World Literature Argument Articles - E

Point Counter Point: World Literature Takes a Position

Is Softball Better Than Baseball?

By: Lillian Bergeron

For years I have always had the same debate (with my older brother and some baseball players at my old school) whether softball is harder than baseball. I would always tell them that softball is more difficult but their remark was always “Softball looks so easy.”

They never really listened to my reasoning. Many believe that baseball is more difficult than softball, but softball is much harder than baseball because the field sizes are different, the ball speed, and the pitching are some of the reasons why it’s a harder sport.

With baseball and softball, there are a few differences, one of them is the field size. “A baseball infield is 16,700 feet

whereas a softball is 7,200 feet.

That makes it so the infielders and outfielders have less time to react. The pitchers mound is about 43 feet for softball and baseball it is 60 feet.”(Trifoso).

The size difference between an official baseball field and an official softball field is exactly 9,500 feet. In softball, your reaction time gap has been squeezed down compared to baseball. You have to run faster in order to not get out, infield and outfield have less time to react and throw someone out at one of the four bases. “ ‘A baseball player can have as much time as four seconds to throw the runner out at first.’

But in softball the ‘infielders have 3.2 seconds to react and throw the runner out at first.’ ”(Trifoso). In baseball, you have more time to react and choose where you going to

throw the person out; for softball you have less time to decide.

Some may think that speed makes hitting harder, but really it only comes down to how far away you are from the mound that determines how difficult it is to hit the ball. “Sport Science compares a 70 mph fastball to a 90 mph baseball pitch. On average, a baseball is released approximately 55 feet from home plate, resulting in a reaction time of .44 seconds for the hitter. By comparison, a 70 mph softball, released from an average distance of 37 feet from the plate, will result in 0.35 seconds of reaction time for the batter. In other words, a softball batter has 20% less time to react to a pitch than a baseball batter”(“The Sports Science Behind Hitting a Softball Versus Hitting a Baseball”). With the difference of the pitching mound to home plate, both softball and baseball hitters have to have a fast reaction time to hit the ball, but softball

players have less time to react.

Moreover, “gravity works in baseball players’ favors, as baseball pitches must follow a downward trajectory. This gives hitters the opportunity to adjust by dropping their hands. A softball pitch, by contrast, is almost always rising after exiting from pitcher’s release.

This means that hitters have to fight gravity and in less time.”(“The Sports Science Behind Hitting a Softball Versus Hitting a Baseball”). Batters for both baseball and softball have to understand how gravity affects the way the ball is coming in. But since in softball the reaction time is less, that means that they have to also think about the gravity impacting the softball. Another big difference between softball and baseball is pitching. “A pitcher in baseball throws the ball overhand and a pitcher in softball throws the ball underhand.”(Mann). In baseball, you throw the ball from an elevated mound, in softball you don't. When a baseball

pitcher throws the ball home the Because baseball fields a bigger baseball is going downwards, doesn’t mean a thing because but with softball, the ball is that means that baseball players rising after it’s been released. have a much longer time to react Tanner Lecumberry wrote an and throw the ball. argumentative essay on how As a softball player who has baseball is better than softball is tried practicing baseball before, saying, but what he fails to see both sports are difficult to play is that softball is played “with a by some of the same rules. But larger ball and lighter bats, softball players have fewer combined with lower pitching players in the field and have speeds and shorter fewer innings than fences, the difference baseball because it is A softball batter in pitching angle physically tiring to has 20% less time doesn’t present throw the same pitch to react to a pitch enough of a every single throw. In than a baseball difference to make baseball, the ball is batter hitting a softball smaller so players harder. As far as can hold it and throw fielding, increased area per it different ways, but in softball player makes throws much players can’t hold it the same further, and defense overall because of the size difference. much more Softball is difficult because of difficult.”( Lecumberry). the size of the field, the way the The reasoning why the field is ball is pitched, and the ball smaller is because of the ball. A speed. Because of these reasons softball is much larger and softball is better than baseball. heavier than a baseball, because of the weight of the ball, the bat has to be lighter so the softball player can swing the bat easier.

A baseball can be hit further

Work Cited Lecumberry, Tanner. "Why Baseball Is Better Than Softball".

Thelowrybrand.Com, 2014, http://thelowrybrand.com/opinions/ 2013-2014/02-19-14%20Why%20baseball%20is%20better%20than%2 0softball.html. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.

Mann, Avery. "Baseball Vs. Softball". American Profile, 2011, https:// americanprofile.com/articles/baseball-vs-softball/. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.

"The Sports Science Behind Hitting A Softball Versus Hitting A Baseball - Pressbox". Pressbox, 2017, https://blog.leagueapps.com/ sports-science-behind-hitting-softball-versus-baseball/. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.

Trifoso, Sarah. "The Science Of Softball Vs. Baseball". The Odyssey Online, 2016, https://www.theodysseyonline.com/softballscientifically-harder-baseball. Accessed 26 Feb 2019.

The Three Most Powerful Words

by Cynthia Rose

Cynthia Rose

Ms. Waterman

World Lit

February 24, 2019

The Three Most Powerful Words

“I Love You are the three most powerful words in the universe”(Neilmekh). Within our world there are approximately 6,500 languages spoken today.

English is the only language with a singular word for love; unlike other languages that have various ways to describe that emotion(Fitzpatrick). This phrase does have the power to bring a warm, fantastic, and safe feeling to a significant other, partner or friend, but it is not right to do so if said untruthfully, manipulatively, or just to please whom you are saying it to.

Unfortunately this phrase is losing its meaning progressively as time goes on. Over the years divorce has increased rapidly. It is estimated that within the last forty years fifty percent of marriages have ended in divorce.

Divorce became more accepted and an no-fault option in 1950, just sixty-nine years ago”Legal Articles Divorce”. But why did divorce need to become an option if you married a person that you loved? This is they exact problem; sadly, this phrase, this emotion, this connection “will quickly fall into oblivion” if no action is taken (Burke). A relationship or marriage between two people should be equal and go both ways in effort, support, and love.

