Posted by: sgibson09 on: December 18, 2008
It is not a rare case, yet people are subjected to it every day. My heart tells me that there isn’t a possible way people choose to live this lifestyle; however, my brain is screaming, “Wake up! This is how they want to live!” Homosexuality is the condition of same-sex attraction. Heterosexuality, the opposite of homosexuality, is the condition of opposite-sex attraction. Heterosexuality is what is thought to be “right” or even sane. Knowing what sexual orientation a person may have is completely up to him/her. Surprisingly, homosexuality isn’t something isn’t something out of the ordinary in this day and age. Society has learned to accept those who are homosexual; more and more citizens begin to believe that it is something that occurs at birth. Although I do disagree with this, I do not judge or shun any homosexual person for their sexual preference. Sexual orientation is not determined at birth because environment shapes personality; genetic or biological factors have not been found, and treatment can be accessed.
To begin with, some people believe sexual orientation has many reasons why a person may actually be born gay. One theory is that it could be genetic or biological factors (Rohde, pg.1). This is only a theory, however, which means it has yet to be proven. Consider a man that has same-sexual attractions, but doesn’t think him to be gay. This escape from sexual orientation not only leaves this man in a devastating form of denial, but it also confuses society of the characteristics of homosexuals. Biology plays a role in sexual orientation simply because the brain chooses its partner, whether it be male or female. In this sense, people would be born gay. Looking at the family trees of gay males, it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree (Newman, pg.1). With that said, a heterosexual female is likely to pass down a “gay gene” to her son.
On the other hand, there are many theories why people are not born gay. The cause is neither biological nor psychological, but results from postnatal environment (Is, pg.1). Some say that personality forms before we are even born, but the environment actually shapes our personality. A relationship with family and friends is a huge factor in sexual orientation. For example, a girl growing up with many brothers could influence her to become gay. The opposite situation – a boy growing up with a sister, and playing with baby dolls could begin some confusion of his sexual orientation. However, factors do differ from person to person (Park, pg.1).
It is complicated to register that 3-10 percent of the population is gay (Rohde, pg.1). Homosexuality has spread like a tempt disease, and it awaits another victim each day that passes. While some theories state that genetics are the main cause of sexual orientation, others state it is the environment surrounding. To add on, there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic (Is, pg.1). Only theories exist to discuss whether sexual orientation is determined at birth; therefore, no actual solution has been reached. Its cause is very much without understanding. Could it be many factors strung together? It very well could. Society has yet, however, to unveil the secrecy behind sexual preference.
The environment a child develops in determines not only personality, but also crucial decisions later in life. Sexuality develops, as well, gradually over the course of childhood (Cloud, pg.10). Children discover different signs of masculinity and femininity; they are subject to change throughout the growing stages. Some children never grow out of feeling uneasy about “gender confusion,” while others feel it is their destiny to become something unnatural. Boys as young as five-years-old may even show sign of “gender confusion” (Cloud, pg.3). Early sexual experiences play an important role in sexual orientation. Children who are sexually abused are four to seven times more likely to become gay; sixty-five percent say it affected their sexuality (Park, pg.1). Environmental reactions come from a wide spectrum. Whether it be growing up with siblings of the opposite sex, feeling like they don’t belong, or even being sexually abused, children are affected by the environment that surrounds them.
The brain controls every thought, every movement, and every reaction of the body. The brain can shift lives tremendously; it completely takes us by surprise. Psychologically, homosexuality contains a different state of mind than heterosexuality. Brain studies conclude that psychological issues are a main factor in determining sexual orientation. Therefore, further studies can induce the theory that sexual orientation is a choice, and not determined at birth.
All in all, biological factors contribute the most to this theory of sexual orientation not being determined at birth. Biology plays a role of influencing behavior or feelings (Park, pg.1). Although many theories suggest that biology is a reason that sexual orientation is determined, biological factors have not been found. However, in chromosome studies, the X chromosome – region Xq28 – contains a gene that contributes to gay orientation in males (Park, pg.1). With that said, children generally take on the characteristics of their parents; therefore, growing up in a confusing sexual environment can have an affect on that child. While some homosexuals claim that they felt they were meant to be gay from quite an early age, others say that they can’t control it, and even sometimes wish they weren’t gay. It is a complicated situation to be a part of. Biological factors may exist, but may be they never will. Until then, the cause of sexual orientation is unknown in the biological sense.
Next, another important aspect in determining sexual orientation lies in parental affects. It all begins when the mother enters pregnancy. A possible threat to becoming homosexual is stress during pregnancy. When a large amount of stress is put on the mother, the child may possibly grow up to be gay (Is, pg.1). This theory is strange. Of all the things that could happen to a fetus through stress, the first guess wouldn’t be homosexuality. Other theories suggest that prenatal vitamins can possibly have an affect. No real evidence, however, has been found that prenatal harmonization alone determines sexual orientation (Park, pg.1).
Relationships with the mother and father are extremely important in determining sexual orientation. Environment controls much of personality; therefore, relationships must be healthy. It is through male bonding that a child develops a sense of himself, and it is important to have a healthy emotional connection as well. Too much affection from the mother can overdo the situation. A good balance is needed between the mother and father to be successful in raising a heterosexual child. If these needs are not met, the child feels lost or worthless even. Love and support must be shown in order to fulfill all expectations. Development experiences include relationships with family and friends, identification of masculinity or femininity, meet emotional needs, have self-worth, and the early sexual experiences (Park, pg.1). The mother and father are what a child admires. Even if a child considers him to be gay, that child will normally turn to the mother and father for support.
Unexpectedly, a male homosexual and a female homosexual have many different qualities. During the 1960’s, studies show that gay men were at the age of fourteen while gay women were at the age of seventeen (Cloud, pg.1). However, during the 1990’s, gay men were at the age of ten while gay women were at the age of twelve (Cloud, pg.1). According to this study, men have sought homosexuality at a much younger age than women. Coincidence? Not hardly. Many men with homosexual attractions have a greater sense of emotional hurt. However, the disputed evidence for physical causes of male homosexuality is even weaker when it comes to women (Park, pg.1). In other words, a conclusion of male sexual orientation has greater evidence that that of a female. While men and women may have an emotional need, men are more subject to vulnerability.
Homosexuality is not a mental illness; The American Psychiatric Association found this in 1973 (Rohde, pg.1). Sexual orientation surfaces during early stages in life for many reasons. “Various theories have proposed differing sources for sexual orientation… However, many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological, and social factors” (Is, pg.1). The causes have not been proven to whether sexual orientation is determined at birth, but many theories do exist.
Detecting whether a child is going to become gay can be easy, or in other situations can be very difficult. Gay teens try to hide their sexual orientation in fear of being exposed. Four out of five students have been harassed because of sexual orientation (Cloud, pg.3). Sometimes it becomes too late to detect if a child is gay. Gay teens are three times more likely to attempt suicide than straight teens (Rohde, pg.1). Talk to children, and get them professional help to control what torture they are going through.
A final success of avoiding homosexuality is treatment. Some experts say treatment will work, while others agree that trying to alter sexual impulses will lead to depression or suicide. Many alternatives are available. Thirteen percent of young people that are gay would prefer to be straight (Cloud, pg.4). Regardless of the role genetics play in the development of sexual attractions, those attractions are changeable and treatable. “Homosexuality is not an alternative sexuality or sexual orientation, but an emotional disorientation caused by arrested or blocked emotional development in the stream of heterosexuality” (Park, pg.1). Alternatives and treatment can be accessed. The decision for this is made only by that person. It is a choice to get help just as it was a choice to become gay.
In conclusion, environment determines sexual orientation. Therefore, sexual orientation is not determined at birth; people choose to become gay. Biological and genetic factors have yet to be found, but scientists continue to research the genetic affect of sexual orientation. Although many experts are against treatment, it is accessible. I may not have chosen to be right-handed, but I could make myself be left-handed if I wanted to. In the same sense, gay people can make themselves become straight if it was desired. Many options are out in the world today, so no one is left alone in this stage of confusion. All in all, sexual orientation is a choice. It can be helped and it can be avoided.
Posted by: mdcapua on: December 17, 2008
In today’ s society, we are slowly beginning to accept the rights of homosexual couples, but of the many rights they are still denied, one in particular that raises much controversy; their right to adopt a child. Gay rights activists, along with same-sex couples, have been fighting to have the same adoption rights as that of heterosexual couples. Some opponents will argue that the lack of gender difference will cause confusion in the child’s life, the possible humiliation, the risk of forcing the homosexual life-style on the child, or even the risk of sexual harassment of said child are good enough reasons to deny same-sex couples the right to adopt, or, in some states, the right to foster a child. I, however, disagree with these reasons. In truth, it is an emotional issue that has been in increasingly heated debate since 1977, when Florida passed a state statute that exclusively barred same-sex couples from adopting a child, a legislative decision that is still enforced today.
As stated earlier, we, as a society, are reluctantly beginning to shed our bigotry of homosexuality. However, many same-sex couples are denied everyday their right to adopt a child. In the U.S. alone, 10% of the population is homosexual, which leaves that many people, according to state courts, unfit to adopt or for that matter, even raise a child (Loveandpride pg.1). Although the majority of the U.S. does not support gay adoption rights, 48% of the U.S. population is in support for it, which is up from the 38% in 1999 (Gandossy pg.1). In some states, such as California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, have allowed same-sex couples the right to adopt in some areas (Loveandpride pg.1).
