Doctors obviously signed the controversial bill because they believes it would help people. Yes, it seems the poor are the ones getting hit, but in reality, it costs less to have assisted suicide than healthcare. The government, with costs of healthcare raging, is trying to provide the best possible option for these people. Some of them may have problems beyond the scope of help. Assisting death in no way precludes giving the best care possible but rather integrates compassionate care and respect for the patient's autonomy and ultimately makes death with dignity a real option. These people may want to die, to make it simpler for themselves. Doctors wouldn't agree to sign the bill unless they believed it would help. Considering the way we finance healthcare in the United States, it would be hard to make a case that there is a financial imperative compelling us to adopt physician-assisted suicide in an effort to save money so that others could benefit.

These are indeed reasons and percents that are scary that show people's stupidity sometimes. But, some people are looking to end their lives because they aren't enjoyable. And, one of the things listed in the Declaration of Independence are Thomas' Jefferson's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If people don't want to live because they no longer pursue happiness, and there is no mending them, it may be best for them to die. They have the right to it by law. In addition, the right to an ill person dying is liberty. All these activities listed are health issues, and, if blown out of proportion, may be mental health issues worthy of euthanasia.

Others can make a point saying that they did in fact work together and (miraculously) came to a compromise, which you said they still need to do.

Someone could argue that even though they were against it, Republicans finally admitted defeat.

People who are ignorant will think this is a bias comment and will not listen even with the evidence presented.

Some people do not care about what happens to others. As long as they are doing well, they will not believe there is a problem until it is their turn to be debt.

The descriptive word paralyzing creates imagery that portrays a life vs. death situation. He has been so courageous in defending himself and others in order to gain freedom.

He uses the technique of leaving a personal connection with his audience. A nice way to close it off but also get the audience hooked in before a big statement is made.

Clearly exclaiming that the church is no longer at the place it used to be. I believe he is trying to imply that if they were in the same state of power they wouldn't let the people of God suffer.

He is using a sort of technique of questioning himself, by this his audience has a tendency to question as well. He then continues with a reassurance to himself as well.

To his audience segregation seems like a normalcy, but he utilizes the word "disease" to emphasize it is not a normal thing. He emphasizes that it is something that is spread, but it can be stopped.

This uses cause and affect within the writing. Especially by giving the example of meeting "young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust." It not only relates to the church, but it also relates to the future generations, those who will be running the country.

He signs this letter Peace and Brotherhood, trying to show he is attempting to reach a common understanding with his audience. He is trying instill a sort of trust and understanding, but at the same time he is trying to bring conclusion to all the points he was making.

This article states that they want complete independence from their government and in result have to deal with poverty, yet is this article a little one sided? Looking at other sides of this issue articles state that the Zapistas (though wanting to be independent) are actually wanting government aid to help their poverty and illiteracy (https://www.globalenvision.org/library/3/721). Can the Zapistas and the government come to a compromise?

How is this possible and what is meant by an autonomous hospital? A Zapatista one or a privately owned one?? How is it that they can be so much cheaper? do they work with natural remedies or discounted supplies? do they simply charge less then "typical" hospitals?

Is there really a connection between these two things or is it just a clever observation?? Yes there is more social resistance but does that mean it affects everything down to a persons driving?

There should be a middle ground solution. Instead of panhandling or no panhandling near kids. There should be a solution that meets in the middle that not only supports children's safety but the well being of the homeless as well.

What about the homeless? They have the right to be able to get the little change/food scraps that they can.

Due to the large cost of supporting these fast-food workers, even if the minimum wage was raised, tax payers would most likely still be supporting public programs like food stamps and Medicaid; the raise would not get rid of these programs.

It is possible that people would save their money that they made instead of spending it.

If the minimum wage were raised to be this high, then CEO's of big companies would likely counteract the improvement by cutting back on jobs.

This is compelling factual evidence to support the theory that not only is the minimum wage not enough, but that it has actually declined from its previous state in which it was enough.

This is the same rate that EMS personnel, workers who have gone through years of medical training, are paid. Do people who flip burger's at Mc'Donald's deserve the same rate as people who save lives?

