This is a very 'hot button' issue that keeps arising in the face of politicians everywhere in the country. What if anything should the government involve itself in for the issues of stem cell research? How far should the government press into the fields of medical science research? Should the government interfere at all, or stand back and come up with laws to handle the consequences of such research?
It comes into question, how many ordinary Americans really know and understand what stem cell research is, how it can effect our lives, and what does it have the ability to do in the future? With topics such as abortion being very hot and causing pressures on all sides, it only seems natural that stem cell research should cause just as much controversy. Many supporters argue that the research gathered will be able to save millions of lives, while those opposing the research all argue that they are killing thousands of innocent children in the process.
This brings the question, where do the embryos come from? The majority of the embryos used in the research come from couples that have donated them, following a treatment for infertility; there are often 10 or more embryos left over after such procedures, which can be put to use in the laboratory environment. The options for those embryos are limited; they can be preserved, adopted to a needy couple, destroyed, or donated to medical research.
The embryos are only a few mere days past conception when they are frozen, and are unable to sustain life in any form on their own. From a legal standpoint, they are not living humans, and are not an infant since legally an embryo becomes an infant once the first breath of air is taken. This leaves the questions of who has the right to determine what can happen to them.
The embryos are the building blocks of people, yet, they have no rights themselves. Whom do they belong to? Who is responsible for ensuring they are taken care of? Many consider the embryos being used in research as the same category as murder. Is it actually murder when the child is never born, and is only conceived in a test tube? Who should really make the decision about how these embryos should be handled?
The embryos themselves are rich in stem cells, which scientists have said can help cure some of the worst diseases and conditions in the world. This makes the concept very tempting, but is this dabbling in aspects of science that shouldn't be used? Should humans really be trying to recreate whole body parts and organs from the stem cells in order to help a few, but at the expense of a few other lives?
The current administration has tried to place a ban on this research and block the use of the embryos. This has upset many supporters who feel this research is vital to the survival of the human race, while those who digress the ideas are upset that is has not been banned fully yet. Where is the better side to stand? Should we allow the government to meddle into the scientific aspects of medicine, or should we continue the research to save thousands, or millions of lives?
Friday, March 9, 2012
Laws Against Sex offenders
With the high rise in the number of sex offenders who are also repeated offenders the federal government decided to impose laws requiring all convicted sexual offenders to register with the states in which they live. Although this measure is controversial, government officials are claiming that it is an increasingly effective method of avoiding re-offending in some of the most serious criminals. Is this an invasion of privacy that the states and politicians have imposed upon someone who has served their sentence, or is this a legitimate measure of control for some of society's most dangerous offenders?
At some point in time, it became acceptable for the government to track former criminals; in requiring them to register as an offender, they are essentially tracking the criminal. They do nothing more than monitor closely their whereabouts, actions, friends, lifestyle, etc. How this came to be is quite scary, while it has occurred for a crime that fits the punishment, after all our children should be protected. It also comes with a price. Many people see this as an intense invasion of privacy and human rights, and in Europe under the banner of the European Convention on Human Rights, such procedures would almost certainly not be allowed.
Since beginning this and requiring that all sexual offenders register with their respective states, it opens the door for criminals of other crimes to be required to register. Once that occurs, it allows the governments to start requiring slowly that everyone be registered for one reason or another. Is this something that the people are willing to let happen? Should the government have full knowledge and control over where you go, who your friends are and where you work?
Many feel that the laws for the sexual offenders are not stiff enough; they call for stricter punishments and heavier penalties for these most despicable of criminals. This comes from the side of people that wish to seek nothing more than revenge. At the same time, if someone commits a crime whom is sent for mental help, instead of jail they are not required to register. Their offenses are recorded differently, and their punishment is much easier.