One of the underlying issues behind same-sex couples not having the right to adopt and raise children is the risk of sexual abuse. While there are not may scientific studies linking homosexuality and pedophilia, a study of 269 cases resulted with only 2 cases were committed by a homosexual (Findlaw pg.1). Ironically, 74% of the cases in which a young boy was molested, the perpetrator were a male who was in a heterosexual relationship with the boy’s mother or another female in the family (Findlaw Pg.1). It would appear that a child would run more of a risk to be sexually abused by a heterosexual relative, then being raised in a homosexual household. According to the American Psychological Association, a person’s sexual orientation, which is one of the four components of sexuality, is determined by what attracts the person (Findlaw pg.1) Even Freud said this, but perhaps in not the same manner.
Allowing same-sex couples to adopt and raise children would be an improvement of society, because of the number of children that would be taken into better homes. The number of children in foster care and children waiting to be adopted is an increasing number. Hundreds of thousands of children pulled from abusive homes wait to be brought into a safer, more stable life. In Florida, same-sex couples are not allowed to be considered parents, however, can be foster parents. In the case of Martin Gill, a homosexual resident of Florida who cares for two young boys is not able to become the adoptive parent for his foster children because of his sexuality (Ruggeri Pg.1). He and his life partner have cared for the two for four years and so far, the boys have been in good health, good academics, and have been cared for with love and affection (Chapman pg.1). In fact the children are involved with their church and have several pets. The Center for family and Child Enrichment says that they must seek an adoptive home for the children still since Gill and his life partner are unable to adopt the children, even though no adoptive families have come forth to raise the children (Gandossy pg.1). The 1977 Florida Statute that deems same-sex couples unfit to adopt and raise a child has shown that its intention has harmed the children awaiting adoption, leaving the same-sex couples who raise them as wards of the state. Coincidently, nine of the Florida Legislature members who signed the statute have stated that they regret signing it.
Some believe that a child growing up with a same-sex couple runs the risk of having the gay lifestyle forced upon them. This is a false fear that has no scientific back up. In fact, there have been federal reports that have stated the fact that homosexual couples are just qualified to raise a child, and still give them the freedom of mind to live as they want to. In fact, it is more a fallacy of heterosexual couples to force their lifestyle on their children than homosexual couples. However, the sad reality is that in court systems, homosexual couples are usually mistreated and looked down upon.
Denying same-sex couples the right to adopt a child is not only unconstitutional, it’s also discriminatory. Because the federal government does not fully recognize gay marriage, gay couples are usually considered non-married couples. Even though, statistically, there are not many reasons for same-sex couples to be denied equal adoption rights, many states look down on homosexual relationships, but more so, they look down on Homosexuals raising children. This is mostly because same-sex couples lack the opposite sex, thus leaving the child to mature properly, because of the lack of both the naturally nurturing mother/female role, and the strong and courageous father/male role model in their life (Steffy pg.1). This archaic and improvable reason is not just that, but it is also quite sexist. Allowing same-sex couples the same rights to adopt and raise a child could not only put some of the many adoption ready children in a loving home, but it could also show that same-sex couples can teach a child the proper ways to mature just as well as heterosexual couples. After all, it is highly unlikely that a heterosexual single parent would be denied their right to raise their children. A single mom who works two jobs to provide for her child could provide the nurturing role of the mother, and perform the strength role that the father has traditionally provided. Some also argue that since homosexual couples cannot have children naturally, it is wrong for them to adopt. In truth, the fact that they cannot procreate, yet still wish for a family should give them just as much right to adopt children and raise them as their own as any heterosexual couples that adopt because they are not able to have children because of infertility or the aspiring mother not wanting to go through the 9 months and labor pains.
Also, the allowance of same-sex couples would improve on the current condition of the gay rights movement. Gay couples have been fighting for their rights to adopt and raise children just the same as any heterosexual couples in the U.S. While some states in the U.S. such as California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin have allowed same-sex couples to adopt in some areas, some states, such as Utah, only allow same-sex couples to foster children, however, there are some states that do not even allow couples to foster care. Even though these states don’t allow adoption for same-sex couples, some don’t even allow adoption for unmarried couples in general. Gay rights advocates argue for same-sex couples that allowing them to adopt would not only lower the number of wards of the state and adoption ready children, but also make a big step forward towards equal rights for all people. The fact that the state of Florida still clings to a 30 year-old statute shows that even though we as a nation are beginning to rid ourselves of the discriminatory “idiocracy”, it still exist in some places that count. It’s up to the people to demand the equal rights for all couples.
In truth, it just seems immoral to deny a loving couple the right to adopt and raise a child. The whole point of the 1977 statute was to define what made a couple able and fit to raise a child successfully; however, the definitions as to why same-sex couples cannot raise a child correctly are flawed. Same-sex couples have proven over the years that they are no different when it comes to raising child than any other heterosexual couples. With over 2 million gay parents in the U.S., society’s acceptance of same-sex couples and their right to adopt could also show that the U.S. is a more compassionate country.
What’s more, gay couples have every right to adopt children. Society will eventually have to accept the fact that homosexual couples are just as nurturing, caring, protective, and strong as heterosexual couples. Just as some couples have been known to use artificial insemination, so have gay couples, but some couples, both gay and straight, adopt children to have the chance to raise a child, and have a family. The few that use the argument o the fact that the adopted child was not brought into the world by the gay couple naturally, therefore cannot be the child of aid couple, is a foolish shape of bigotry, even though they make a point, the child isn’t biologically theirs, family is more so about the love shared with people who are close. Adoption was good enough for the kings of Babylonia and Rome when they had no male heir, so it should be good enough for homosexual couples trying to live a life of family. Some, on the other hand use the reason of traditional family values. Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, along with several other Republican lawmakers, have stated that the Florida state bill banning same-sex couples adopting need not be changed, because traditional family values are paramount in raising a child (Washblade pg.1). However, same-sex couples can teach traditional family values jut same as heterosexual couples.
In conclusion, gay couple have thus far proven o be statistically and morally capable of not only adopting, but even successfully raising a child. While today’s society has placed its stigmas on gay couples, it is something that is done out of lack of understanding. Some gay couples have asked, “Why can’t we adopt?” “Why are we denied our rights as people?” “What makes us so different? “ In the end, there isn’t much of anything that makes a gay couple much different than a heterosexual couple, because in the end, we are all people, we all are live, love, and experience, so the chance to adopt a child, and change the life of someone who needs love for the better, as well as allow you to have a family is an experience that is rightful to everyone.
Posted by: Michael Charles on: December 17, 2008
“BOOM, HEADSHOT!” yells a group of young adults in their lovely two bedroom apartment. The gun-fire is massive in volume and frequency. Has the world of these people gone to the way of the gun? Has violence taken hold of their minds? No. They are playing a video game. Some professors believe that, in today’s world, violent video games have no place. They believe that games have nothing productive to offer to society but a generation of killers. When people think of the effects video games have on society, they often all think of the same thing: video games are turning my child into a murderer. But what if someone were to tell you that this is not the case? The flaws of anti-game research, actual statistics, and the sheer amount of risk factors all lead to the same end: violent video games have no long-term negative effect.
In the 1980s, several producers of these forms of entertainment started some experiments of their own, to see what was acceptable in the world. (Gentile, pg 5) As time went on, violence became more often one of the main selling points for games. Mortal Kombat, a video game where people fought to the death with realistic results, was a prime example of this. It is a best-seller to this day. With its fame, however, there has been an issue. School shootings started to occur, one of the most tragic things anyone can think of occuring in this world of ours. “As human beings, we have difficulty accepting random or senseless occurences. We want to understand why something has happened, and the strength of this desire seems to be proportional to the horror of the event” (Freedman, pg 1). And with this, a “folk devil” (Sternheimer, pg 1) was created. Did video games cause the infamous Columbine incident? Is man going to be the creator of his own destruction? According to professors and flawed experiments everywhere, the answer is a quite profound “yes.” Studies have been taken on violence in video games, and the research claims that if the exposure to video games is pro-longed, violent and aggressive behavior will sky-rocket.
Though their “studies” claim that the massive exposure to violent video games causes us to mimic the violent behaviors, flaws are easily spotted in their methods of research. For example, Anderson and Bushman, professors at Stanford, did a series of studies and identified 35 research reports about violent video games and their effects (Freedman, pg 2). Only 22 of them were published, and even then only 9 had to deal with aggressive or violent behavior. Freedman, author of “Evaluating the Research on Violent Video Games,” said: “In other words, conclusions about whether playing violent video games causes aggressive behavior must be based on nine published experiments” (Freedman, pg 2). Requirements for any and all experiments rarely change. One of the main things needed is that everything is similar except for the object being tested upon, the changing variable. They used the games known as Myst and Wolfenstein. One being a slow-paced puzzle while the other is a fast and steady action game. Myst could have easily just not been exciting enough to the participants in the study, therefore, making their be more than one variable in this experiment. This makes the test invalid. In the studies, Anderson and Bushman also found that the exposure to games increased arousal (Freedman, pg 6). The arousal was immediately attributed to the violence in the games and was clearly dismissed to early. The arousal could have come from a number of factors, anything in the testing area could have set it off, once again, causing a claim to be invalid. A limited amount of the studies even tried to measure aggression in the first place, and most measures had nothing to do with violent acts. The test results were, as Freedman said, “…analogues of aggression rather than the real thing” (Freedman, pg 8). Thoughts of aggression are not acts of aggression. The difference between thought and action are to wide to account for. To let thoughts be counted as measures of violence and aggression is a bit “trigger-happy.” Maps are representations of the area. They are not considered to be the actual area, therefore we cannot assume that thoughts of aggression are actual acts of aggression.
