Should private education be banned?

Perry McCabe, Buhler, Kansas

First of all, let me state that I have been in public education for 70 years. First as a student,
then as a teacher and coach, then as a principal and finally as a school finance administrator.
While I have many gripes with private education, I think there is a place for it if that is what a
child’s parents want. Schools are private for a reason, be it religion, specialized schooling,
segregation, etc. And that is fine. However, do not come asking for public tax money to
operate your private schools. If you want private [education], then, as parents, you ought to
be willing to pay for it.…

James L. Parham, Springfield, Missouri

In my experience, private schools are systems of hate and separation. As a graduate of private
Catholic schools, I witnessed firsthand the severe class segregation and exclusion that makes
for lifelong choices by the privileged. The separation of the wealthy … from the poor is
physical at private schools, and so they provide safe arenas to reinforce biases without
contradictory evidence. Parents feel righteous, and by furthering the failure of public
institutions, they get to feel justified too. When all students are required to attend together,
they learn they are the same and hopefully they grow up to treat each other better. When all
children are going to the community school again, with no alternatives, the community
school will be supported. Poverty is created systemically and requires systemic reform to
eliminate.

Dylan Basescu, Washington, D.C.

Compulsory education is one of the best things to ever happen in this country, and you cannot
have a just system in which there is both compulsory education and exclusively public
education. We should not prioritize private schools, but we should not ban them either.

Sally Eaton

Private schools provide a superior education but encourage elitist social values. Evangelical
private schools create generations of Roy Moore Christians with their focus on religion, not
academics. The charter school model rescues urban kids from underfunded public schools,
yet creates de facto segregation.

Robert Smith, Alexandria, Louisiana

Education is the parents’ responsibility, and it should be their choice how they educate their
children. They are not the state’s children, nor [is it] the state’s responsibility to educate
them. Therefore, they should not limit parental choices. As a product of both public and
private schools, and a donor to private education, my parents and then myself bore the cost of
both. Why should parental choices be tyrannically limited by the state?

Om Prakash John Gilmore, Philadelphia

In Finland they have no private schools. That’s why every school there is top-notch.
Cynthia Olcott, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Don’t ban private schools, just stop supporting them with public funds. Tax money should go
to public schools only.

Mike Yoder, Bethany Beach, Delaware

When public schools are not teaching what parents believe is a good education, what are their
options? Private education, home-schooling, etc.? There must be options as the quality of
public education in some states is not producing educated youths. The emphasis on political
correctness has deteriorated too many public schools and caused enormous turmoil in the
school-parent relationship to the point that private or home-schooling are the only options.

Joan McComber

Diversity is needed to ensure everyone understands the needs of others. It is one of the tenets
of public education. I don’t think banning private schools is the answer, but they should be
held accountable for what they teach and should not receive money meant for public schools.
All students, regardless of the school attended, must learn certain required subjects. Public
education has suffered in recent decades because it has been easier to divert funding through
voucher programs to private schools than to fulfill the obligation to ensure quality public
education. Ensuring a quality education for everyone demands that appropriate funding is
provided, not only for classroom learning but also for extras like sports, art and music.
 Is Too Much Money a Bad Thing?

Money is tool with the help of which people exchange goods and services. More Money
brings power, freedom, and abundance in life. Money does not make anything good or bad,
but the thinking does it.

Money brings a sense of freedom, freedom to buy and have anything. How can freedom be
bad? Nobody wants to live a caged live, everyone desires freedom.

“Money has never made man happy, nor will it; there is nothing in its nature to produce
happiness. The more of it one has the more one wants.” – Benjamin Franklin

Why people perceive too much money a bad thing?

Too much money is considered bad because many people having it forgets how to respect
and be grateful in life. They take everything in life for granted and feel superior. They forget
what is right and wrong, and do not follow any rule and act the way they feel is right. There
are many examples of famous personalities all around the world who created their own rules
and ultimately destroyed their life and relationship with others.

We should also consider the fact, not all people are same. There are many famous
personalities who in spite of having too much money respected others, did not take things for
granted and had the attitude of gratitude.

Many times having too much of anything is considered bad, it also true in many cases such as
having too much of water can be poisonous, too much of kindness can make you vulnerable;
too much of eating food makes you fat. But all this does not make water, kindness or food
bad. Their usage makes it good or bad.