While one may show signs that they love they other, first it should progress into shared feelings when your partner is ready to say those words and should not be said just to please them because that is what they want to hear or you are afraid to hurt their feelings. Love can also be felt not only in a romantic way but through friendships too. You may say ‘I Love You’ to a best friend which is perfectly acceptable. The love you have for their humor, presence, support and your friendship is reasoning to say those words to them. This is specifically directed to the friendships where these feelings are truthfully felt though and should not be tossed around to all your friends or acquaintances, whether through manipulation, to bring a smile to their face, or even saying it back if they do.

“I love you” is constantly taken advantage of with manipulation.

Fitzpatrick acknowledges this in her article “I Love You’ Has More Power Than You Might Think” It has been observed that people often say the word in order to ‘get’ something such as sex, attention or an ego boost, said. “This is a manipulative technique and often short-lived- - “He or she only says I love you when they want sex” or “They only tell me they love me when they know they have done something wrong.” (Fitzpatrick) This use of the phase can lead to unhealthy as well as dangerous relationships, romantic or not. The manipulation of the words “I love you” can drive those in weaker positions of power to give themselves, to their antagonist or partner in a romantic or platonic sense.

Telling your partner you love them falsely may affect them positively in the present but can cause long term effects even after a long period of time of being broken up.

For example if one tells their boyfriend or girlfriend they love them that night and proceed to break up with him or her the next day, they will realize they did not truthfully love them. This is demonstrated by a British Filmmaker named Jay Shetty in an episode from his content called If Someone Broke Your Heart Watch This. The episode involves a conversation over the phone between a man and woman who are dating. The boyfriend says to his girlfriend “I don’t think we should be together, I think we’re just in different places. There’s a lot of stuff that doesn't click so I think it’s best to just leave it where it is (Shetty).” The woman responds with, “I don’t get it. You were here last night and said you loved me.

Whatever. If this is what you want then it’s fine”(Shetty). While explaining what happened to a friend she reveals that she has been in bed all day, upset and “feels stupid for saying it, and actually meaning it , you know I realize he clearly didn't mean when he said it.”(Shetty) Other feelings that can result from this are feeling naive or stupid. The person who was broken up with will most likely assume that it was something they did; however, Jay Shetty Jay Shetty agrees that “so many people today just throw around the word ‘love’. It’s such a shame because they don't realize how much it affects people.” You may feel unlovable, worthless or scared to love after going through something like this. This can lead to various mental, physical and health issues and can cause things such as severe depression, and even suicide.

“How Dangerous Is a Broken Heart?”. Love is being taken advantage of by people love is not taking advantage of you. Jay Shetty believes that “ love didn't’ hurt you someone who doesn’t know how to love hurt you.” If people were honest about their feelings a lot of heartache could have been avoided.

Yes saying these words can have positive effects but they are not long term. Amy Guertin argues that saying, “I love you” can lower your stress. She suggest that “People in committed relationships tend to show lower stress levels”, reports Greenberg. Telling him that you love him may enable him to experience difficult situation with less stress and to rebound from those situations faster and more easily” (Guertin) also argues that saying the phrase “make you more trusting. Expressing love can help you and your partner to feel more secure and trusting in you relationship. Telling him that you love him can lead to more open communication, sharing of thoughts and emotion, and more positive feelings toward each other overall.”

Lastly she argues that it can help you live longer. “Deepening a connection through the expression of love can improve physical health. Greenberg reports that marriage especially for men, increase the lifespan significantly. Women, too, are helped by relationship, and show decreased levels of heart disease and also increased life spans. Expressing your love for her may not only help her live longer, but may help you live longer, as well”(Guertin).

While Amy Guertin does have a point, all of that is meaningless if the words do not come from the heart because you are giving your partner false hope. Saying the words may “reduce stress” while in your relationship, but most certainly will make it significantly harder to move on if that relationship ends. The same goes for an increased lifespan, that fact only holds true if you seriously are going to pond the rest of your life with that person and love one. Lastly trust cannot be built in the first place if you are lying to your partner and falsely telling them that you love them.

Evidently, extracting yourself from a relationship is much more complicated after telling on “you love them”. “The more we say it without purpose , the phrase loses its significance.” (Burke) Evidently “Because it is thrown around so easily, when we actually do mean it, it is devalued.”(Burke) Let’s take back the value and meaning of love by saying it truthfully so that those you really love believe it.

Work Cited

Fitzpatrick, Kirstie. “'I Love You' Has More Power Than You Might Think.”

HuffPost Australia, HuffPost Australia, 19 Aug. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com.au/ 2017/08/17/i-love-you-has-morepower-than-you-mightthink_a_23114430/.

Muria, Albany. “Is 'I Love You' Overused?” CavsConnect, Cobal Gables Senior High School, 18 Nov. 2014, www.cavsconnect.com/ opinion/2014/11/18/is-i-love-youoverused/.

Neilmekh . “I Love You Are the Three Most Powerful Word in Universe.”

Neilmekh, Blog at Worldpress.com, 17 June 2015, neilmekh.wordpress.com/ 2015/06/17/i-love-you-are-the-threemost-powerful-word-in-universe/.

The, Editors. “How Many Spoken Languages.” Infoplease, Infoplease, www.infoplease.com/askeds/howmany-spoken-languages.

Vitelli, Romeo. “How Dangerous Is a Broken Heart?” Google Search,

Google, 30 Nov. 2017, www.google.com/amp/s/ www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/ media-spotlight/201711/howdangerous-is-broken-heart%3famp.

“Why Have Divorce Rates Increased Over Time?” Attorneys.com, Legal Articles Divorce, www.attorneys.com/divorce/whyhave-divorce-rates-increased-overtime.

Animal Testing is not worth it!

By: Morgan Bussiere “Each year, more than 100 million animals— including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are killed in U.S. laboratories for chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing; biology lessons; medical training; and curiosity experimentation” (“Medical Testing on Animals is Cruel and Unnecessary”).

Animal testing is when healthy animals are taken to laboratories and are used to test products and other man made substances. Like the statement said, experimenters use cosmetics on them to make sure that they are safe for people, or they use medications. They want to see what its effects are on the animals before giving it to humans.

Should animal testing be banned or should is be pursued?

This should be an eye opener for people to show them that Animal testing needs to be banned! There are so many reasons why including that fact that animal testing is not reliable. Animals are complete different from humans! They don't get the same diseases as us and sometimes react differently to the medications or cosmetics we do. Last but not least it is obviously inhumane and just plain wrong. Animal testing it not very reliable, and does not always work. If it does work then it only provides little information. “92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don't work or are dangerous” (“Animal Testing Is Bad Science”). This statement just shows that it’s doesn’t always work and instead of animal testing helping people and curing their diseases it is doing the exact opposite.