In addition to the problems with research, statistics give the results even less credibility. 10 years after the release of Doom, a major video game created in 1993, homicide arrest rates among teens dropped by 77 percent (Sternheimer, 1). After 1997, 199 articles have been written about violence and using video games as the main reason for violence and shootings in our schools. 17 of these quoted David Grossman, a former army lieutanent that claims video games train people in how to kill, instead of professors and experts. Only 7 of the 199 articles actually quoted identified sociologists (Sternheimer, 2). Patrick Kierkegaard of Essex, England, points out that “in 2005, there were 1,360,088 violent crimes reported in the USA compared with 1,423,677 the year before” (Inderscience, pg 2). Though violent video games are almost always one of the major “causes” for the violence in our world, or so people claim, magazines also consider the fact that there might be other factors, though they consider them to be minor. The fact that these newspaper articles admitted that there are other factors when it comes to the way we behave as human beings, they weaken their standpoint. How can we know for certain what factor causes what reaction?
Also, since we now understand and acknowledge the fact that there are other risk factors to this behavior, how many factors do we have to dismiss before we can assume it was the violence in the video games? The sheer amount of risk factors for aggression and violence in a person is almost countless. Any little thing can become a possible variable in why we have aggressive thoughts or even acts. The effect may depend on individual characterisitcs (Walling, pg 1). Things such as gang membership, psychological conditions, poor parent-child relations, prior phyiscal violence, antisocial parents, low IQ, broken home, poverty, abusive parents, and substance use are all linked to aggression and violence in people today. Things such as personality, and even being male are considered to be factors in aggression (Gentile, pg 143). Risk factors are an infinite number of variables that contribute to how we live our lives and how we react in real-life situations. No one knows everything about their friend or foe’s life. Everything a person see or hears can contribute to aggression. Was the kid abused as a child? Was he in a gang? Was he living in an environment were violence was accepted or encouraged by the citizens? We don’t have the answers to these questions most of the time. Oh wait, the child played video games? That explains everything.
In conclusion, though some kids that are not properly taken care or neglected by their parents may show some sort of reaction to violence in video games, the video games themselves are not to blame. Parents may need to step in and show their kid what is right and what is wrong. They play a major role in anything that we do as a part of this society that we strive to make good and just. It is easy to blame others for our own short-comings. People do it more then they realize and it is a major part in many people’s lives. Blaming video-games was an easy route to take, and for most, it makes sense. The people who committed a terrible act of violence played games that seemed to encourage the behavior. Though this seems reasonable, video games were made into a “folk devil.”
Studies that show that there are analogues of aggression that co-exist with video games, statistics showing that the crime rate is decreasing, and the complexity that is the every-day life of a human make it seem that the answer is not so simple. We have to come together during the dark times of our society’s existence. We want to know why, why did this happen, but the answer can’t always be found. The information available in today’s world, the research, the statistics, and the health/risk factors, say that the events are horrible, yes, but video games are not the reponsible party.
(I think I fixed all the indents after copy/pasting, but I’m not sure. Thanks for reading!)
Posted by: kschryssofos on: December 17, 2008
Most people of the United States frown upon the welfare system but not for the right reasons. When people think of welfare, though, they picture the unkempt African American woman with children on each hip, or they picture an able-bodied person, who is just too lazy to work. According to a study in 1994, sixty-eight percent of people surveyed believed that welfare recipients took advantage of the system, and only twenty-four percent of people surveyed believed the recipients actually needed help (McClunghem p.1692). This misconception is not entirely true, nor is it entirely false. Admittedly, there are some people who defraud the government, which shows an area of weakness in the system; as a result, the honest recipients who depend on welfare assistance are the ones who must suffer. The Housing of Urban Development Department, as well as the executive office of government, questions how to deal with these fraudulent recipients. The deliberated question asks if welfare recipients should be required to work, as well as pay back a portion of their income, in order to receive their benefits. Especially with today’s economic recession, the government should not require this of the recipients because it would send cases such as single mothers, the elderly, and the disabled further through poverty’s door.
Beginning in Britain in 1601 the Poor Laws were introduced and designed to assist unemployed people find jobs. Under the poor laws, those people who owned land were more heavily taxed in order to provide relief to those in poverty. Coincidentally, these laws took effect after an economic crisis. Furthermore, in the late 1800s, charitable organizations and other well-to-do groups began setting up shelters and soup kitchens all over the nation. At this time in history, government involvement was virtually unknown. Of course, after the Great Depression, the government strove to find ways to help the country get back on its feet. However, it wasn’t until Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as president the issue of poverty became known again. In 1935, under the Social Security Act (SSA) probably the most successful aid program was produced: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). This program was designed to provide income for children whose families could not support them. Using this program as the foundation, the SSA was able to add Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, Old-Age Survivors’ and Disability Insurance (OASDI), and Medicare by the mid 1990s (McClunghem, p. 1692). Obviously by implementing these various programs, the government has goals for our nation’s welfare, but what are they?
Under President Johnson, the welfare system had many goals including: to provide job-training allowances, as well as provide free child-care services for those recipients who were attending school. Lastly, they wanted to ensure the food stamps program provided people with an adequate nutritional diet (McClunghem p. 1692). Yes, President Johnson was the chief executive of the nation, which means he was responsible for making policies that would not fail. This is untrue. In fact, the state and local governments are meant to be the predecessors. President Bill Clinton agreed with Republicans that the states should be free to design their own programs and reforms for welfare funds. It is up to the state governments to instill working programs that are beneficial, not only to their state but to the entire nation. Therefore, the fate of the welfare system lies almost solely in the hands of the state. In 1989, the federal government spent more than half a billion dollars on funding welfare; the state and local governments spent nearly two million dollars less (Lens p.1). With this being said, what is the federal government doing that states aren’t?
Since the beginning of our great nation, there have been two major political parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. Of course, the beliefs and ideas of these two parties often clash. In the mid 1990s, politicians battled over a new welfare reformation idea. Republican Newt Gingrich is responsible for introducing numerous reforms. Firstly, he argued that no welfare recipient should be permitted to receive benefits longer than two years (McClunghem p. 1694). Gingrich also proposed discouraging teenage mothers from becoming pregnant and collecting welfare checks by prohibiting payment of benefits to minors (McClunghem p. 1694). Lastly, he suggested bringing back orphanages. That is, by placing children in orphanages, it would spare them the hardships that would otherwise be placed on them by living in poverty. Luckily, President Clinton thought Gingrich’s ideas to be too harsh, and instead, he stuck to his bill that gave states the freedom to administer reform as they wished. Each state would have their own system, which means different outcomes. If the states should decide to require their recipients to work for their benefits, the single mother would unquestionably suffer the most.
Single mothers make up ninety-five percent of new cases in the AFDC; of these women, fifty-two percent of them have a child three years old or younger (Barton p. 85). With today’s minimum wage barely reaching six and a half dollars, how is a single mother supposed to pay her monthly bills, that is, if she even has a home? In 1970, the average monthly benefit was one hundred seventy-eight dollars; as of the nineties, the average income was a mere four hundred fourteen dollars (Cozic p. 117). How is she to pay for her child’s medical bills, dental bills without an appropriate income or health insurance from a paying job? The worst part, though, is that before the mother can care for her child’s needs, she must pay the government. This means that one or more of the mother’s monthly bills will go unpaid, and the family will have to get by in the best way possible. The future for the single mother is very bleak; the inevitable result will be poverty with no chance of returning to even the lower class.
Indeed, these single working mothers have a difficult life month to month, but there is another group of women who are struggling even more. These are the young mothers who are trying to go to college while simultaneously raising children and trying to work. These women, who are smart enough to figure out that a college degree is a necessity in today’s world, are deserving of assistance. Obviously people will question where these women are getting money to go to college if they have to be on welfare in order to survive. The answer is scholarships. The trouble with this is they may be charged with fraud if they do not report how much “income” they are receiving (Cozic p. 121). Ohio State University (OSU) graduate and former AFDC member, Rita Henley Jensen, has shared her story with all those who wish to hear of her struggles as a mother and student. Firstly, the Work Incentive Program (WIN) proposed by President Johnson, was a major factor in Rita’s education. Under this program, all unemployed persons were required to sign up for job training or employment once their child turned six (Cozic p.118). Rita explains her college years:
I regularly reported that I was attending OSU. Since the WIN limit at that time was age six and my youngest daughter was two when I started, I was allowed to finish my undergraduate years without having to report to some job-training program that would have prepared me for a minimum-wage job. Each day I awoke feeling as if I were in a race, that I had to complete my degree before I was charged with a felony (Opposing Viewpoints p. 120).
If the government wants to see less women on welfare, then why scare them into thinking they may go to jail for wanting to get an education?