This can cause serious problems in terms of people not being registered that really should be registered as an offender. The main goal of the program is to protect the interest of the children; after all, they are the main resource worth protecting in society. Nevertheless, how far is too far? Some have suggested implanting the offenders with a microchip that would enable law enforcement agencies to track the offenders' movements continuously. Is this something that the American public is willing to accept?
With this being talked about, what are the chances of this occurring for other crimes as well? What is the point of releasing someone from the judicial system if they are so dangerous that they must be continuously tracked? As a woman, or a child how safe do you feel knowing that there are people surrounding you whom have been convicted of serious crimes against others? What about as a man, does this change your opinion? The requirement for registration causes social problems and victimization for those offenders, arguably justifiably, who have shown themselves to be dangerous. This has the knock on effect of altering the course of justice, given that these people will have served the appropriate sentence for their crime, and hopefully have progressed through the systems of rehabilitation in place.
How do you think it should be handled? There are some people who truly believe that the registrations processes should be removed, that once their time is served the offenders should be allowed to disappear back into the woodwork and free to live their lives without being under the public scrutiny. These are the people who are looking to have yet another law changed, that could have some very devastating effects on society, particularly for our children in the coming generations.
At some point in time, it became acceptable for the government to track former criminals; in requiring them to register as an offender, they are essentially tracking the criminal. They do nothing more than monitor closely their whereabouts, actions, friends, lifestyle, etc. How this came to be is quite scary, while it has occurred for a crime that fits the punishment, after all our children should be protected. It also comes with a price. Many people see this as an intense invasion of privacy and human rights, and in Europe under the banner of the European Convention on Human Rights, such procedures would almost certainly not be allowed.
Since beginning this and requiring that all sexual offenders register with their respective states, it opens the door for criminals of other crimes to be required to register. Once that occurs, it allows the governments to start requiring slowly that everyone be registered for one reason or another. Is this something that the people are willing to let happen? Should the government have full knowledge and control over where you go, who your friends are and where you work?
Many feel that the laws for the sexual offenders are not stiff enough; they call for stricter punishments and heavier penalties for these most despicable of criminals. This comes from the side of people that wish to seek nothing more than revenge. At the same time, if someone commits a crime whom is sent for mental help, instead of jail they are not required to register. Their offenses are recorded differently, and their punishment is much easier.
This can cause serious problems in terms of people not being registered that really should be registered as an offender. The main goal of the program is to protect the interest of the children; after all, they are the main resource worth protecting in society. Nevertheless, how far is too far? Some have suggested implanting the offenders with a microchip that would enable law enforcement agencies to track the offenders' movements continuously. Is this something that the American public is willing to accept?
With this being talked about, what are the chances of this occurring for other crimes as well? What is the point of releasing someone from the judicial system if they are so dangerous that they must be continuously tracked? As a woman, or a child how safe do you feel knowing that there are people surrounding you whom have been convicted of serious crimes against others? What about as a man, does this change your opinion? The requirement for registration causes social problems and victimization for those offenders, arguably justifiably, who have shown themselves to be dangerous. This has the knock on effect of altering the course of justice, given that these people will have served the appropriate sentence for their crime, and hopefully have progressed through the systems of rehabilitation in place.
How do you think it should be handled? There are some people who truly believe that the registrations processes should be removed, that once their time is served the offenders should be allowed to disappear back into the woodwork and free to live their lives without being under the public scrutiny. These are the people who are looking to have yet another law changed, that could have some very devastating effects on society, particularly for our children in the coming generations.
legal theory on Positivist
The question of the character of law is primarily a simple one, although it presents a diversity of argumentation to make it an academic favourite and a thought-provoking topic of debate. Positivism is the term describing the school of legal thought that follows that law is an authoritative, binding, regulatory construct. It holds at its core the idea that law is enacted as an authoritative statement of how society must behave. It rejects the concept of any connection with morality, and suggests that there is no room for subjective consideration of the law - the law is, with no room for negotiation. Positivism has been criticised, particularly in Germany, as a means of affording tyranny and extremism to enter mainstream politics. It is said that the general concept of accepting and enforcing the law by virtue of its status allows unjust laws enforcing prejudice and discrimination respect by virtue of their enactment, placing an indefeasible trust in the legislature. As compared to other legal theories, positivism has gathered a great deal of respect and support across the world, making it one of the most prominent considerations of the nature of law.