The results may show that the drug “Diseases that are artificially induced in worked on the animals which leads the animals in a laboratory are never experimenters to think that it will work on identical to those that occur naturally in humans but they don't know that for sure human beings” (“Medical Testing on so their only solution is to give it to Animals Is Cruel and Unnecessary”). The humans and hope for the best. People results aren’t going to be exact and may be thinking “well saving some researchers are going to want very very people lives is better than none” but is it close to exact results when it come to really worth it? A human life is of course giving medication to humans. Further very valuable and important but is it evidence to suggest that animals worth the amount of money, animals, and responses are different from humans time? These healthy animals that are would be that, “The first radial brought into the keratotomies laboratories show were animal “If experimenting on one behaviors of experimentation intellectually-disabled person could distress which induced benefit 1,000 children, would we do it? effects the catastrophes.

Of course not! Ethics dictate that the results and the value of each life in and of itself cannot Surgeons be supervised by its potential value to reliability of the thought they had anyone else.” (“Animal Testing Is Bad data and perfected the Science ”) outcome. So procedure on when you think rabbits, but it about it, it's just a waste of animal life blinded the first humans” (“Animal because it doesn’t work more than half Testing Is Not Essential for Medical the time which leads to the question, Research”). This is great proof that should we keep pursuing it?Animals are animals are completely different from completely different from humans and humans and researchers can't just inject don’t get the same diseases as us. They them with diseases and test the also may react and have reacted medications on them and hope for the differently to medicines and products best when it comes to human life. In then how we would. As said before addition to not being accurate it is animals don't get the same diseases as morally wrong. us so the experimenters solution to this is to inject theses healthy animals with diseases that humans get.

Animal testing is inhumane and cruel, the things that these experiments do to these poor innocent animals is insane, and disturbing. “Before their deaths some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, other are immobilized in restraint divides for hours, some have hole drilled into their skulls and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed” (“Medical Testing on Animals Is Cruel and Unnecessary”). And if that doesn’t make matters sound worse just think of the fact that these animals have no say in what happens. They obviously cannot talk but they can think, the experimenters can do whatever they want to them and they can’t do anything about it. Imagine yourself being in the animals situation… just think about it. Not being able to speak, defend yourself, and not be able to express your opinion on the situation. Have you thought about it?

Doesn’t sound very good does it? Well that’s exactly that it is like for all of those poor animals that are tested on.

When it comes to animal testing some people might argue that it has saved lives and that it is better to test cosmetics and drugs/medicines on animals than humans. But what the people fail to see is that it is not only inhumane and cruel but it is also a waste of money, animals, and technology. They also don't see that half the time it doesn’t even work and the experiments know this but continue to test medicines/drugs and cosmetics on animals. This might be because the only information they have been exposed to was just the pros of animal testing instead of the pros and the cons. The Experimenters don't want people to know about all of the bad things about animal testing because if people knew about all of the cons then basically no one would be supporting it. This might not be the citizens fault which makes it clear that what we need to do now is make sure that people know about the really bad things about animal testing and hopefully, we can come together and put an end to it!

Work Cited “Animal Testing Is Bad Science” .Animal Rights. edited by Noah Berlatsky,Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints in Context http.//link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010954207/OVIC?u=heb76203&xid=742d7abf.

Accessed 20 Feb. 2019. Originally published as “Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint,”.

“Animal Testing Is Not Essential for Medical Research.” Animal experimentation, edited by Cindy Mur, Greenhaven Press, 2004, At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http//line.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010002221/OVIC?u=heb76203&sid=OVIC&xid= cde3d311. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019. Originally published as “Research on Animals Does Little Good.” Rocky Mountain News, 12 Oct. 1988, p. 4A. “Medical Testing on Animals Is Cruel and Unnecessary.” Medical Testing, edited by Noel, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http//ink.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010895214/OVIC?u=heb76203&sid=OVIC &xid=360d1a19. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019. Originally published as “Animal Experiments: Overview,”,2012.

Is It Good To Be Immortal?

Three months ago, on Christmas Day my father

could live for ever, but is it a good thing for

gave me a book that made me think about the

humanity? In the real world immortality has

world and life in a different way. Stephen hawking,

more bad aspects than good ones. So many

the genius that he was, tried to answer to the

people think that this type of editing is not

questions that all the humans have asked to

ethically correct, and it’s a fact that the process

themselves: How did the universe start? Is there

won’t be cheap, and that could cause wars. If

any god? Are we alone in existence? In this book

the life expectancy increases, the population

Stephen talks about how humanity is our own

will grow more quickly, and it will cause

biggest enemy and how stupid we

overpopulation. To maintain an

have been during history. This book

improved humanity, the natural

made me realize all the intricacy of

resources will end and the

the universe and how difficult is to

contamination will destroyed our

predict our future.

planet. Yet what we all really like about immortality is the idea of

Stephen Hawking’s book made me think of one

living for ever. Is it really worth it?

aspect more than others. Even thought this wasn’t his speciality, he talked about how the engineering

I don’t think that achieving that control over the

of the human DNA could be one of the biggest

human DNA will help to improve the quality of

progressive scientific explorations of the century

our lives. “Imagine a world where people are

and how it could also lead to things like choosing

born free from diseases. Surely, inhabitants of

between having a girl or a boy, stop the DNA

that world would be able to live longer and have

diseases and expand the life expectancy 200

healthier lives”(Ayres) in the article, Five

years more or even become immortal.

standout pros and cons of human genetic engineering, Ayres tried to explain the pros and

All of us have dreamt about being a vampire and

cons about the editing in the DNA. As said,

these will increase our lifetime, but not our life

to have new capabilities.

quality. The world will be full of people and we

These new capabilities could be used to improve

will have to leave our lovely planet. “Some of

our physical characteristics, and knowing how

those who support the idea of modifying the

the humanity has act with the latest inventions,

human gene believe that it improves the quality

as the nuclear reactions, that could have helped

of life, but is it really like this?” (Five standout

to improve our world, the different countries will

pros and cons of human genetic engineering,

start building superhuman armies, and it will be

Crystal Ayres)These will only cause more

the beginning of the humankind’s end. But after

problems to our world, like increasing the

discussing these cons, the last one is the most

difference between the normal humans and the

controversial, is it ethically correct?