The second group of recipients, who suffer from having to work in order to receive benefits, is the elderly. With such limited jobs available to senior citizens, how are they supposed to work in this economic frenzy; moreover, what does it mean for their retirement? Older adults are working to bolster their retirement incomes, but the rising unemployment rate, which is now 6.1 percent, limits their prospects (Johnson et al, p. 1). Believe it or not, even the elderly want to work. Their only problem is finding prospective employers who are interested in hiring them and keeping them. Employers worry that older citizens possess outdated skills and limited capacities. Still, the future holds that jobs will become more intrapersonal; it will require more brain power, and jobs will become less physical. This outlook seems bright for the elderly; actually, it isn’t. Another worry is the cost of hiring an older employee. The cost of benefits and salaries for the older employee is much higher than the younger employee. If older citizens are not capable of making money, what does this mean for their retirement?
Almost every senior citizen looks forward to their retirement check. This check is a symbol of their past; it reminds them how many hours they put in just to put food on the table. Now that they are retired, they no longer have to work; instead, they rely on that monthly check for survival. Forty-nine percent of households age fifty or older hold retirement accounts, and seventy-nine percent of them hold stock (Johnson p. 1). Needless to say, with the recent economic crisis, these retirement accounts have taken a severe downfall. Between January 2007 and May 2008, retirement accounts lost eighteen percent of their value, and homes in certain areas lost four to twenty percent of their values (Johnson p. 1). Now, seniors have little time to get back any portion of what they had. These adults are now looking to the welfare agency for help, but if the agency requires them to work, help may be a figment of their imagination.
The last group of adults, who would have more problems than single mothers or senior citizens when it comes to working and making money, is the incapacitated. This group of people refers back to the beginning, where sixty-eight percent of people believed of the welfare recipients were taking advantage of the system. Unquestionably, the disabled rank among those believed to be “faking” in order to receive benefits, another misconception among citizens. Statistically, there are 42.5 million disabled persons living in the United States today (McClunghem p. 489). Unfortunately, most of these people do not have full-time jobs. The incapacitated are like the elderly in the sense that employers do not wish to hire them, and if they do, it isn’t for long. The primary reason for the disabled person’s unemployment is because the technology they would require is too costly. For example, every blind person cannot afford to purchase a talking computer. Monetary limitations should be the least of worries for people who want to work. There are other obstacles like tackling a flight of stairs or finding a mode of transportation that also prevent the disabled from getting to work easily. Not only must the disabled overcome obstacles, but employers must see through the obvious. Employers should see people for what they can do, as opposed to what they cannot. Without a job, incapacitated persons must receive some form of income.
Often times, the disabled seek assistance from Medicaid. Medicaid’s aged and disabled populations grew by about 3 percent a year between 2000 and 2003 (Holahan p. 1). With this information, the government can see the vast number of disabled people need help. By requiring them to work in order to receive benefits, disabled lose more money than they make. After purchasing the necessary equipment to enable the disabled to work, plus paying for an aid to assist them, their check becomes minuscule. If the incapacitated had any confidence in life before this, I don’t see how they have any left after this rebuke.
With increasing levels of poverty in the United States, reform must be administered but for the right reasons. The primary reason obviously being to aid those families in need of acute assistance, not the other way around. The government does not need to rely upon the poor and the homeless to pay its own debts. By requiring welfare recipients to work the only outcome for these people is poverty, that is, if they weren’t already experiencing it. The United States was built on one philosophy: America was to become the land of opportunity, the land of the free, and the home of the brave. Then allow the elderly people to seek jobs that make them feel that their life is full again; allow the disabled to feel free and to have access to all public facilities. Most importantly, allow the single mother the courage to not worry about going to jail for wanting to be educated. These people are why America was built.
Posted by: xerinhx on: December 16, 2008
As I walk towards the school, I see a small child surrounded by about four other children. At first, the pushing seems like harmless roughhousing; however, the scene soon turns more violent. As I draw closer, I hear the surprising taunting. “You’re gay! You’re gay! If you ever get that close to me again, I’ll knock you out!” said the tallest boy. The kid finally stood up. He tried to talk to the others, but they wouldn’t listen. While talking, his hands moved in a way that was almost feminine. They continued laughing and walked away. I sympathized with the boy from across the playground because I knew that he would have a tough life ahead of him.
Did this little boy desire to be ridiculed at such a young age? Does he really even understand why they are mocking him? Controversy surrounds the topic of sexual orientation. Society seems to think as if they choose this life for themselves, but in most cases, they don’t. Sexual orientation is determined by biology and not by choice; this is shown by research completed on childhood gender nonconformity, twins, and physical differences between heterosexual and homosexual individuals.
At one time, anyone that wasn’t straight was considered to be diseased or to have a mental illness. Regardless, the history of sexual identity has been a hot topic since the 1800’s. Many prominent figures had their own ideas about the situation. Karl Heinrich Ulrich was the first homosexual activist. He thought that the gays represented a “3rd sex” with male and female being the first two. This idea probably came from an old Greek tale. “Aristophanes’ told a tale of “double” creatures—double male, double female, and male-female—which Zeus spilt to make new creatures that were either heterosexual or homosexual” (Mondimore, pg. 98). This shows that homosexuality has been around since the beginning of mankind. Sigmund Freud, however, had a much different outlook. He said that both orientations were results of a child’s relationship with his/her parents. Freud believed everyone was born with bisexual desires, but some just don’t hide them. This was later researched and proven in a sexual arousal experiment.
There are two theories as to why one would be attracted to the same gender. Most think that it is a personal choice, and that they could “switch back” at any time. However, new research is causing many to believe that sexual orientation is decided by genetics. This theory is becoming widely accepted and is also causing excitement in the homosexual community. If orientation is established by genetics, many more questions will need to be answered such as why gay marriage is illegal in most states.
The idea that sexual preference is determined by biology is very plausible largely due to childhood gender nonconformity or CGN. CGN is experienced shortly after birth when social skills are being developed. When children seem to be interested in hobbies and items that are usually associated with the opposite sex, they are usually diagnosed with childhood gender nonconformity. Also, the majority of children who have CGN are gay when they’re older (Finkelstein). It is extremely easy to notice the difference in kids. In many cases, they are teased and sometimes ignored because of what they like to play with or what they enjoy wearing. Michael Bailey, a psychologist, professor, and researcher on sexual orientation at Northwestern University said this: “ To me, cases like this really scream out, ‘ Hey, it’s not out there. It’s in here’” (Finkelstein).
In order to prove that orientation is caused by biology, twin studies are also sending the gay community into frenzy. Michael Bailey, a top researcher in the field, conducted a study on male twins. They found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent (Swidey). This finding is odd considering that studies have shown that homosexuality seems to run in the family. The whole twin situation stumps researchers. In twins, the genes are identical; however, they don’t fully understand why one would be straight while the other is not. Some attribute the difference to how they were raised. If one child were closer to his mother than his brother, he would have a larger chance of being gay later in life. Also, genes have trait “penetrance.” This is the chance that a specific gene, a gay gene, would become activated (Williams, pg. 19,20). Researchers have also realized that homosexuals differ physically from heterosexuals. Their movements are more fluid. They also articulate their words in a different manner and use many hand gestures. Most believe that this is due to unique environments while still in the womb.
One of the leading researchers in sexual orientation studies was Simon LeVay. In 1991, he worked in order to prove that heterosexual and homosexual people had different physical attributes. He noticed that a certain portion of the hypothalamus, which is located in the brain, is smaller in gay men. Straight men, however, had clumps of neurons twice the size of homosexuals. That particular area is believed to control sexual behavior, and this study was the turning point in research done about orientation.
Freud stated that he believed everyone had bisexual desires. Now, this is one way to determine your orientation. In a study done by Michael Bailey, a psychologist, teacher, and researcher, males and females were asked to watch a movie involving provocative scenes. He discovered that men were category specific meaning that if the men were straight, females would only arouse them. Men would only arouse gay men. However, this wasn’t the case for the females. Women were aroused by both sexes—male and female—regardless of orientation (Bailey). This shows that men and female have brains that are organized very differently and react in different ways.
Hormonalization also plays a big role in gender identity. John Money, a psychologist, believes that
sexual orientation is reached with a mixture of nature and culture (Herman, pg. 136). For example,
if a female was exposed to male hormones, androgens, while still in the womb, they tend to act
more like guys and have the same interests. Before birth, the brain becomes hormonalized. The
pituitary gland releases hormones, but the amount varies due to the mother’s condition. Stress,
food, and drugs can cause the gland to release more or less hormones that masculinize or feminize
the brain. This, in turn, causes one to be homosexual or heterosexual.
Discrimination is alive and well in the United States as well as other parts of the world. Whether it is ethnic or religious, masses of people are treated unfairly every day. However, homosexuals belong to an elite group that experience the most of this type of treatment. They are sometimes not able to get specific jobs because of their orientation. If they decide to join any branch of military, they are ridiculed. Generally, people with a minority sexual orientation are greatly intimidated in the workplace and by peers. I find this ironic because we live in a country where we are supposed to be free.
In today’s society, any situation involving homosexuals becomes a fight, and the world is especially torn on the topic of gay marriage. Although most citizens don’t think they should be married, they should look at the research. Studies are pointing towards biology as affecting orientation. If this is the case, they can’t help who they are attracted to, and it would only be fair to let them exchange vowels. People are searching for proof; however, the proof is right in front of their eyes. For example, it has been confirmed that animals can be homosexual. These include worms, sheep, and a menagerie of others. This proves that orientation is biological because we all know that animals don’t choose to switch their sexual preference. It happens naturally. People should realize that the same concept applies to both men and women as well.
In summation, homosexuality is not a choice; it is determined at birth. Although researchers have not said that biology is the main reason for sexual identity, all have agreed that it plays a very large role in orientation. Settling this dispute will help to solve many problems. It won’t be long until it is written down in the history books that sexuality is decided at birth.