Some people argue that working in industries like fast food is supposed to be a "stepping stone job" and that increasing minimum wage encourages people to remain there instead of seeking out real work.

Raising the minimum wage has consequences not only with job loss, but it would also cause the cost of many previously cheap products to rise. For example, the Dollar Menu at McDonald's with a $15 minimum wage could change to the $5 Menu.

How many of the teenagers need a raise to survive or do most of them have financial help from their parents?

Are these workers, which happen to be mostly teenagers, likely to keep the job for a long time or do many of them come and go? If people continue to change jobs often, the training costs will still be there, even if the wage is higher.

The wealthy will always find a way to stay in power at the expense of the poor.

This is an optimistic thought, but the result would likely be a significant job loss as companies decrease the number of employees in order to counteract the increased amount of money they have to spend on them, and this would be negative for the economy.

Another popular argument is that if the minimum wage is raised people will lose jobs. In this case does that mean people will be able to spend more, but that there will be less people to do the spending?

Some would say that these people simply need to get more jobs or find a better one.

The author is implying that Republicans are creating voter ID laws strictly to hurt the number of votes that the Democratic party will get.

the author is implying that voter ID laws are really preventative of Democrat votes on the republican party's part.

How has this been allowed to continue for so many years if it is clearly wrong, and what is going to be done to stop it?

if voter laws truly are the third oldest profession, how realistic is it that we'll actually see an end to it?

By making this argument, would you be pushing voting laws to be even more strict and restrain even more people? Is it easier to level the playing ground, making voting equally as hard for everyone, or to try to make things easier full?

Where is the evidence to prove it is non-addictive? Obviously heroine is addictive so drug users keep using it, but how do we know Narcan isn't addictive if Heroin over-dosers have to use it? There needs to be a lot more evidence to support this statement.

How do you know experts feel this way? Where is the evidence to prove this statement and are there studies to prove that ibuprofen is safer? Although this statement may seem true at first, there needs to be further research on your part to see if there is evidence to support all of this.

How do you know that this wasn't just an odd week where there were 18 drug overdose calls. On could argue that this isn't substantial proof that drug overdoses occur often. If there can be 18 drug overdose calls one week whose to say there can't be zero calls the next week?

Perhaps with the legalization of illegal drugs, even more hard core drugs like heroin, more education around the topic can be generated. For example when, where, and how to appropriately use a specific drug and the possible consequences of using these drugs. Most of the problems that come from using drugs is not using them correctly or not understanding what could go wrong. Also, this problem could be prevented by having an age limit for those who wish to purchase drugs and regulations on how much a person can purchase during a set amount of time. However, the real point should be that drugs isn't the biggest threat to the human population. Out of the top 19 health concerns in the world having childhood where they're underweight is the highest and alcohol (some may argue a legal drug) is ranked 3rd. While illicit drugs are ranked 18th. (https://ncadd.org/blogs/in-the-news/2-5-million-alcohol-related-deaths-worldwide-annually)

Could the police really just be using the use of marijuana to potentially get a criminal for another offense? I don't think they are intruding on the lives of citizens, it was most likely used to arrest criminals for an offense because they couldn't yet be arrested for another, not to just intrude on their lives.

Where is the evidence about the decriminalization? I also don't think they are favorable, and just because there was a decline in youth use rates doesn't mean it is completely gone.

Could the public's safety be at risk though? If you are driving high, or operating machinery while under the influence of cannabis you could hurt other people. Being high at any place besides your free time where you are safe can be dangerous to the public.

I for sure know this isn't true because I was reading an article about how people in Colorado are getting laid off because they are failing drug tests at their jobs. State law may let people use pot, but private organizations are the ultimate decider for their employees. Marijuana may have done a lot of good for Colorado, but it also has hurt it.

Considering the unemployment rate is at its lowest since 2008, progress in the economy has been happening quite a few years before the legalization of marijuana. I just think it's not safe to say that the legalization is the reason for the fast growing economy. There are clearly other reasons.

Do we believe that our society and each country will choose the environment over their own market or greed? And if they won't, what should be the actions taken against them if any?