modified ones causing the extinction of the unmodified humanity. But tearing apart the

All along the history we have discuss how

repercussions that will affect to the world, how

different situations, inventions or discovers are or

will we change?

are not ethically correct, if we really think is correct. The human editing will destroy the boundaries we have with our families. “With

I believe that improving our capabilities and

genetic engineering, the physical appearance,

erasing our defects, will make us less human.

metabolism of future children can be changed. In

This is how we are, and modifying the

fact, even their physical capabilities and mental

humankind will only make us like robots. “The

faculties( including memory and intelligence) can

technique, known as CRISPR/Cas9, let’s

be improved upon.” (Ayres) As Ayres said In Five

scientists cut-and-paste inside cells to correct

standout pros and cons of human genetic

genetic defects, or, potentially, add new

engineering, there are many people who think

capabilities. It offers enormous promise to

that is unnatural to modify the children of the

improve our understanding of biology and to

future. “Ethical concerns regarding germline

treat or even eliminate genetic diseases”( Lewis)

engineering are in the line of every fetus has the

In the article, the major concern about a powerful

right to remain unmodified”(Ayres). Is it really

new gene-editing technique that most people

correct in a natural way, to modify the future

don’t want to talk about, Lewis explain us how

population? The difference between people will

this program, CRISPR, could change our bodies

disappear and all the humanity will be equal. The

human being will stop being part of the natural world and became another creation of the humanity. And the relationship between the physical aspects with your parents will disappear.

Some scientists think that this type of DNA modification will prevent all the DNA diseases that right now are untreatable. Also, many

temptation of improving the human

astrophysicists thinks the increase of our lifetime

characteristics, like the memory, the resistance

will help to explore our unknown universe and to

against diseases and the life expectancy. When

colonize other planets. But what they does not

the superhumans arrive to this world, there will

consider is that not all the people will be able to afford that, and while some people will

be political problems

When the superhumans arrive to this world, there will be political problems with the nonimproved humans, that will not be able to compete with them.(hawking 277)

prevent this diseases

with the non-improved humans, that will not be able to compete with them. Presumably, they

and travel all along the universe, the rest of the

will die or will loose importance” ( Hawking 227).

humanity will be fighting to survive. If we achieve

All along his lifetime the human race have been

the complete control of the DNA, the remaining

in war, destroy our own, killed thousands of

humankind will be extinct.

species of animals... as intelligent beings, our behavior during the history has been horrible. In a perfect perfect world, the DNA editing and the

In conclusion, the DNA modifications have many

immortality will not be a problem, but like the

good things that will help the world to survive,

history tells us, the humankind is never smarter

but the biggest con of these is the own humanity.

enough.

We have been our biggest enemy since the beginning.“Probably, laws against the genetic engineering with humans will be approved, but some people won’t be able to resist the

Works cited:

Ayres, Crystal. “5 standout pros and cons of human genetic engineering” greengarage.com

Jul 18, 2015 https://greengarageblog.org/5-standout-pros-and-cons-of-humangenetic-engineering

Hawking, Stephen. “Brief Answers To The Big Questions” Barcelona, Spain: Crítica, 2018

Lewis, Tania.“About human germline gene editing.” geneticsanesociety.org April 17, 2015

<https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/internal-content/about-human-germline-

gene-editing>

Should Cloning Human Be Legal Or Not?

By Ray Wang

When we talk about cloning, the first thing came to most people’s mind would be Dolly, which would be the first successful cloned animal in the world.

However, with the increasingly advanced technology, cloning a human is now becoming possible.

There is a strong debate about whether or not cloning human should become legal so that every citizen could be able to clone themselves if they want. Some people believe that cloning human should never become legal because it will only bring plenty of disadvantages and negative effect on society in terms of ethical, moral and social problems.

One of the most crucial problems would be ethical problems brought by the cloned human.

“National Academy of Sciences in January 2002.2 Both reports concluded that attempts to clone a human being "at this time" would be unethical, owing to questions about the safety of the technique and the likelihood of physical harm to those involved.”(Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry)

This research shows us that the most crucial reason why cloning human should never be legal: it would cause ethical problems. If one day the cloning technology is sophisticated enough to copy an exact same human being, imagine that: after a whole day of working one returns to their home, and they saw two mothers making dinner and two fathers watching TV. That would be weird. It would be hard to find who was their original family members. One might feel like they are in a fake family and under fake love. Other researchers argue that: “The prospect of cloning-toproduce-children raises a host of moral questions, among them the following: Could the first attempts to clone a human child be made without violating accepted moral norms governing experimentation on human subjects?”(Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry) This also shows that the cloning human would not be a real human in our mind, because they’re just a replicant of another human.

There are “National Academy of Sciences in Last also problems January 2002.2 Both reports concluded but not with cloning least, technology that attempts to clone a human being cloning now. The "at this time" would be unethical, owing human technology to questions about the safety of the could was not also sophisticated technique and the likelihood of physical cause enough to harm to those involved.” plenty of copy another social human being. issue It would such as should cloning human get probably cause some genetical their identity, and should cloning mutants such as “Parkinsonism” human ability to have the same rights which is a serious disease caused by as the original citizens. “To provide a people brought less variety of genes. structure for the law, a new category In addition, even if the technology of crime was introduced into the becomes more advanced, it could still French Penal Code: “crimes against easily cause some genetic disease. “A the human species”. Simultaneously, favorable genetic mutation newly it was decreed that anyone practicing arisen in an individual can be “an operation aimed at bringing transmitted to a sizable part of the about the birth of a child who is human species only through genetically identical to another innumerable generations. However, a person, either living or deceased is new scientific discovery or technical punishable by a 30-year prison achievement can be transmitted to the sentence.”(Bertrand Pullman) In this whole of mankind, potentially at article, cloning human already least, in less than one become a crime in the laws, because it generation.”(Ayala) As we know, against the natural birth of a human, people could easily gain disease if so cloned human could never gain they married with their close relative, their identity because they’re born which would easily cause genetic illegally. Besides, cloning human problems with their children. Thus, if could also be used in the crime. For people use cloning technology to instance, a murderer could clone copy another human being, it will be himself to give them an excuse, or only your genes produced in the even stay in prison for them. cloning human body, so there would be increasing rate of genetic disease if cloning human become legal.