Posted by: deecubed on: December 16, 2008
In a classroom full of students certain students shine, yet certain students fall
behind. Teachers are being punished for those students who choose to fail. Children who
have special needs are being forced into classrooms with regular students. The students
who choose to shine are now being held back. George W. Bush thinks that no child should
be left behind in anyway, no matter what their needs may be.
In the twenty-first century teachers are supposed to be punished for students who
choose to fail, atleast that’s what George Bush thinks. Teachers who are not specially
trained to work with special education students, are being forced to teach them. All in the
mean while students who work so hard to shine academically are being held back. The No
Child Left Behind Act needs to be abolished; it fails to better the education of students,
puts a strain on schools, school officials, and teachers, and focuses more on standardized
test scores rather than educational funding to better schools. This act was signed April 11,
1965, by president Lyndon B. Johnson. After signing this act these were the presidents
words: “No law I have signed or will ever sign means more to the future of America”
(Wright, pg.9)
On January 8, 2002 president George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind
Act into law. Basically this law was a reformation of the Elementary and Secondary
Schools Act of 1965, also know as ESEA. The ESEA was designed to address, and then
changed the unequal rights of students to earn an education. Underprivileged children
would now have the same opportunity to learn as every other student.
The statement of purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act title states: “The
purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant
opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.”
(Wright, pg.21). Although no child left behind sounds really nice, it fails to recognize that
all children are not able to function on the same level of education as some students.
The No Child Left Behind Act has several principles to make schools better.
Basically NCLB is going to separate students into subgroups and rate them based on their
performance. That sounds very nice; however, the results they focus on are the
standardized test scores of children from those subgroups. In order to meet the NCLB
standards all students from these subgroups must pass the tests and meet the states
requirements set by the act. This is too ensure that all students are proficient by the year
2014. NCLB wants teachers who are specifically qualified for a subject to teach their
subjects. Also the act wants parents to know what kind of school their child is attending.
Which brings me to my next point.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is the goals set by the state for the schools, and
the subgroups within that school, test scores are used to determine wither the school is
meeting its AYP. The No Child Left Behind Act is Labels schools. If a school fails to
meet it’s AYP, it is labeled as “needs improvement”(Wright. pg.54). Once a school is
labeled “needs improvement” then the school is forced to adopt a new curriculum.
Once a school is labeled as “needs improvement” for two consecutive years, it is
then publicly announced. Once announced parents have the right to move their child to a
better school in another school district.. This is putting a sever strain on schools. Once a
school is labeled, it begins to loose teachers, and funding. These acts are simply not
morally right, it is humiliating schools. Certain students are not capable of learning certain
things. Ultimately this is resulting in reconstitutions and even closures of schools.(Darling-Hammond, pg.1).
The No Child Left Behind Act is singling out children. On of the biggest
subgroups of children being affected is the special education students.
Posted by: neal12 on: December 16, 2008
Perhaps the biggest question in all of sports is: Should a playoff system be implicated in college football? Yes, college football needs a playoff system. When the Bowl Championship Series (B.C.S.) was revised in 1998, everyone thought the NCAA got it right. The system would solve all problems and a definitive champion would be crowned. It seemed to be the greatest thing happening in sports since the Super Bowl. They were wrong. Whether this certain team deserves to play of this certain team doesn’t, it always seems like the same old story.
Prior to the 1998 season, a group of board members decided it was time for a change. People were realizing there was no distinct system for which college football’s best teams could compete. After weeks and weeks of constant gatherings and meetings, they found something. The B.C.S. was designed to beat the flaws in the “system.” It was enabled for the primetime teams to meet in a 1 vs. 2 matchup. Who knew that such a simple strategy would create the most chaos and controversy in the history of sports?
The B.C.S. consists of six large conferences. They include the: Atlantic Coast (ACC), Big 12, Big Ten, Big East, Pacific-10 (Pac-10), and Southeastern (SEC).(College,31) Because the Big East, Big Ten, and Pac-10 have fewer than 12 teams, they don’t have a post-season championship game. The regular season winner from their respective conference receives an automatic B.C.S. birth. On the other hand, the ACC, Big-12, and SEC have 12 teams. The winner from each side of the conference meets at a pre-determined location for the championship game. The winner of the championship game receives that respective conference’s automatic B.C.S. birth. Along with the six automatic qualifiers, come four at-large bids. These bids come from the four highest ranked teams that didn’t receive their conference’s automatic berth.
The purpose of the B.C.S. is simple; to crown a champion. Although it may seem like a simple process, it is more difficult than meets the eyes. The B.C.S. is combined of four different polls: the Associated Press (AP), USA Today, Harris Interactive, and the B.C.S. poll itself. (College, 1129). Every Sunday evening after the first of October, the B.C.S. polls are released. Eventually, week 15 rolls around. After all of the games played that week, the final polls come out. On “Selection Sunday,” a group of announcers announce who will be going where. To be eligible for one for the 34 bowls, a team must win at least six of their regular season games. While all bowls mean something, none can compare to the five main B.C.S. bowls: The Rose Bowl, which is the most famous bowl in college football, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, and the most important, National Championship Game.
There are three distinct reasons why college football should implicate a playoff system. The main reason it needs a playoff is because the current system is unfair. It is a system based on polls, rankings, and the biased opinion of sports writers. The next reason college football needs a playoff system is because it ignores tradition. Fans in the past used to know which bowl their team would compete in. Under the current system, they have to wait until the end of the year. Teams also used to play in the same bowls but now go to different ones every year. The final reason college football needs a playoff system is because of financial aspects. The NCAA would make millions upon millions from marketing alone if the champion was decided on the field instead of the computer.
Most sports fans would that the current B.C.S. system is unfair. It consists of four main polls and rankings. If a team wins they move up. If they lose, they fall. While it seems it should work that way, it doesn’t. It has often occurred when a team upsets a highly ranked opponent, they don’t move up any. Another reason why the B.C.S. is considered unfair is the biased sports writers. Every week, these so called “unbiased” writers rank the top teams 1-25. Some people believe these writers are honest while others don’t. It’s hard to believe they are honest when you have writers from Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma that vote for their respective schools. To make the situation better, if a writer and a team were from the same state, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote for them. If the move to a playoff would be made, people wouldn’t have to hear the complaining amongst the media every single week of the season.
Even though the B.C.S. is unfair, at least six conferences have a representative in its bowls. What about the so-called non-B.C.S. conferences? Conference-USA, the Mountain West, the Western Athletic Conference (WAC), and the Mid-American (MAC), are all among the elite conferences. There is only on problem, they aren’t a B.C.S. conference. This means that the winner of these conferences doesn’t receive an automatic birth to a B.C.S. bowl. Because these teams don’t bring enough fans or have the required amount of seats in their stadium, they aren’t considered a B.C.S. school. ( ). This is not an acceptable reason as to why these conferences aren’t considered B.C.S. A prime example of this is Boise State University. The Broncos finished the 2006 regular season with a perfect 12-0, 8-0 record in the Western Athletic Conference. While the WAC isn’t a B.C.S. conference, they were still eligible for a B.C.S. birth because they were ranked #8 in the polls. They were the second non-B.C.S. school to receive a B.C.S. birth. (Utah in the 2004 Orange Bowl). #8 Boise State was matched up against powerhouse #3 Oklahoma in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. The Broncos shocked the world and defeated Oklahoma in 3OT 43-42 on a trick play. This created even more controversy because a non-B.C.S. school won a B.C.S. bowl.
We all know that the United States won World War II. Not according to the B.C.S. however. A group of writers got together in the summer of 2008 and put all of the events of World War II into the B.C.S’s computer system. It was determined Germany defeated powerhouse Austria and had strong conference wins in Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Their only losses were at the hands of the U.S. and Russia. Because of their strength of schedule and only two losses, it was determined Germany was number one. The United States, the original winners, finished fourth because they only had two “major” victories over Japan and Germany. Germany’s head coach, Adolph Hitler, claimed that they beat powerhouse #2 France in game six. It was determined the U.S. was getting “style points” in its victories over lesser opponents, and should factor in the polls. The final rankings were as follows: #1 Germany, #2 France, #3 Japan, and #4 United States. The U.S. has an even better argument as does Texas in this year’s rankings because it defeated a team that finished ahead of them.
Another good point as to why college football needs to implicate a playoff system is because it ignores tradition. Before the B.C.S, the conference champions would always participate in the same bowl year in and year out. For instance, the champion of the Pac-10 and Big-Ten conferences would always meet in the Rose Bowl on New Year’s Day; the champion of the Big-12 always played in the Orange Bowl in Miami; and the SEC champion always played in the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans. Under the current format, the bowls can pick its’ representatives. It’s just not fair that one system can come in and destroy a hundred years worth of tradition in one.
Ten years ago, fans knew where they were traveling as soon their team won the championship. They would make travel arrangements to the city their team was destined to. Under the B.C.S., it’s much more difficult. Fans often find themselves making hotel accommodations to all four cities: Glendale, Arizona; Pasadena, California; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana. All of these cities require a certain cancelation time. Due to the fact that the Selection Show is after the selected date, fans either cannot cancel their reservations or have a pay a high cancelation fee.