Thus, money in itself is not good or bad. Usage of money makes it good or bad. The same
money can be used for a good cause such as an aid to help the underprivileged and the same
money can be used to buy weapons for terrorism. Choice is yours; you can make or break
your world. Money or any other thing in too much is just a tool.

Many people think too much money is the cause of every problem, but lack of money is also
the cause of every problem. As for example we see poor countries facing loads of problems
compared to rich countries. It has also been said “It is better to cry in a BMW than on a
bicycle”

Eighty percent of the world’s money is with twenty percent of the population, while the rest
20 percent of the world’s money is with eighty percent of the population. Even if we divide
the money equally among everyone, gradually within no time the eighty percent of the money
will return back to the twenty percent of the population. It is a universal fact – Money stick
with those who have good feelings about money and sadly twenty percent of the world’s
population feels good about having money.
Sale of human organs should be legalised

Leading surgeons are calling for the Government to consider the merits of a legalised market
in organs for transplant. A public discussion on allowing people to sell their organs would,
the doctors say, allow a better-informed decision on a matter of such moral and medical
significance.

At stake are the lives of thousands of people who may die before a suitable donor can be
found. Eight thousand people are on the transplant waiting list, more than 500 of whom die
each year before they obtain an organ, and the numbers are rising by 8 per cent a year.

But there are serious concerns that introducing payments for people who donate their organs
would result in poor and vulnerable people coming under severe pressure to alleviate their
financial problems by selling a part of their body.

Professor Nadey Hakim, a Harley Street surgeon, and one of the world's leading transplant
surgeons, believes that a properly regulated market should be permitted so that the black
market in organs is, if not destroyed, at least dramatically reduced.

He sees the effects of the black market in patients so desperate to have a transplant operation
that they travel abroad for an organ.

This "transplant tourism", he said, often results in botched operations requiring further
surgery when the patient returns to Britain. It would make better sense for organ sales to be
allowed in the UK under a strictly regulated regime, he said, adding: "Let's have a system that
doesn't allow organs with HIV or whatever."

Professor John Harris, an ethicist at the University of Manchester, believes a debate and the
introduction of an organ market are long overdue. "Morality demands it," he said. "It's time to
consider it because this country, to its eternal shame, has allowed a completely unnecessary
shortage for 30 years. Thousands of people die each year [internationally] for want of organs.
That's the measure of the urgency of the problem.

"Being paid doesn't nullify altruism – doctors aren't less caring because they are paid. With
the current system, everyone gets paid except for the donor."

Professor Harris has developed proposals for an ethical market in organs in which donors
would be paid as part of a regulated system. Such a system, he said, would have to be
controlled within a strictly defined community, probably the UK but possibly extended to the
EU, so every organ could be accounted for. No imports would be allowed. The NHS would
be the sole supplier and would distribute organs as it does other treatments – ability to pay
would not be a factor. Consent would be required for every donation and would have to be
rigorously carried out to ensure no donor was subjected to untoward pressure.

Professor Sir Peter Bell, former vice-president of the Royal College of Surgeons but now
retired from practice, wants a public debate because there is such a shortage of organs for
transplantation: "It is time to debate it again. There is a great shortage of organs."
Recent medical advances, he said, now make it reasonable to allow a kidney market and
perhaps the sale of liver donations, although other body parts remain too risky, he argued.

"If someone wants to alleviate a financial problem why shouldn't he do that? It's his choice,"
he said.

Professor Bell suggested a fee of £50,000 to £100,000 for each kidney, the equivalent of one
or two years on dialysis, and added: "Kidney donation has now become so safe it's something
you could ethically justify and it would stop all this illegal trafficking."

There remains stiff opposition to liberalising the market, not least from the British
Transplantation Society (BTS). Opponents agree there should be a public debate about the
merits and flaws of a market in organs. "The British Transplantation Society opposes this
view, however it is prepared to debate this issue as the theoretical and empirical literature
evolves," said a spokesman.

Keith Rigg, the transplant surgeon and BTS president, said: "I'm happy to debate it. There are
pros and cons. I think the trouble is it would require a huge change in public opinion and
legislation. One argument against a regulated market is if you are paying some people, what
would be the impact on the existing deceased donor programme and living donor
programme?"