The fact that there are 188 countries is promising and indicates a chance at actual progress towards making real change towards our world's carbon emissions, but do you think that these countries will all take the necessary steps to make the change we need?

Many people have opinions about GMO's, and in general about things without having the necessary background and education.

Sounds concerning to our health.

Could it be a good thing that religion has curbed the research? Does it in some ways protect religion freedom?

How would the people who do believe life starts at conception (which is a large portion of the population) be able to accept this form of research?

This scares me. This is because first it goes against the laws of religion just a little too far. God gave each person a gift. This gift is Parkinson's disease, strokes, ect. By using stem cells, we are playing God. Think about it. If we have control of people's lives, whether they live or die, doesn't that make us God? In addition, this is leading to the point of cloning. Cloning is defined as to propagate an organism as a clone. Stem cell research allows for therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning occurs when an adult undergoes a cloning procedure to duplicate his own cells in order stop personal disease, illness or the effects from sudden and serious injury. This procedure also begins by creating a clone of the adult through somatic cell transfer because you are using someone else's cells. Cloning has always been a controversy in the Catholic church. If we are injecting cells from other people into ourselves,doesn't that make us clones of them? If this doesn't stop, we could get to the point in the book Unwind, where people cannot control their ligaments because they have been infused with other people's cells.

This is a controversy, but only if embryonic stem cells are used. I would agree there is a problem with embryonic stem cell research because so many unborn fetuses are killed by being frozen. This also violates the Catholic Church. However, if adult stem cells are used, those aren't unborn fetuses. Those are cells that do not yet have one designated purpose. It hurts no one to use adult stem cells, and they have the same effect as embryonic stem cells. In addition, there has to be a balance between religion and science. The catholic church should concede that the killing of unborn fetuses is okay especially if they would be unborn anyways. However, science has to concede they aren't going to get every unborn fetus, and that they must dispose of the fetuses in a respectable manner.

Why could deporting illegal immigrants from the country be a good thing?

Trump's claim that immigrants who come here are immigrants are false. Most people who immigrant to America are looking for work and a better life for their family. This is an example of nativism.

I just wonder how effective this tactic would be and if it's worth the time he would need to put into it and worth the pause he'll put on the work force

Maybe he's attempting to shut it down because he cares for our people, and not because he doesn't like immigrants.

Maybe the reason border debacles happen are because Americans are much too aggressive, so those people crossing the border feel so threatened they end up defending themselves which ends up in American deaths.

If the government were to put more regulations on the nutrition of school lunches how would they combat the angry students and lunch ladies that like things the way they are?

How would those who oppose the First Lady's movement react to their children having to follow her guidelines at school? Would there be protests? How would 'Let's Move' counteract the protests?

I don't think that people are receiving benefits from these drugs I think that they are addicted and our willing to risk their quality of life for it because they feel like they can't live without it.

I think that the negatives of using hard drugs is enough for people to realize that legalizing all drugs would turn out to be a very reckless society.

This would be impossible to tax. There would still be a black market with other countries that people would use in order to evade the tax imposed by the government.

I would agree 100% that people should be able to choose what's best for them, but not when their choices could hurt others. I can see the benefits to marijuana in a few instances, but there is no benefit for hard drugs like heroine or cocaine. All these drugs can offer people is a brief period of relief from life, but then reality sets back in and they've only hurt themselves (and possibly others).

Anti-smoking campaigns have been airing for years. Legalizing marijuana just sets that back further. No smoke is the best smoke no matter what is behind the smoke.

Some might argue that the black markets might also be a result of unstable individuals who are simply looking for unconventional ways to retrieve something at a possible better deal or circumstance. Someone could be stealing cigarette packs and selling them for a cheaper price, yet cigarettes are legal.

With the exception of alcohol, these deaths do not accompany serious side effects, addiction, and all the other horrors that accompany drug related issues. This is very hard to compare with the only similarity being a fatal ending for the person involved.

While Marijuana cannot cause a lethal overdose, some might argue that being in an impaired state could cause harm to yourself or others without being fully aware.