Before the B.C.S. system, only a select few were rewarded with playing in a bowl game. There were only five main bowls: the Rose Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Sun Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar Bowl. By the 1970 season, the number of bowl games rose from 5 to 11. In 2000, the total number of bowls had reached 25. You think that is too many? In 2008, there are 34 bowl games being played. That is 68 out of 119 teams or 57% playing one extra game. That is totally uncalled for. Teams just schedule weak out of conference games just to make a bowl game.
If a college football playoff system were to be introduced, the money and revenue would be off the charts. Millions upon millions would tune in to the event. T.V. ratings would be at the highest they have ever been. While the B.C.S. keeps moving forward, only a handful of people are tuning in. Over the past 5 years, TV. ratings have only increased 15%. Compare that to the Super Bowl who’s TV. ratings have increased to just over a 25%. It has been projected that if college football were to implicate a playoff system, the ratings would increase up to 30%.
The marketing would also rise if a playoff system were to be installed in college football. People would be tuning into the TV. or reading more papers to find out about interesting matchups. A team would play at least three more games so fans would watch three times the amount of ESPN. College Football Live and Bowl Mania are among two of the most watched programs about college football. Almost every day these shows come on. If a playoff system would be installed, they would air more because there would be more games. T.V. isn’t the only think that would benefit. Playoff t-shirts, hats, and logo sells would peek at an all-time high. Since there has never been a playoff, these items would be considered as collector’s items.
There are select pros to having a playoff system. The first pro is that all other divisions of college football have them. FCS (formally 1-AA), Division-II, Division-II, and NAIA, all have playoff systems. There are no bowls, polls, and problems in these lower tier divisions. The second pro to having a playoff is excitement. Fans would travel from city to city to watch the games. If they were on a different day, unlike the B.C.S. bowls, fans would see more than one. The host cities would make millions off of a playoff especially if more than one game were to be played there. The third and final pro to a playoff is a definitive champion is crowned. All 8 teams would play head-to-head and the winner would be determined on the field instead of the computer.
In conclusion, college football must adapt a playoff system. First of all, the B.C.S. is unfair. Teams that deserve bid are being left out and teams non-deserving of a bid are getting in. Next, the B.C.S. ignores the rich tradition of college football. The Rose Bowl used to be the biggest game in sports. Now, it means little compared to the National Championship Game. Finally, the B.C.S. is all about money. They don’t care who the teams in the games are, they just care about ratings. In fact, the ratings are just barely increasing each year. Other sports with playoffs or tournaments such as basketball are rising dramatically from year to year. I am one of the biggest sports fans in the world. College football is one of my most favorite sports and I would love nothing more than to see it adapt a playoff system.
Posted by: copleyang on: December 16, 2008
Choose the Right Sex
By
Angel Copley
English 101
Mrs. Laura Tracy Baisden
December 19, 2008
OutlineThesis: Parents should be allowed to select the gender of their offspring considering it keeps families balanced, it allows for a healthier pregnancy, and it can not only be done by high-tech medical procedure, but it can be done naturally as well.
I. Why is gender selection good
A. Balanced family
B. Important to have balanced family
II. Healthier Pregnancy
A. Procedures produce healthy babies
B. Happier home
III. High-tech medical procedures
A. In vitro fertilization
B. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis
C. MicroSort
IV. Natural methods
A. Shettles
B. Whelan
C. Sex-selection kits
Most women wait eighteen to twenty-two weeks before finding out the sex of their child, and others wait the full nine months, but today neither one has to be done. A woman can choose which ever sex she and her significant other would like to conceive. She can put her trust into scientific methods of naturally conceiving the gender of her choice, or spending thousands of dollars on a procedure allowing the desired sex to be born. Although there are many people who believe these techniques are unethical and should not be used. Parents should be allowed to select the gender of their offspring considering it keeps families balanced, it allows for a healthier pregnancy, and it can not only be done by high-tech medical procedures, but it can be done naturally as well.
Before couples getting ready for a pregnancy only had the hopes of conceiving the sex of their desire. Many couples have a specific gender they want to have, but it’s more common that the opposite sex would be born. Other couples have already received a girl or boy and want to balance out their family with the opposite sex. Thanks to long hours of research by fertility doctors, a couple can predetermine whether they’ll have a boy or a girl.
In some cases you won’t be eligible unless you’re married and already have at least one child of sex opposite from the one you’re trying for (Leigh, pg.1). By not allowing a couple to choose a sex solely because they want a certain gender is an excellent strategy to keep families balanced. Most families become unbalanced due to couples trying for the opposite sex, but they continue to receive the same gender child. Also keep in mind that Mother Nature has already tipped the odds a bit in favor of boys in the sex-selection game. According to data released in 2004 from the national Center for Health Statistics, approximately 1,050 boys are born for every 1,000 girls (Leigh, pg.1).
It is very important to keep families balanced in the United States in order to keep a social disruption from occurring. In India, for example, they would pretty much do anything in order to increase the proportion of their prized males, the overabundance of men means that females are now prized commodities, and this has changed their culture completely (Kore, pg.1). To avoid something like this in the United States our citizens should be more opened to choosing the sex of their own children.
Although a balanced family is very important to have, it is extremely important to have a healthy pregnancy as well. By using one of the high-tech medical procedures known as Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, embryos are tested thoroughly for genetic abnormalities and sex (Leigh, pg.2). Since this process removes all infected embryos and only inserts healthy embryos back in the uterus. Women are less likely to miscarry or have a child with a genetic disorder (Leigh, pg.2). When a woman miscarries a child or gives birth to a child with a disorder, it is very disheartening not only for her, but also for her companion and their families. It puts a big emotional strain on both the man and woman. They tend to blame themselves for what has happened. By giving gender selection a chance a woman can have a healthier pregnancy.
Even though a healthy baby calls for a healthy pregnancy, it is also important that the parents are happy with the outcome of their child. Toronto psychiatrist concluded that how parents feel about their children at birth or even before birth can have a lasting impact and can be predictive, on the future behavior and mental health of those children (Shettles, pg.18). Allowing a healthy and happy home with the child of your choice will lead to an abundance of happiness in a home. Other medical researches such as Benedict believe that some people are only capable of having a certain gender child, and this process is ideal for them also (Shettles, pg.18). Children would be much happier and healthier knowing that they were exactly what their parents wanted.
Since early years people have tried different methods of conceiving the sex of their choice, but thanks to high-tech medical procedures it can be done for a certain price. There are many different procedures varying from different prices and techniques. Some of those procedures consist of in vitro fertilization (IVF), Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and MicroSort.
In vitro fertilization occurs outside the body. This process is done when a doctor gives his/her patient an anesthetic and then removes her eggs from her ovaries by inserting a needle through her vaginal wall. Her eggs are then fertilized with sperm in a petri dish where they set for two to five days before they are placed back in the uterus by a catheter (Leigh, pg.1). This process has been used since 1981 and has an extremely good success rate. Since this procedure only has to have the egg from the woman and nothing from the man it is common for those who cannot conceive a baby of their own to use IVF. IVF cannot only allow a couple the gender of their choice, but it also allows couples to have child of their own when odds are against them.
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is much like IVF where the embryo is formed outside the womb in a pedri dish. This process was introduced in 1989. It was developed only to help reduce risk of serious genetic disorders being passed down to child at birth, but can now be used for gender selection too. If a woman gets pregnant, PGD guarantees with almost 100 percent certainty that she’ll have a baby of her desired gender (Leigh, pg.2). Also if a miscarry would occur during the PGD procedure all embryos not being used are frozen, so transferring the frozen embryo to the woman would allow her another chance to give life to her desired baby (Leigh, pg.2).
Lastly, MicroSort is another technique used today. It is licensed by the Genetics and IVF Institute in Fairfax, V.a. This technique involves separating X- and Y-bearing sperm by using a laser light, dye, and a machine called a flow cytometer (Zaroma, pg.2). MicrSort is a little different from both the IVF and PGD procedures. It doesn’t completely get rid of one sex, but gives the sex of your choice the greater advantage. This method is about ninety percent successful when it comes to choosing girls and about seventy-four percent successful for boys (Leigh, pg.3). This method has no health risks that are known, but it is still relatively new. MicroSort is also a cheaper process than the other two.
Although high-tech methods can be dangerous and become very costly there are natural methods that can be tried as well. Some natural ways consist of Shettles method, Whelan method, and Sex-selection kits. These procedures cost little or no money to try, but they do not have the high success rates as the high-tech methods do.
Shettles method is an all natural method that has to do with the timing of intercourse and specific sexual positions. Shettles theory is sperm bearing Y chromosomes move faster but don’t live as long as sperm that carry X chromosomes; therefore, if you want a boy you should sex as close as possible to ovulation, and for a girl you should have sex two to four days before you ovulate (Leigh, pg.5).This procedure is relatively safe and can be free to try, but there are no guarantees that a woman will have success with this process. Shettle is a firm believer in couples who want to produce a desired sex should be happy with either sex because it is not completely an accurate method. More information about this can be found in his book How to Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Shettles proponents claim the technique is seventy-five percent effective, but other experts dispute this (Leigh, pg.5). This technique doesn’t give couples a complete guarantee, but it can tried by anyone.
Whelan method is very much like the Shettles method. The theory is that biochemical changes that many favor boy-producing sperm occur earlier in a woman’s cycle; therefore, for a boy you should have intercourse four to six days before you basal body temperature, and for a girl one should have sex two to three days before one ovulates (Leigh, pg.6). This process is completely safe and can be done at home.