Positivism places strength on the rules as they are laid down, on the premise that the process of the legislature is the time for challenge and interpretation. Although this may generally be the case, it does throw up some problems in relation to the practical consequences of certain enactments, which reflect better with experience the level of effectiveness. Another feature of the positivist movement is that rather than be guided by moral considerations, the law can be used in certain circumstances to determine what is right and what is wrong, on the basis of its status as in accordance with or against the law. Again this causes problems that have formed the basis of much academic argumentation in the area.
One of the main criticisms of positivism as a theory came in light of the linguistic considerations of HLA Hart, a leading international legal philosopher. He stated that the positive law is far from fixed in nature, for the simple reason that language is not fixed. For example, the famous scenario offered for this point is a sign in a local park stating 'no vehicles allowed'. This is by no means a fixed and definitive statement of the law, because 'vehicles' can be taken to mean a broad range of things. For the most part it will be fairly obvious what falls within the scope - no cars, vans, trucks or trains would be permitted. But what about skateboards? Bicycles? Are these covered within the definition of vehicles? There is no way of knowing from the text exactly what is intended by the law, so to positivism in this strict sense is flawed. Rather, a more sophisticated approach is required, which allows the law to be read in the light of pragmatic and policy considerations. This makes positivism more palatable as a concept, and strengthens its validity at the heart of legal philosophy.
Positivism is only one in a series of mainstream legal theories which satisfy the rational and logical requirements of academics and practitioners alike. Its intellectual sophistication sets it apart from the more basic natural law theory, although it is by no means an utterly definitive set of beliefs. All in all, this is an area of study that is rapidly developing, producing new and more complex arguments with every empirical text.
Positivism places strength on the rules as they are laid down, on the premise that the process of the legislature is the time for challenge and interpretation. Although this may generally be the case, it does throw up some problems in relation to the practical consequences of certain enactments, which reflect better with experience the level of effectiveness. Another feature of the positivist movement is that rather than be guided by moral considerations, the law can be used in certain circumstances to determine what is right and what is wrong, on the basis of its status as in accordance with or against the law. Again this causes problems that have formed the basis of much academic argumentation in the area.
One of the main criticisms of positivism as a theory came in light of the linguistic considerations of HLA Hart, a leading international legal philosopher. He stated that the positive law is far from fixed in nature, for the simple reason that language is not fixed. For example, the famous scenario offered for this point is a sign in a local park stating 'no vehicles allowed'. This is by no means a fixed and definitive statement of the law, because 'vehicles' can be taken to mean a broad range of things. For the most part it will be fairly obvious what falls within the scope - no cars, vans, trucks or trains would be permitted. But what about skateboards? Bicycles? Are these covered within the definition of vehicles? There is no way of knowing from the text exactly what is intended by the law, so to positivism in this strict sense is flawed. Rather, a more sophisticated approach is required, which allows the law to be read in the light of pragmatic and policy considerations. This makes positivism more palatable as a concept, and strengthens its validity at the heart of legal philosophy.
Positivism is only one in a series of mainstream legal theories which satisfy the rational and logical requirements of academics and practitioners alike. Its intellectual sophistication sets it apart from the more basic natural law theory, although it is by no means an utterly definitive set of beliefs. All in all, this is an area of study that is rapidly developing, producing new and more complex arguments with every empirical text.