According to the title of this benefit marijuana protects the brain from concussion, and trauma but states here that it only lessened the bruising of the brain. This experiment has also only been done on mice. How can that guarantee that it will have the same effect on humans?

The question that I find isn't stressed enough is: if the head transplant is not considered "ethical" in humans, why is it considered "ethical" on animals?

I feel like this article lacks further explanation in the doctors' thinking process and strategy. Elaborating more on what exactly it is that made the doctors "estimate" that the patient would be able to walk after a year would be helpful in engaging the audience more.

Any medical practice needs to go through a huge variety of trials before it can be considered. This is clearly not done which would need to change.

This procedure requires that the whole donor is transplanted. More people facing serious conditions could be helped if the organs were donated in other bad situations, (25 lives could be saved or improved as opposed to the one that the head transplant could aid) and scientists question its feasibility. It does not seem worth it.

There are families that are concern that a sex education class that teaches only these things assume that kids will engage in sex no matter what and that it makes it sound okay for them to have sex. The classes hardly teach that abstinence is another choice kids have.

Parents have the right to decide how they will raise their children and what they (under the adult legal age) can or can not be taught. An abstinence only sex education would perhaps serve as a foundation and further education if wanted can take place in the household.

Such a requirement may be necessary to give parents the option to opt out their children due to strong religious beliefs.

Once we let in 10,000 refugees, what is to say we won't let even more as Europe gets overwhelmed with refugees. Allowing a large amount of refugees can pose an economic burden in communities.

People feel that terrorism in the U.S is a very real threat. Even though America should have compassion towards Syrian, at the end of the day people feel that America needs to do what is best for the nation and its citizens to protect them before we we allow avenues for a terrorist attack.

But if college was tuition-free how high do you think taxes would rise?

I didn't realize lower education wasn't always free. Very interesting.

If a car breaks the law, the driver would be responsible.

The driver would be responsible, but does that mean we shouldn't have them? What about a self-driving taxi service? The company would be responsible but companies are already responsible in today's taxi world. There are many alternatives to just selling them to the public.

*DMV attorney Brian Soublet said the agency appreciates the potential benefits for disabled people, but its focus has to be on the safety of the entire motoring public.**

I don't really understand how self-driving cars would be more dangerous for public as a whole? There's no chance of the car drunk driving or falling asleep.

If a car breaks the law, the driver would be responsible.

This is another huge issue that is going to take years of writing regulation and debate.

Google has concluded that human error is the biggest danger in driving, and the company wants to remove the steering wheel and pedals from cars of the future, giving people minimal ability to intervene.

Although a majority of the time self driving cars will be more accurate as the engineers at Google have determined there are going to ethical dilemmas are still present if the car must crash how does it determine the who is put in danger.

In her essay, Amanda Geller explains that paternal incarceration often results in high rates of juvenile delinquency. So high African American arrests will likely have an effect on family dynamics and influences children of incarcerated parents to alter their behaviors.

I read in another article, that the police claims that one of the reasons why they stop blacks so often is because if they live in higher crime neighborhoods, their actions often trigger the police's "suspicion instinct".

While it is important not to fall into the "us" vs. "them" mentality, it is equally important to remember that there are two sides to an issue, if not more.

The immigration system needs to be reformed even though doing this will be difficult. To do this, the history of immigration in America needs to be considered.

True, but we are also human so shouldn't we take in all the people we can to help them because it's the right thing to do?

President Obama looked at this through the eyes of history. Maybe it's because he doesn't want to repeat history, so we should look at immigration objectively, and we might be able to think of better reform ideas.

The immigration system should not be structured so it is impossible to gain citizenship without paying a hefty fee, they should have the option to gain citizenship if they want it.

The immigration system needs some way to allow people to enter the country legally. There need to be some restrictions but the current system needs to be changed.

I agree with this statement. In your piece of writing it would be nice to show alternatives or new ways that we could help the illegal immigrants.

I like that you had opinions on both sides. I think you should back up both your sides with others' opinions on the topic.

There is a need to fix our legal system from both perspectives. It is clear that what we have now isn't working.

This shows the little options that immigrants have to legally move here.