Why A Visit To This Country Rewards The Body And SoulCNN International for Incredible
India

Samsung: Developing an AI Tech that Understand Human …Samsung Newsroom

Flight Prices in Indonesia that will Make You Break Free!Save70.com

by Taboola
Sponsored Links

Mr Rigg pointed out that in the last two years there has been a steep rise in donations,
especially from live donors which have now overtaken deceased donors in number. There
were 1,058 live donations in the last year compared to 959 from dead patients. With an
average of 2.75 organs from each donor, surgeons were able to carry out 3,700 transplants in
the last year. Mr Rigg fears that introducing a regulated organ market would attract paid
donors at the expense of voluntary donors.

Other opponents to the creation of a market in organs say it would cross major ethical barriers
– and there are less radical measures that could be looked at first. "I don't believe we should
be commercialising parts of our bodies," said Professor Anthony Warrens, Dean of Education
at The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, adding that "the most disadvantaged"
people would end up selling parts of their bodies, potentially with disregard for the risks
involved. "It's just very risky if it's legalised," said Kenneth Boyd, professor of medical ethics
at the University of Edinburgh.

A radical extension to the organ transplant programme is being launched by the Government,
bringing fresh hope to hundreds of desperately ill patients. In a boost to the existing
programme, hospitals will retrieve organs from patients who die in accident and emergency
departments – as well as from those who die in intensive care units, as is currently the case.
The move is expected to make hundreds more organs available to reduce the waiting list.

Figures show that 28 per cent of the population has signed up to the organ donor register, but
only 1 per cent die in circumstances where their organs can be used. A&E departments lack
the equipment and trained staff for the task.

Should we be allowed to sell our organs?

Yes

* It would boost the supply of organs helping to solve the national shortage

* It would end the existing black market in organs, making it safer for people to donate

* It would mean donors were paid like everyone else – doctors, nurses, transplant co-
ordinators – involved in transplantation.

No

* Encouraging people to sell parts of their bodies is morally wrong and would almost
certainly lead to exploitation of the poor.

* Potential donors would be more likely to conceal conditions or illnesses that might rule
them out.

* It would undermine the existing altruistic donor programme.

Organ transplants in numbers

2,017 Number of donors in the UK last year, of whom 1,058 were alive, and 959 were dead

3,698 Total number of organs transplanted last year, excluding corneas

1,482 Number of kidneys transplanted last year from deceased donors. 1,038 came from
living donors

17.7m Number of people on the organ donor register

7,892 Total number of people waiting for a transplant. Of those, 6,741 are waiting for a
kidney

1,000+ Number of people waiting for an organ transplant who will die before one becomes
available
DEBAT BAHASA INGGRIS (THBT USING MOTORCYCLE FOR STUDENT SHOULD BE
FORBIDENT ARGUMENT (3RD SPEAKER) )

AFF.:

The second speaker say that, the student of the junior high school not allowed to bring motorcycle to
school, because they dont have licenci.And the second speaker say that, if the student bring
motorcycle to school their parents cant control them when they are on the road.So, i support my
friends arguments.If the student bring motorcycle to school, it will give disadvantages for the student
them selve, for example, if the student speed up their motorcycle on the way, they go to school, and
have gat accident, the student cant follow their class.

NEG.:

The fist speaker say that. the student allowed to bring motorcycle to school, because the motorcycle
as transportation to come to school early.And the second speaker say that, the student allowed to
bring motorcycle to school to make the student easy to come to school, because not all of student
live near their school.I want to add my friend argument with example, if the student bring motorcycle
to school they dont waste their time or come late to school.If the student should go to school by bus
or public transportation,they should wait for long time in bus halte, and the chance to come to school
late is biger.So, motorcycle is the best transportation for student, eventhough they dont have licence.

RIDING MOTORCYCLE TO SCHOOL: ALLOWED OR NOT ALLOWED

Motorcycle is not a luxury anymore. now almost every family has had a motorcycle andmost
parents also had to allow his son to ride a motorcycle to school or go anywhere.

This now brings bike to school has been much done by the students. Some disagree about
the permissibility of bringing bikes to school. They argue that bringing bikes to
school wascommon. Besides brings motorcycle to school very beneficial for students whose
home is far from the school. There are also students who have little public transport to go to
school. Of course this is very beneficial for them because they can get to school on time,not
late and not in the legal security guard.

On the other hand some students do not agree with that policy. According to their
perspective school children with the most reckless motorcycle that could jeopardize his
safety and other penggunajalan. they also tend not to obey traffic peratuaran. Often thereare
also students who just show off the wealth of their parents.

Bring bike to school is useless. But there are other alternatives besides public
transport etc. Better use the facility, and if you want to use the bike should we have
to comply withexisting traffic regulations.