In addition, some people may believe that cloning human could provide them extra organs so that whenever they have some serious disease with some part of their body, they could take out the organ they need from the cloned human and cure themselves. However, That would be such an immoral decision. For instance, if someone is suffering heart-attack, and his disease could be cured if he transfers the heart from the cloned human of himself.

However, the cloned human is also a human being, it would be immoral if they can’t choose to give out their organs to cure other people or not because they could be dead if they give out their organs. Thus cloning human and use their organs to cure the original people is not acceptable morally.

In conclusion, cloning human should never be legal, not only because its technology is not sophisticated enough, but also because it would cause a serious of social, ethical and genetic problem to our society. Cloning human bring way more disadvantages than advantages so that cloning human should never be legal.

Work Cited “Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry” bioethics archive, July 2002, https:// bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/ pcbe/reports/cloningreport/ children.html Ayala, Francisco J. “Cloning humans?

Biological, ethical, and social considerations” US National Library of Medicine, 2015 Jul 20, https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC4517218/ Bertrand Pullman, “The Issues Involved in Cloning: Sociology and Bioethics” Cairn.Info, 2007/5, https:// www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-desociologie-1-2007-5-page-129.htm? contenu=article

THE IMPACT OF SMARTPHONES IN THE WORLDWIDE POPULATION.

By: Fernando Aleman “Sending anything via a phone or the Internet will be unaffected by weather conditions or human error” (How Technology Has Improved Communication). Although people might say that smartphones are making us less intelligent and very dependent on them, they fail to see how Living far away from your family is not much communication has improved thanks to always easy. Barcelona and Maine are 3,559 miles them. Also, some people argue that smartphones away from each other. I don’t get to see my family make us antisocial and that we spend more time everyday as I would like, but thanks to smartphones looking down to the screen rather than interacting I’m just a few seconds away from talking with them. with other people face to face. According to the With just one click I can talk with anybody in the magazine Daily Mail, “Researchers say addiction planet, no matter how far they are. One hundred to our devices stems from a desire for MORE years earlier this wasn’t possible, and it would personal connection” (Are smartphones really probably take between six months or one year to making us anti-social?). This research, proves send a letter from the United States of America to that people want to communicate more with other Europe, and it was not even sure if your letter was people that don’t necessarily have to be in front going to arrive. According to “Recorde.net”, the of them because with smartphones, you can average price of a smartphone is $ 363.00 USD. This communicate with more than one people at the means that a smartphone is pretty affordable for same time. Another fact is that thanks to almost everybody. That’s why: “The number of smartphones, there are other ways of mobile phones users in the world is expected to pass communicating: "Cell phones the five billion mark by 2019. gave us back our sense of In an estimated 62.9 percent of connection in a world that “FUTURE IS MOBILE COMPUTING. the population worldwide isolates us" said Helen SMARTPHONES AND TABLETS ARE already owned a mobile phone.

Sandstorm in the article: JUST ELEMENTS OF IT. THE INDUSTRY The mobile phone penetration (Pros y contras de vivir con IS ON THE VERGE OF A WHOLE NEW is forecasted to continue to un smartphone en mano).

PARADIGM.” grow, rounding up to 67 Smartphones are useful -THORSTEIN HEINS percent by 2019” (Number of in risky situation for mobile phones users everybody, for us and or for worldwide from 2015 to 2020) the army or the police. 9-1-1 Some people believe that cell phones have made a Statics say that “an estimated 240 million calls negative impact on us because they think that are made to 9-1-1 in the U.S. each year. In many smartphones make us stupid, dependent on them and areas, 80% or more are from wireless also that they make us antisocial. On the other hand, devices” (9-1-1 Statistics). 9-1-1 is an emergency there are people who believe that smartphones make phone number for the North American our life easier; they help you in risky situations, and Numbering Plan. This statistic proves that they are a new way of communication. Also, behind smartphones are helpful in emergency situations all its technology there is hard work made by many to ask for help. There are hundreds of thousands people developing new software, hardware, apps, etc, car crashes a day in the United States, some of each day. This means that thanks to smartphones, them more serious than others but it doesn’t new jobs are created, and the area of technology, the matter what you can still call for help thanks to future, is more and more developed. Cell phones the mobile phone, yet people will still believe that have improved our communication with other smartphones aren’t good for us. people. When cell phones didn’t exist people only had letters, and it wasn’t a hundred percent sure that your letter was going to arrive to your destination due to weather conditions.

What they fail to see is how helpful are smartphones in situations such as terrorist attacks.

“Intelligence from cell phone technology helped U.S. forces find and kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, said an Iraqi army colonel Friday in an exclusive interview with CNN” (Cell phone tracking helped find al-Zarqawi). This quote makes us understand how helpful smartphones are for our personal safety and how useful are for the army or police.

Thanks to technology the U.S army was able to track this phone to find the location of the terrorist. The police and the army are able to connect to individuals’ cameras to see who is looking at the phone and who they are surrounded by. They only do that in situations of national emergency such as a terrorist attack, if they suspect that the terrorist is near an individual.

Although that is a really good reason to like smartphones, is not the only one. Smartphones companies make a lot of money and that’s good for the World economy.

Thanks to the smartphones, many job positions are created. There are many different companies, ones that create the smartphone. Also, the ones that create the operative system, others who are in charge of telephony contracts, etc.

Research says, “Currently the sector generates 10.5 million direct jobs worldwide and it is expected that by the year 2020 it will generate 15.4 million jobs. This industry contributes 3.6% to world GDP, and in 2020 its contribution will be 5%” (¿Cuál es el impacto de la industria móvil en la mundial?). Studies and predictions tell us that the area of smartphone yet has to grow more, the numbers will still grow for a long time and more jobs and money will be generated. That is another fact that people can’t see about them, how much money they make for the world and how much unemployment would happen without them.

There are more than five million apps in the world so, imagine how many workers are behind all the process of making an app.