The last natural method is using sex-selection kits. These kits are used at home and based on Shettles method. Separate girl and boy kits include a thermometer, ovulation predictor test sticks, vitamins, herbal extracts, and douches that are supposedly gender specific (Leigh, pg.6). These kits are completely convenient, but can cost about two hundred dollars for a thirty-day kit. These kits do have a higher success rate than most natural methods, but it’s smart not to put all one’s trust in a sex-selection kit.
In conclusion, it’s completely obvious that I think parents should be allowed to choose the sex of their offspring. First of all, being able to choose the gender of your child helps balance out families. Families should be able to stop having children after two kids allowing the family to be completely balanced with both sexes. Next, it allows couples to have a healthy pregnancy. When a parent is happy with the gender of their child it gives the child born a home full of love, and it gives them the pleasure of knowing they were a perfect addition to their family. Also with the high-tech procedures babies are never born with genetic disorders making them completely healthy. Finally, people can be relieved to know that not only can your sex of your offspring be accomplished by high-tech procedures, but by natural methods too. High-tech methods can become very costly and can have some risks, but they have a high success rate. Natural methods are free or very cheap, but aren’t as effective. Overall, parents should have complete control of their families and the sex they consume because it’s allows for a healthier life in general. Besides most families in the United States want to have a balanced family with a son and daughter.
Work Cited
Kore, Stanely. “Choosing Baby’s Sex Poses Ethical Questions”. UCLA Today October
12, 1998: accessed internet.Dec.10,2008.http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/PRLeigh, Suzanne. “Choosing your baby’s sex: What the scientists say”. babycenter. Dec.5, 2008 <http://www.babycenter.com/0_choosing-your-babys-sex-what-the-scientists-say_2915.bc>.
N-981012choosing.aspx
Shettles, Landrum, and Rorvik David. How to Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Random
House, Inc., 1996.accessed igoogle books.Dec.10,2008.http://www.go ogle .com /books?id=ynQFcOEzpWEC&pg=RA1-PA49&dq= choosing+the+se x+o f+ yo ur+chil d& as_brr=3&ei=ipVGSYrvCIvuMpnjvasC&rview=1#PPA18,M1Zamora, Ducle. “Choosing the Sex of Your Child”. Web MD. Dec. 6, 2008 <http://www.webmd.com/baby/features/choosing-sex-of-your-child>.
Posted by: whitlogg on: December 16, 2008
On a typical day at the average United States Division of Motor Vehicles, a sixteen year old girl or boy will walk in one his or her birthday to acquire the coveted driver’s license. Obtaining a driver’s license is probably one of the monumental things to happen to person; therefore, driving is a huge responsibility and should never be taken lightly. All too often in the United States, such important privileges are devalued. A major problem in our country today is immigration. Most immigrants today come from Mexico, and a lot of them enter the country illegally. Around ten million immigrants are Mexican; shockingly, one to two million of them are here as illegals, which adds to the total illegal immigrant population of ten to twelve million total (Feingold, p. 278). This poses a huge problem not only to national security, but to other American privileges as well. Views of many American politicians are very blurry. Talk of allowing illegal immigrants being able to legally obtain a driver’s license is insane. The simple thought of such a crazy idea is an oxymoron. Illegal immigrant should never be allow to obtain an American driver’s license legally because this practice would not encourage illegal immigrants to become legal United States citizens, driving is a privilege for United States citizens, and essentially illegal immigrant are criminals. These three reasons are just a few of the many cons to allowing illegals to obtain driver’s licenses legally. It seems our government is more worried about noncitizens than real citizens. The main factor that makes this topic so controversial is the fact that most U.S. citizens do not realize that most illegals are not here temporarily for work opportunities. They may come for that in the beginning, but most set up shop here to stay with family. Eventually they start driving illegally and put all legal drivers at risk.
One-third of the thirty-five million immigrant population is made up of illegal immigrants (Feingold, p. 276). That means while some immigrants are coming here for the right reasons, others are taking advantage of the leniency of the government. Allowing illegal immigrants to attain legal driver’s licenses under minds the whole immigration system, which has many holes obviously. Experts have many opinions on how to reform the immigration system to stop the ever growing illegal immigrant population, but it is not very simple. There is really no way for the United States government to ship all the illegals out all together, so other solutions are being explored. One of those solutions, according to certain members of the democrat party, distributing legal driver’s licenses would be a way for illegals to “work toward earned immigration” (Lochhead, p.1). The general population is against this issue and thinks it promotes wrong doing. This is proved many times in the news. The outrage of the New York state citizens said it all when then governor Eliot Spitzer proposed and passed the three class driver’s license system that allowed illegals to obtain valid driver’s licenses. Just in a few weeks after this particular legislation was passes, twenty-three thousand illegals applied and received driver’s licenses. These licenses would be good even for those with expired visas (IDs, p. 1). These licenses, therefore, did not promote those illegals to go out and try to become legal citizens. The DMV actually decided not to recall those licenses even after Spitzer was out of office due to his prostitution scandal (IDs, p.1).
Even though such a piece of legislation was passed in New York and other states such as New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah, as well as others, do allow illegals to drive legally. Such legislation has not been able to pass in the United States Congress because of the feeling that allowing illegals to obtain driver’s licenses will only create bigger problems. Numerous bills have gone through Congress unsuccessfully over the past five years. Such bills have made it impossible for all states to require the practice of illegals obtaining driver’s licenses because of such clauses stating that all people applying for driver’s license must have verification of U.S. citizenship. This same bill would have moved to extend the border along southern California (Epstien, p. 1). The opinions of Congress were obviously that the driver’s licenses for illegals were not the best way to fight illegal immigration. It is quite crazy that people that are for the driver’s licenses think that not giving the illegals these licenses would take away their freedoms, but technically illegal immigrants have no rights because they did not take the right steps to become a legal citizen.
Aside from the fact that illegal immigrants do not seek the proper way to become citizens and obtaining driver’s licenses would work against that goal, driving a car is a delicate ability and should not be given to any person. When a person gets a driver’s license, he or she takes on a huge responsibility. Driving a car can become potentially dangerous in many cases; therefore, illegal immigrants driving on United States roads is not safe because no one really knows if these immigrants are even equipped to drive a car. Plus, driving on highways is essentially a privilege to American citizen, so why those who are not citizens should be allowed to drive at all. Many accidents happen every year due to drunk and reckless driving; as a result, those offenders often have their driving privileges suspended because they have put others in danger. The United States government has left the power of issuing licenses and plates to the states, so that explains why some states are allowing this horrendous crime against citizens (Morton, p.1). When Dwight Eisenhower was president, he signed the Federal Highway Act. This initially allowed only commercial and military vehicles to drive on highways. Only later was this privilege extended to civilians (Morton, p.1). With this and the fact that driving privileges can easily be taken away from U.S. citizens, the notion driver’s licenses for noncitizens seems ridiculous. Rensselaer County Clerk Frank Merola mocked the driver’s license issue in New York by saying, “Let’s just hope they’re all law-abiding citizens,” (IDs, p.1).
The term “law-abiding” is not even close to accurate when referring to illegal immigrants. While watching The O’Reily Factor one night on Fox News Channel, the topic came up of illegal immigrants. An illegal immigrant in New York City killed two people in a DUI (O’Reily, TV). This man had been arrested before, and release on bail. This is one of the most awful crimes, and it is even worse when an illegal immigrant commits it because he or she is not even supposed to be driving a car. Even so, many times when illegals commit crimes, they leave and do not come back avoiding punishment. In Texas, one hundred and seventy-eight illegals were released on bail and never return for court dates (O’Reily, TV).
Illegal immigrants are criminals. First of all, entering a country with no intentions of becoming a legalized citizen is wrong, but it is harming the fabric of our society. Giving illegals driver’s licenses is seen as a “breeder’s document” (Dougherty, p.1). A “breeder’s document” can be compared to a “gateway drug.” While gateway drugs open the door to more serious drug use, breeder’s documents open illegal immigrants to acquiring false documents to prove citizenship illegally. For example, with a driver’s license an illegal immigrant can take the steps to get voters registration cards; thus, this leads to voting fraud, which was a big fear in this year’s election because of the huge number of illegal immigrants in the United States. Even though some people think that illegals should get licenses because they will drive anyway, most of the illegal immigrant drivers do not have insurance on their cars, which poses a huge problem if they are in an accident (Dougherty, p.1). If a person is hit by an illegal driver, this could cause huge problems for the legal driver’s insurance company, besides the fact that it just would not be fair. Also, back to “breeder’s documents,” illegals can use their driving only licenses for purposes of boarding airplanes or even getting social security numbers. Because of all these crime that are all too possible, people such as Ted Kulongoski suggested that licenses actually say “not for identification” (Goble, p.1). In places such as Missouri, driver’s licenses for illegals are strictly prohibited, and anyone caught helping an illegal obtain one will be prosecuted (Goble, p.1). This is truly the right way to go because a person helping this illegal activity is just as guilty as the immigrant committing it. Of course, the biggest issue of all with the controversy of this issue is national security. Because of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the government has tried to reform the immigration system because the terrorist that hijack those planes that flew straight into the World Trade Centers had numerous form of identification. Homeland security is very important; therefore, allowing illegals to attain documents such as driver’s licenses with any kind of strange Mexican or other foreign identification is potentially putting the lives of American citizens in danger because of little to no background checks. The last thing anyone wants in this country is let an extreme terrorist in the country illegally and give him or her valid driver’s license (Epstien, p.1).