Campaigning Online
Where in the world can a person check their mail, pay bills, check bank balances, book a vacation, and show support for their favorite political candidate all in the same place? Simple - online of course. Candidates and politicians are looking to cash in on the most impact for their time and what better way to become a part of that powerful trend than welcoming cyber space into their lives? Who knew that a craze that started a few short years ago with social websites such as MySpace.com would turn into a tool to be used so heavily in campaigns?
Barack Obama has enjoyed adding 100,000 friends to his MySpace page, and other campaigns are even adding other MySpace pages as well as joining into the Second Life craze that has struck recently, with many people looking to expand the internet as one of their major sources of advertisement. Each candidate has their own website of course, with a great amount of information on their individual views, their position on the issues, and what they wish to see happen in the country. Never before has the democratic process reached so close to home, now pulling in a new generation of voters to guide the future of the country.
Is this a good idea? Should candidates really be losing that personal and physical touch? However, this is actually one of the most prevalent ways to get information out recently, with websites popping up everywhere where political opinions can be viewed, and with sites such as digg.com becoming popular it enables sites with good content that is full of information people find fascinating or helpful to rise to the top, and help spread the word to the masses.
Seems almost like a grass roots type campaign. Yet it does not involve any physical interaction from the candidates. This is the ultimate tool that can be used to spread the word quickly about progress and updates in their campaign without ever leaving their house or office and interacting with those they so desperately need votes from. This seems to be a bit of a strange position to be taking, but with the internet reaching so wide and far, it is a tool that many politicians are utilizing, and to great practical effect.
Many are even recruiting volunteers to manage their spaces in Second Life as well as MySpace so that their time is better spent and their ability to reach even more people is extended further. Seems almost strange that volunteers are now able to help on campaigns that they never would have been able to work on before, but thanks to the internet, they are able to show support for their favorite candidate in a way never before seen.
How much further can this really go, with the possibility of the internet growing into an even larger portion of the campaign, it is very much possible to keep track of all the happenings and events in almost every political campaign and race without ever leaving the comfort of your home. Whether this engages the ordinary citizen on a more direct level will remain to be seen, and the outcome this will have on the voter demographic at the next election will surely be profound. Now if only the election voting could be handled online, securely it would truly be a virtual world...
Barack Obama has enjoyed adding 100,000 friends to his MySpace page, and other campaigns are even adding other MySpace pages as well as joining into the Second Life craze that has struck recently, with many people looking to expand the internet as one of their major sources of advertisement. Each candidate has their own website of course, with a great amount of information on their individual views, their position on the issues, and what they wish to see happen in the country. Never before has the democratic process reached so close to home, now pulling in a new generation of voters to guide the future of the country.
Is this a good idea? Should candidates really be losing that personal and physical touch? However, this is actually one of the most prevalent ways to get information out recently, with websites popping up everywhere where political opinions can be viewed, and with sites such as digg.com becoming popular it enables sites with good content that is full of information people find fascinating or helpful to rise to the top, and help spread the word to the masses.
Seems almost like a grass roots type campaign. Yet it does not involve any physical interaction from the candidates. This is the ultimate tool that can be used to spread the word quickly about progress and updates in their campaign without ever leaving their house or office and interacting with those they so desperately need votes from. This seems to be a bit of a strange position to be taking, but with the internet reaching so wide and far, it is a tool that many politicians are utilizing, and to great practical effect.
Many are even recruiting volunteers to manage their spaces in Second Life as well as MySpace so that their time is better spent and their ability to reach even more people is extended further. Seems almost strange that volunteers are now able to help on campaigns that they never would have been able to work on before, but thanks to the internet, they are able to show support for their favorite candidate in a way never before seen.
How much further can this really go, with the possibility of the internet growing into an even larger portion of the campaign, it is very much possible to keep track of all the happenings and events in almost every political campaign and race without ever leaving the comfort of your home. Whether this engages the ordinary citizen on a more direct level will remain to be seen, and the outcome this will have on the voter demographic at the next election will surely be profound. Now if only the election voting could be handled online, securely it would truly be a virtual world...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)