The example is obvious when we look at this study, “In 2015 the total revenue generated across all mobile operating systems was about $70 billion, in 2016 this number reached $88 billion. By 2020 the combined mobile app revenue will reach a staggering $189 billion” (Apprevenues2017). There are apps for everything, entertainment apps, apps to order food, apps to find jobs, and even apps to take photos, this wasn’t possible with conventional cellphones, so that’s another example of the positive change to smartphones.

Another crazy addition to the world of smartphones, is that know a days some people get to know others thanks to apps that match you with another person. Even some of them get, marry thanks to smartphones.Although people might argue that cellphones distract us, and make us addicted to them, cellphones are a very powerful tool if used correctly. Some will say that people are always walking down the street looking down at their phones because they’re “addicted” and they run into a lamppost. The culprit of hitting a lamppost walking down the street is more the lack of attention than the smartphone.

Smartphone are a very powerful tool that still have to be more developed. They make our life easier, they help us to communicate and express ourselves, they allow us to talk with people that are far away from you, they generate money and jobs, and they help the army and us in risky situations. With smartphones, we are able to do things that were impossible a hundred years ago, and the growth of this area doesn’t seem to end. Imagine what the future holds! For all the people who believe that our life’s without smartphone will be easier, don’t you think that living without them means saying goodbye to the future and returning a hundred years ago in time. Finally, without smartphones, I will not be able to communicate with the most important thing in my life, my family, that are 3,559 miles away from me.

Works cited “Pros and Cons of Cell Phones.” Green Garage. Web. 2019.

Molla, Rani. “Why people are buying more expensive smartphones than they have in years.” Recorde.net. Jan 23. 2018. Web. 24 Feb. 2019.

“Number of mobile phone users worldwide from 2015 to 2020” Statista.com.

2019. Web. 24 Feb. 2019.

Wright, James.

“How Technology Has Improved Communication” Itsstillwork.com. 2009.

Web. 24 Feb. 2019.

MacDonald, Cheyenne. “Are smartphones really making us anti-social?”

DailyMail.com. 8 March 2018. Web. 24 Feb. 2019.

Sandstorm, Helen. “Pros y contras de vivir con un Smartphone en mano” Selecciones.com. 21 December 2017. Web. 24 Feb. 2019.

“9-1-1 Statistics” NENA.org. Web. 24 Feb. 2019.

“Cell phone tracking helped find alZarqawi” CNN.com. 10 June. 2006. Web. 24 Feb. 2019. “¿Cuál es el impacto de la industria móvil en la mundial?”

BlogBancoPopular.com. 14 March 2014.

Web. 24 Feb. 2019.

“App revenues 2017” Apprevenues.com. Web. 24 Feb. 2019.

Puerto Rico’s Progress To Statehood

By: Eric Stubbe

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated

Puerto Rico should not be

territory of the United States

admitted as the 51st state because

located in the northeast Caribbean

these islands have a distinct

Sea. In 1898, the United States

culture, their own traditions,

appropriated Puerto Rico together

cuisine, holidays and lifestyle. The

with most former Spanish colonies

lifestyle and culture of Puerto

under the terms of the Treaty of

Ricans are just the opposite to the

Paris. Puerto Ricans are born as

capitalistic culture of the US. Most

American citizens. They use

Puerto Ricans speak Spanish, and

American dollar as their currency,

Spanish is a dominant language

but do not have a vote in Congress

(“51st stateâ€). Only 10 percent

and are not the US state. The

of Puerto Ricans use English in

question of becoming part of the

their daily life. If Puerto Rico

US has been widely discussed

becomes a state, islands will lose

among officials at various levels.

their cultural identity, and Spanish

Some people argue that Puerto

and African roots will fade away.

Rico should become the US state while others have the opposite opinion. Puerto Rico should not become a state because it is culturally different, economically undeveloped, and lacks the will to become a state.

The second issue why Puerto Rico

The heavy debt load, high

should not become the 51st US

unemployment, and drug usage

state is the level of economic

will worsen the US stats for

development and drug addiction.

unemployment and drug usage

Although the World Bank

rates and the heavy debt load will

classifies Puerto Rico as a high-

also become the US dept to pay

income economy and they are

and it might drive the US to

successfully competing with other

bankruptcy.

Latin economies, Puerto Rico has

The third issue is that most Puerto

a huge governmental debt of more

Ricans don't want to become a

than 74 million US Dollars

state. Most citizens of Puerto Rico

(Perez). Even with this huge debt,

are satisfied with the present

the country did not manage to

conditions and do not have any

become self-sufficient and

will to become a state. In fact,

effective. Over 46 percent of

most Puerto Ricans are not

citizens live below the poverty

interested in becoming a state.

level (“A Definitive Pro-Con

There is not a majority among

List For Admitting Puerto Rico In

Puerto Ricans willing to become

As Our 51st State. 2019†).

the US state. Only 39 percent of

Moreover, Puerto Rico has an

the citizens wish to become a state,

extremely high level of

while another 46 percent are

unemployment which equals to 15

satisfied with the current status

percent. In addition, Puerto Rico

and 1 percent seek

has a high firearm homicide rate

independence(history of Puerto

that is associated with drug

Rico). Moreover, they do not have

addicts. Thus, the heavy debt load,

any patriotic feelings for the USA

high unemployment, and drug

and do not share American idols,

usage may worsen the economy of

ideas of independence and

the US.

democracy.

If Puerto Rico becomes the 51st

To conclude, it is essential to

state they would be able to enjoy

reaffirm that Puerto Rico should

both benefits associated with

not become the US state for

statehood and they would be able

several reasons. They have a

to develop their own industry and

distinct culture that will be

workforce on the island. Becoming

dismissed when fully acquired by

a state would increase local job

the US. The majority of Puerto

opportunities on the island and it

Ricans do not support the idea of

would allow locals to fully benefit

becoming a state. What is more,

from their health care plans.We

Puerto Rico has high debt and

would be allowed to vote in U.S.

unemployment, which will have a

presidential elections and federal

negative impact on the US

elections and on issues, bills and

economy. The US has already

reforms that affect us. But what

granted many advantages to Puerto

most people don't see is that 39%

Rico, however, the possible

of Puerto Ricans don't want to

joining as a state might affect both

become a state and if we become a

the US and Puerto Rico.

state we might drive the U.S to bankruptcy. Puerto Rico is an island with a different culture our own traditions and different holidays than the United States.