In closing, illegal immigrants should never have the same opportunities as American citizens. In a way, giving them the right to drive as freely as we do is taking away our freedoms. Many times this controversial topics are just brought up gain recognition from a group of voters, much like president-elect Obama used it (Lochhead, p.1). However, when such issues are introduced, law-makers should think about the American citizens first, and then think about the noncitizens. Any person aiding these illegal immigrants stay here illegally just because they perform labor at cheap cost is doing a great disservice to his or her country for which everyone should have the utmost respect. Driver’s licenses are a responsibility as well as a convenience, so someone that is here illegally should really not be granted either unless he or she is going through the steps to become a U.S. citizen. Honestly, there is no way the law-makers of this country can ever pass any billing allowing illegal immigrant to obtain driver’s licenses because the public will never agree, and illegal immigrants are simply criminals that take advantage of our loving country.
Posted by: justynblankenship10 on: December 16, 2008
Living in the dark or living in the light. It is good versus evil. It is the ideas of immoral thoughts versus the conscience of a clear head. It is even considered a way of life or a way of death. The occupation of prostitution has been around for as long as anyone can remember, and it still is considered to be looked down upon in almost every country in the world. Prostitution being illegal has been the way of life, but with so much going on in the world today there is a pondering question being asked. Is prostitution as bad as everyone says? Prostitution should become legal because it creates job opportunities for a struggling economy, decreases the chance of getting a sexually transmitted disease, and is part of an American’s rights.
Prostitution in general is the exchange of sex for money or goods. That is the general idea when everyone thinks of prostitution, but in some instances it is a lot more complicated. Prostitution is a very interesting process of selling the body for sex. This involves a customer and producer relationship like in any business situation. The sex worker receives a payment usually before he or she gives the customer what they want. This is decided by the customer setting the standards and the worker making an agreement. The two versions of prostitution are direct and indirect (Harcourt, pg.1). These two versions have many different types of prostitution that fit into each category. Street prostitution is one of the most common types of direct prostitution. This is when a sex worker stays on the streets to find clients willing to make the exchange of money for sex. There are also brothels which are houses where customers go to be satisfied. There is also private, escorts, window, club, door knock, transport, radio, and solicitation sex (Harcourt, pg.1). These are less popular versions. Indirect forms of prostitution are when someone gets money without actually providing intercourse to a customer. These types do not require someone to be considered a prostitute. The types of indirect forms are bondage, lap dancing, entertainers, vendors, swingers, and strippers. Out of all these types, the most expensive form of sex worker is an escort. Escorts are considered to be a very classy prostitute. It is very common for them to make over 1,000 dollars a night (Harcourt, pg.1). The chain of different types of prostitutes today has escorts as the kind of prostitute every sex worker longs to become with them setting at the very top.
Since the beginning of time there has been recorded history of prostitution. Prostitution has been found in nearly every civilization on Earth (Head, pg.1). Sex seems to have always found a way to be used as a source of service. It almost seems that it should be natural. At least that is how some civilizations have portrayed it. Greece is one of the first places that have been known to accept prostitution. In the 6th Century B.C., Solon established government supported brothels that would feature inexpensive sex workers which any man, regardless of income, could afford (Head, pg.1). This was legal through most of the Greek and Roman periods even though it was strongly discouraged. The fight for and against prostitution has been a continuing battle all through time. One of the first countries to ban prostitution was Spain. In A.D. 590, Reccared I. banned prostitution as an effort to turn his country into the Christian ideology (Head pg.1). Women found guilty were whipped 300 times which is equivalent to the death sentence (Head pg.1). All the way from the early 1100’s to today there has been so many ideas of prostitution being good or bad that know one has been able to agree on one way or the other. From King Henry II regulating prostitution, Pope Sixtus V Mandating the death penalty, and Japan forcing prostitution during World War II, nothing has changed in the way that it is seen through certain types of people and cultures. The most interesting out of all the ideas of prostitution pertaining to the United States happened in 1971 when the state of Nevada decided to permit brothels (Head, pg.3). The counties have a choice almost like being a county deciding to sell alcohol or be considered a dry county. These counties have a choice to legally allow brothels or ban them. This is still the case today for the forms of prostitution in the United States.
A great way to turn the idea of prostitution into something prosperous is to take advantage of the money involved in it and help the current economic problems of the United States. Prostitution has a lot of money involved in it and since it is illegal it cannot be taxed and benefit the country. Prostitution should be legal so the government can use it to their advantage to create jobs for people who are in reality no use for the country and also help get the country out of its debt and economic struggles. About four to six million people every year are arrested for consensual crimes (Weingartner, pg.1). This costs lots of money for the government to pay for jail expenses. In 2001, state correctional facilities cost $15.6 billion and prison expenses were another $29.5 billion (Weingartner, pg.1). Instead of losing money, the country could focus on making money off of taxing prostitution. It would make millions or even billions of dollars a year and become an asset instead of an enemy. Let’s face it; there will always be a demand for sex no matter how much someone tries to control it. There is no inevitable way to stop it completely so the government needs to go with the old saying, “If you can’t beat them, join them.” The government needs prostitution as much as prostitution needs the government. Prostitution is looked down upon because the way people are taught to see it. It is common for people to not even walk on the same side of the street as a prostitute because the way they see the job. Legalizing prostitution gives people who have no other talents or strengths a way to be content with their job. Many sex workers feel that being a prostitute is a very depressing and lonely life which leads to them getting hooked on drugs and many other things that are disapproved. Allowing legal prostitution gives the actual workers a reason to not feel so bad about what they are doing. If they do not feel so bad about what they are doing then they are more likely to stay away from drugs and other substances.
The biggest issues today that people have with prostitution are the safety issues. Prostitution is not very safe in the state that it in today. In a recent study, 40% of prostitutes have more than five customers a day and 97% of prostitutes interact with vaginal intercourse (Esu-Williams, pg.1). This astounding fact shows that prostitution is very risky in taking a chance of receiving a disease. Legalizing prostitution would create a safer alternative that what it is now. Under a system, prostitutes would have to be registered and checked before being able to work. They would receive a card telling if they are certified for prostitution. Upon making an arrangement with a customer, the worker would have to show the card making prostitution ultimately safer. Studies also show that sex workers are very limited in knowledge of sexually transmitted diseases. Only 17% of women prostitutes listed AIDS when asked to list transmitted diseases (Esu-Williams, pg.2). With this being said, sex workers need to be more informed about diseases and what can happen. In a legalized system, a class would be required to become a prostitute. The class would teach and discuss the safe way to do their job. It would also inform many prostitutes about diseases that they seem to have no idea about. This would both help the sex worker and client when it comes to worrying about getting a sexually transmitted disease. The only way these things are possible though is through the government which would have to legalize prostitution to fund the process of detecting diseases and teaching about them to a prostitute.
The final reason that prostitution should become legal in the United States is because it is an American Right. There are three rights that the Declaration of Independence gives us. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are vague guidelines that any person has in America. Even though most people do not think of prostitution as a pursuit of happiness, it can very well indeed fall into that category. The only purpose in which power can be taken from someone is if they cause harm to others in the act (Spangenburg pg.45). Prostitution is an act of consent. This means that there is an agreement between the two persons about what is going to happen. Most believe that being a prostitute cause’s harm to their clients, but the client is agreeing to the act. Hence, the worker has done nothing wrong and is still following the guidelines set by our government. Prostitution does not break any rules. It is illegal because of religious beliefs and rights that have affected the lawmakers’ decisions. The ideas of our ancestors have nothing to do with it.
In conclusion, prostitution should be legalized to help the country in many ways. The first reason is because of the economic stress the country is now facing. Prostitution could create a spark for the economy. America needs jobs and money. Prostitution can supply both of these needs to some extent. Brothels in Amsterdam earn thousands of dollars a day, and create hundreds of jobs (Walt, pg.2). This could be the same case in the United States. It would definitely not hurt the economy any worse then it already is. Legalizing prostitution will also decrease the chance of getting a sexually transmitted disease. The government can slow the growing number of diseases with a little effort by registering prostitutes. It would also make the process more professional. Finally, prostitution has no reason to be illegal in the first place. It does not forbid prostitution on any written document of significance made by the founders of the country. Therefore, they saw nothing wrong with it and we should not either. Prostitution is a choice of life and occupation like any job in America, like it or not.
Work Citied
Esu-Williams, Eka. “sexually transmitted diseases and interventions among prostitutes
and clients.” Health Transition Review. 08 July 1995. 14 Dec 2008
http://htc.anu.edu.au/pdfs/Esuwill.pdfare
Harcourt Christine. “What are the different types of prostitution?” Prostitution
ProCon.org. 23 April 2008. ProCon.org. 12 Dec 2008
http://prostitution.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=96.
Head, Tom. “Prostitution.” Civil Liberties 3 Dec 2008
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/History-of-Prostitution.htm.
Spangenburg, Ray, and Kit Moser. Civil Liberties. Tarrytown, New York: Marshall
Covendish, 2006.
Walt, Vivienne. “Vice Versa: Amsterdam Cleans Up.” Time 27 Aug. 2008.
Weingartner, Daniel. “Drugs, prostitution, and gambling could help save the economy.”
Tennessee Journalist. 25 Nov 2008. 13 Dec 2008
http://tnjn.com/2008/nov/16/drugs-prostitution-and-gambling.
