall will keep out is animals it will divide the animal kingdom.

How will the wall affect the environment? Well, there are six main reasons of how it will affect the environment. But one of the cruelest is cutting endangered animals off from the resources they need to survive. “ A border wall puts these habitats at risk,” (Parker). What Parker is saying a wall is a risk to animals habitats. These habitats are home to thousands of animals, some of which could go extinct if the wall is built.

A wall “raises the risk to their survival by shrinking and isolating animal populations,” (Parker) the wall is separating 346 native animals. The thought of putting small holes in the wall so animals can pass through is an option on the list. Thirty environmental laws are being broken (Sussis). Some have already made efforts to bring up these concerns and stop them. Environmental groups plan to sue the Trump administration if the wall is constructed. Every environmental group has the same concerns of ruining habitats.

Thus the groups have teamed up to make it so the animals will have a chance to live without disruption and to protect them and so the 30 laws that could be broken won’t be. But will be broken is the trust of those who don’t agree with the wall.

Why build the wall if most Americans don’t agree with it? How many exactly don't agree with the construction of the wall? Well people want to build it so that there won’t be as much worry about immigrants thus the argument for building the wall. “ 59 percent of Americans-- oppose building a wall” (Salvanto and DePinto). There is only 41 percent that want it to be built. So why is it still divided when the answer should be clear?

Well people's opinions change. But the largest group that wants the wall is white people who did not attend college, most of this group is made up of males. “Those without a four year college degree are more likely to favor this policy.” (“Data Shows How Passionate and Partisan Americans Are About the Border Wall.” ). Among the men in this group 55 percent

More men also agree with the wall.

The age groups have large differences in who wants who doesn’t want the wall as the older age groups want the wall, the younger groups tend to dislike the wall more. Most agree that the wall is not a top priority at all, even though some think it is a number one priority above everything else.

The wall should not be build. The drugs are not crossed in illegal ports like some might believe due to the fake news. The environment will have a rapid decline by the disruption that the wall will make. The majority of america disagrees with the wall and the majority of america should win. With all this in mind why do some believe that it no matter what should be built? Well they might think that illegal immigrants will stop coming into America all together. However, if you think about it there are other way they can get in without being noticed. They could sneak on a boat that is set to arrive in America. People might think the crime rates will go down. Well they could be true but between whites and hispanics there are more whites in America's jails. ( Gramlich).So over all the wall is just the last thing America needs if our problems are going to stay the same, even if they seem less the problems could reappear at any given moment.

The wall should not be.

“ Separating 346 natives animals”

want the wall to be built. Among the women in this group it is significantly lower than the men at 42 percent wanting the wall. When you start to get out of the caucasian portion of America and into very different races like hispanics and black people, 72 percent oppose the wall.

Work cited

“69% Of Americans Don't Think Trump's Border Wall Is a Priority, Poll Says.” Fortune, Fortune, fortune.com/2018/12/12/trump-borderwall-poll/. Associated Press. “Trump Says Wall Will Stop Drugs, but Facts Differ.”

VOA, VOA, 17 Jan. 2019

CBS News. “Most Americans Don't Support Building the Wall.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 21 Dec. 2018, “Data Shows How Passionate and Partisan Americans Are About the Border Wall.”

PRRI,

“Environmental Groups' Opposition to the Border Wall Is Disappointing, but Not Surprising.”CIS.org,cis.org/Sussis/ Environmental-Groups-Opposition-Border-WallDisappointing-Not-Surprising

Gomez, Alan. “Fact-Checking Trump Officials: Most Drugs Enter US through Legal Ports of Entry, Not Vast, Open Border.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 16 Jan. 2019,

Gramlich, John, and John Gramlich. “Gap between Number of Blacks, Whites in Prison Narrows.”Pew Research Center ,Pew Research Center,12 Jan.2018,

Parker, Laura. “6 Ways the Border Wall Could Disrupt the Environment.” National Geographic, National Geographic, 10 Jan. 2019,