The majority of the people on the island speak more spanish and barely use english. The high debt and unemployment will have a negative impact on the U.S. economy.

Works Cited

pushes-for-statehood-explained.

Zezima, Katie. “Puerto Rico

“51st State.” Wikipedia,

Pushes for Statehood, Calling It a

Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Feb.

Civil Rights Issue.” The

2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Washington Post, WP Company,

51st_state.

27 June 2018,

“A Definitive Pro-Con List For

www.washingtonpost.com/

Admitting Puerto Rico In As Our

national/puerto-rico-pushes-for-

51st State. 2019.” The Odyssey

statehood-calling-it-a-civil-rights-

Online. https://

issue/

www.theodysseyonline.com/

2018/06/27/717c5092-7a43-11e8-

puerto-ricans-second-class-

93cc-6d3beccdd7a3_story.html.

citizens-seeking-statehood.

Perez, Talia Klein. “Should Puerto

“History of Puerto Rico: 1950 -

Rico Become the 51st State?”

2018. 2019.”

Theperspective.com/, 17 Sept.

Welcome.topuertorico.org. http://

2018, www.theperspective.com/

welcome.topuertorico.org/

debates/politics/puerto-rico-

history6.shtml.

become-51st-state/.

“Current Economic Crisis, Which Began around 2008, Has Renewed the Effort to Gain Statehood. More Federal Money Would Flow to Puerto Rico If It Were a State, Though It Would Also Increase Federal Taxes on the People Who Live There.” Hypothesis – The Internet, Peer Reviewed., hyp.is/ NjCKiCZXEem0Ore-_HZ1qA/ www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ 2018/1/11/15782544/puerto-rico-

Gun Control By : Trevor Swanbeck

in the history of America action should be In America we have experienced some events that have made us rethink our

taken to stop what is happening.

The five most deadliest shooting in

laws. Events like the five deadliest

the last ten years, makes us realize that as

shootings in America have happened in the

guns get more and more stronger the

last ten years (Willingham). As these

number of casualties of the shooting will

problems keep happening, it looks like if

become larger. If there is no action on this

action does not start soon then we will be

then the five most deadly shootings will

experiencing more and more tragic events. The argument that have been the top of every political debate is whether that

just become

â&#x20AC;&#x153;one piece of this argument that does not make sense is why does someone need a semi automatic gun just to kill a deerâ&#x20AC;?

smaller compared to the shootings that may happen in the future with

guns should be allowed

the evolution of

because it is our Second

guns. Another fact

Amendment right, or there should be

about mass shootings is that in 2017 there

stricter restrictions for the buying of guns,

were 307 shooting where there were four

or that there should be no guns allowed in

or more people killed (Willingham). Just

America. Guns should be outlawed all

looking at the minimum of these numbers

together because of the rise in mass

that means that 1228 deaths are caused

shootings, the percentage of guns used for

just from incidents with mass shootings.

self protection rather for hunting, and the

This shows that if we don't make any laws

success other countries have had with strict

restricting guns, then this problem will

restrictions on guns. As we have

stay and more friends and family

experienced our worst ever mass shooting

members will have to die just so people can use guns to hunt for animals.

When we look at the laws protecting gun

This just shows us that to have a country

ownership have been put there so that

where one can become anything one

people may use their guns to hunt for

wants to be taking away the things that are

animals, but not everyone buys their guns

stopping us from doing what someone

for that reason. When we see this we

wants to be is what America should do.

believe that there are a greater percentage

Then when you look at Americas mass

of gun users for hunting, but when the actual percentages are examined one finds out that only thirty percent of gun owner use

shootings in the past forty years you can see that America has four times the amount of mass shooting than the country with the

them for hunting(Enten).

second most mass

This just shows us that the

shooting(Willingham). But

other seventy percent use

this is just one side of the

there guns for self protection, but if there were no other guns allowed then what

argument. Some people believe that since the ownership of guns is part of our

would you need to protect yourself from?

Second Amendment then guns should be

Another percentage shows us that there is a

allowed so the people so that we can hunt

gun for every American but only a third of

for sport. But one peice of this argument

us own them(Enten). So why do we need so

that does not make sense is why does

many guns, and does this also show us that

someone need a semi automatic gun just

some guns were obtained illegally? What

to kill a deer. A semi automatic gun is not

kind of representation of America does this

necessity to hunting. Even if all guns are

show other countries?

not taken away, shouldn't there be better

Usually when people talk about

restrictions? Like creating a law where it

America they say it is the greatest country

is illegal to buy semi automatic guns, and

in the world where one has the possibility

making sure all personal are checked for

for doing anything, but how can America

prior problems before obtaining a gun.

be the greatest country in the world there has been 160 times more shootings than the U.K(Weller)

In conclusion gun laws should be changed because one, mass shootings are on the rise and they could get worse. Two, the percentage of guns actually used for hunting is surprisingly few. Three, other countries have had success with restricting gun sales, and if we are so called the greatest country in the world, then why can't we follow suit. It is time that we should at the least restrict gun ownership, and at the most take away guns in general. In order to stop mass shooting we must start with gun control.

Works Cited

"Gun Control." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2018. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/PC3010999212/OVIC? u=heb76203&sid=OVIC&xid=85b4e . Â Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.

Enten, Harry. “There's a Gun for Every American. Less than 1/3 Own Guns.†CNN, Cable News Network, 15 Feb. 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-manyamerica/index.html.

Weller, Chris. “These 4 Countries Have Nearly Eliminated Gun Deaths - Here's What the US Can Learn.†The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 18 Feb. 2018, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-america-learn-japanaustralia-uk-norway-florida-shooting-latest-news-a8216301.html.

Willingham, AJ, and Saeed Ahmed. “Mass Shootings in America Are a Serious Problem -- and     These 9 Charts Show Just Why.†CNN, Cable News Network, 6 Nov. 2017, www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and-graphs-trnd/ index.html.

When a human wants to die but the law gets on the way By: Alfredo Blanco

Euthanasia is one of the subjects that have Declaration of Human Rights), faced intense debate over time; the therefore any human has the right to make legalization of euthanasia have been the decisions they want with their lives. To debated for many years with different put in another way, any patient has the right views presented in terms of ethical to terminate their lives whenever and and legal considerations for both however they want to. Brittany patients and health care providers. But Maynard, a 29-year old with stage 4 first of all what is euthanasia?