What if instead of funding these renewable energy programs, we could find a way to reduce our carbon emissions with our fossil fuels. That way we wouldn't have to add entirely new infrastructure and we would be starting with something we already knew.

I realize that solar energy is much cleaner than fossil fuels, but today don't you think that solar energy isn't very feasible, due to the incredibly high cost.

Will every student be able to pay back these loans, even with a good job?

This raises a good point, competition is needed in our economy.

the author of this article is definitely pro-voter id laws and is very much against people who are against them. She thinks they are ignorant.

The issue isn't specifically if someone "needs" identification, but if they are actually able to attain it.

but how much of a significiant difference does 120 votes really make in an election?

You could argue that this isn't true, however another consequence of raising the minimum wage is that it would result in an increase in the cost of prices of many simple retail items. Where does the money to pay these workers come from? CEO's aren't going to cut their own wages to pay some 17 year old more money, they're going to charge the consumer more money for their products.

In an article I recently read, there was talk about how much it has increased and how much it will continue to increase. If it's clearly a problem, why can't we all come up with a way to reduce the cost.

Should the states have costs higher?

Why do you think college costs so much if it's so necessary

How can you actually define this since all citizens of the United States have the right to vote??<

This proves that there are indeed more issues with the negative affects of voter ID laws rather than the positive affects of them stopping voter fraud which rarely occurs.

I actually did the same topic, but this article brought up something I didn't even think about. I never thought about the ethics behind the cars and what that could mean. Such a tough question to answer. Another question that is important to think about is who would decide. This moral question is super deep and brings up a lot of really good information about this new technology.

"We have a technology that potentially could save a lot of people, but is going to be imperfect and is going to kill.”

Autonomous Vehicles moral questionJean-François Bonnefon, Azim Shariff, Iyad Rahwan

Business Insider reached out to Google to see if its researchers have been tackling these ethical questions and will update if we hear back. Example of narration

A recent study called "Autonomous vehicles need experimental ethics," highlighted by The MIT Technology Review explores these questions, and more. An example of exemplification

This cannot be the only way to deal with insolvency, there will also be a lot of opportunity costs in doing this, and it may hurt many people.

I don't agree with this, because there is no way to say who needs a pension most. Therefore it would be unfair, and someone who really needs it may not get one.

Again, I don't believe in this idea but how many more people would be hurt if Central States didn't reduce retiree benefits? If they had to sepnd more money, then they would be a greater risk of failing which would force them to lay off tons of employees. Isn't it better to harm the benefits of a few employees for the sake of keeping a lot more people employed?

I don't believe in this line of reasoning myself, but for the sake of argument, I would like to know that if Central States is a business functioning in a capitalist economy, then isn't its primary goal to make as much money as possible? Therefore, is reducing the pensions and retiree benefits of its employees for the sake of making a larger profit a bad thing? Isn't that just a sign that the company is intelligently playing the "game of capitalism?"

Some people do not think ISIS is a threat to the U.S., because they have not had any direct attacks on the U.S.

Most people think the terrorists came from the Muslim religion. However, this shows that they are not true.

A change in the budget means they have to be able to pay for the new amenities they provide for us.

They seem to be arguing that colleges are trying to give us the most value for our money.

I think this shows that maybe tuition hasn't gone up that much. If this is only the first time since 1949 that the tuition has increased two years in a row, then maybe that's not as often as we think.

Maybe the costs of college are outweighed by the benefits to a person's future career.

Why are veterans the only people with drug addiction listed as a possible cause? Drug addiction is the cause of many problems especially chronic homelessness, individual homelessness, and the continued cycle of homelessness and poverty.

Many families must spend time in a shelter and although they may be able to get back into housing quickly that does not entail that it doesn't have lifetime effects.

What about drug addiction? and the cycle of poverty? What about those who choose to be homeless and those who may only be unable to find housing because they have no education and cannot qualify for a job?

What does Jon Boekenstedt think we can do to resolve this problem, do you have any suggestions that you (we) could propose?

It's notable that firearm accidents represent thousands of deaths, a very high number that would easily be reduced with better gun safety.