Glioblastoma multiforme (a malignant Euthanasia is the termination of an brain tumor) said about her disease extremely ill person’s life in order to and how she want to end her relieve them from the suffering the illness is life:"There is not a cell in my body that is causing. Euthanasia is usually only suicidal or that wants to die. I want to live. I conducted on a person with an incurable wish there was a cure for my disease but condition; however, there are other instances there's not... My glioblastoma is going to kill when euthanasia can be carried out. The me, and that's out of my control. I've United States, the states of Washington, discussed with many experts how I would Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, die from it, and it's a terrible, Vermont, Montana, terrible way to die. Being able “I have prepared for my to choose to go with dignity is Washington DC, and death and have made it less terrifying…”(ProCon.Org).

California have legalized euthanasia or Physicianclear that I do not wish to Brittany made a campaign with Assisted Suicide; however, be kept alive at all costs. I Compassion & Choices to this legalization should be raise awareness about Death hope I am treated with applied in all the states with Dignity laws. She states compassion and allowed that she and her family had to mainly for three reasons: people are free to choose to pass onto the next go through a huge amount of when and how they want to phase of life’s journey in sacrifice in order to change end their lives, a person has the manner of my choice.” their residency from California the right to live, so why a to Oregon since in California, —Desmond Tutu. patient can’t have the right to euthanasia was not legal. This die if they want to?; the value sacrifice wouldn’t exist if of living no longer exists for the patient, in euthanasia is legalized in all the states. other words the desire of living has People want to live because they enjoy the disappeared; thus, the person affected may value of living. When this value disappear in want to end their life because they doesn’t a person and whatever their circumstances enjoy it any more; and euthanasia can lead are, it means they are in discomfort so they to the end of suffering for a patient in a devalue their lives. David Goodall stated in dignified. On December 10, 1948 the an interview prior to his death via voluntary General Assembly of the United Nations euthanasia. "Up to the age of 90 I was adopted and proclaimed the Universal enjoying life, but not now. It has passed me Declaration of Human Rights. Article three of by, and I have done the best I can with it. My this Declaration reads as follows, “everyone abilities and eyesight are declining, and I no has the right to life, liberty and security of

to live this way”(ProCon.Org). If death is not always seen to be the worst outcome, then many of the objections to euthanasia no longer exist, since many of the arguments rely on the notion that death can’t be a good outcome. People generally avoid death because they enjoy and value being alive, but in the case of a terminally ill patient or any person that no longer wants to live for external reasons, they may be in a lot of discomfort and pain, and are unable to enjoy their life. This may cause the patient to devalue their life, and the patient may decide that they do not wish to endure their suffering any longer.

Euthanasia can lead to end of suffering for patients with painful disease or who are terminally ill.William Penn Adair Rogers an American stage and motion picture actor, vaudeville performer, American-cowboy, humorist, newspaper columnist, and social commentator from Oklahoma stated that: “Pain is such an uncomfortable feeling that even a tiny amount of it is enough to ruin every enjoyment” (Wise Old Sayings). It is clear that no one likes to suffer, but still you can suffer if you are fighting for something big, such as life. People who suffer from cancer or have a non-curable disease fight every day against the problem they have and every time they start a new day it is a new battle. There are all kinds of people in this world and there will be people who will fight for their lives more than others, but those people who can no longer with their bodies and who are in constant suffering, probably want to put an end to that suffering. In a BBC interview, the scientist Stephen Hawking stated, "I think those who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their lives and those that help them should be free from prosecution. We don’t let animals suffer, so why humans?"(ProCon.Org). Basically Stephen Hawking is saying that in the world that we leave now we, humans, are doing everything that is our hand to make animals not suffer, so why we don’t apply that to humans? Humans have the ability to rationalise; consequently, we should listen to

their desires. On the one hand, people that are not in favor of euthanasia to be legalized are right when they say that euthanasia can be contemplated as murder because a physician is killing patient. But what they fail to see is that when you undergo an important operation or a medical intervention because otherwise your life expectancy is low, you do not tell the doctor that you want to die. Of course prior to the operation the doctor will notify you of the complications that the operation can have but you trust their abilities.

In some cases these operations can go well, but in others they do not work out as well and you can even die in the operating room. In this case a doctor has finished your life but you knew before that something in the operation could go wrong.

Morally, a doctor would not feel so bad if he ends the life of a patient who had previously asked for it and he knew that was his desire, to end the life of a patient who trusted him to save his life. By extension, euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide are not about removing artificial life support, or “pulling the plug” as it is colloquially stated. That is already an option. Everyone has the right to d i e n a t u r a l l y. V i r t u a l l y a l l m e d i c a l professionals and courts of law respect these difficult family decisions, and recognize that the removal of artificial life support is not assisted suicide or euthanasia. In this other case when a physician turns off the machine that is keeping alive a patient is because the patient desire that, so this example could also be applied for euthanasia. Clearly, euthanasia has more positive aspects than negative and should be legalised in all the states of the United States. This will mean that people who wants to end their life with dignity or they don’t want to suffer any more, will no longer have to change their residence like Brittany had to. In addition, euthanasia is a concept that only affects people who are in constant suffering or who want to end their lives in a dignified way, therefore people who are against the legalization of euthanasia do not know real situation of these patients and the suffering they are going through, and

maybe in a future they are the ones that are in huge pain so they request euthanasia.

Works Cited

ProCon.org. "Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?"

ProCon.org. 15 May 2018, euthanasia.procon.org/ view.answers.php? questionID=001320.

“Claiming Human Rights.” Article 5, UNESCO, 2010, www.claiminghumanrights.org/ udhr_article_3.html#at4.

“WISE OLD SAYINGS.” Curiosity Sayings and Curiosity Quotes | Wise Old Sayings, 2016, www.wiseoldsayings.com/ pain-quotes/

“Will Rogers.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Jan. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Will_Rogers.

Niekerk, Anton van. “We Have a Right to Die with Dignity. The Medical Profession Has a Duty to Assist.” The Conversation, The Conversation, 19 Sept. 2018, theconversation.com/we-have-a-right-todie-with-dignity-the-medical-profession-hasa-duty-to-assist-67574.