Google claims that internet censorship is the same as international trade barriers. [Debate]

International trade barriers are the creation of political disputes and the failure to accept that the world is united in its purpose. International trade barriers are caused through the political divisions between the rich and the poor, which can also be noted as one of the economical aims of the United Kingdom; to close the gap between the rich and the poor. However, international trade barriers, some of which are the cause of the likes of the United Kingdom, prevent such aims from being met and thus should be considered a disadvantage to society and technology's advances into the modern era, also leading to third world countries becoming disheartened at the lack of support.

Internet censorship, on the other hand, should be considered a necessity to protect the world's children, some of whom do not understand the meaning of such graphic images which are found on some websites. Without Internet censorship, child pornography would be on the rise due to the lack of statements, one of which is known as the US 2257 statement which states all models have agreed to such photographs and films and are of legal age to perform as such. Internet censorship is protecting the views and beliefs of others, which without it, would lead to racial hatred, gender discrimination and an anarchistic use of the Internet.

The two are quite different, as Internet censorship is used to protect others whilst international trade barriers are a disadvantage to society. Internet censorship leads others to feel safe, both for their children and themselves whilst international trade barriers lead to a further gap between the rich and the poor, used quite often to show the power that a country has above another and could be perceived as a form of dictatorship in the control of goods, money and people themselves.

This, however, is but one side of the argument. Internet censorship, as used in some countries, leads to a totalitarian society where free thought and free speech are abandoned in place of a dictatorship. Internet censorship can lead others to be at a disadvantage because their opinions are being disregarded because of the implied meaning and also prevents a lack of development in the mind because of blocked images and texts. In strict Muslim countries, Internet censorship could be used to prevent members of the public viewing Christian texts and thus leads to a form of dictatorship, as seen in previous years under the reign of Saddam Hussein.

A similar argument remains with international trade barriers. Without such barriers, both arms and people could be transported from one country to the next without question, leading to an increase in slavery and terrorism. Countries such as North Korea would have access to radioactive material, which some would argue, would be considered immoral as would trading arms with a known terrorist country. Trade barriers also mean that there is a decrease in wars because of lack of arms dealerships and a decrease in slavery, which continues to happen in some countries.

I, however, believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of Internet censorship and that the implied meaning of Internet censorship is to protect others, whether that is with the censorship of pornographic material or simple forms such as the US 2257 form. It should be noted that international trade barriers have an economic effect upon the world which far outweighs the social effects of Internet censorship and as such, it is not the same.

0F05BA50-97B7-BAE8-DA27-CEE904C9E505

1.02.05

Is Euthanasia Ethical or Unethical? [Debate]

The word euthanasia has often been described as a merciful killing to better relieve a person of the pain and anguish forced upon them from illness, therefore leading one's family to grieve with the knowledge that the said person is no longer in pain. Often, people question the mercy of the death, perceiving that anaesthetics are far from merciful and prevent a person from offering last words of comfort to their families, whether that is due to a state of unconsciousness or the mind being numb to the point where it no longer has the capabilities to speak with true meaning. For most people, it is not a question of the method that is used but a question as to what man has a right above another human life?

The definition of euthanasia, as stated by one website, is the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that produces rapid unconsciousness and subsequent death without evidence of pain. In truth, there are a number of forms of pain that fail to be recognized; physical pan is the one which seems to be said to not exist, however, emotional and spiritual pain can form to, therefore, dishearten a man. One of the words used to describe euthanasia is destruction and thus it should be perceived that it is wrong due to the sociological perception of culture that, destruction, as a word, has a negative meaning in its connotation. As a reference and as evidence, it is often described that terrorist bombings are destructive, meaning that it has detrimental effects, as does murder, which is often described as a destructive act of mankind upon another.

Perceiving that murder is wrong because it is destructive, should it not also be perceived as true that euthanasia is wrong because it is the termination of a life which no man except the said person has control over? Murder, in its definition, is the premeditated act of killing with intention. Euthanasia, in its definition, is premeditated because a doctor deems it appropriate that the decision is final and it is not a sudden decision, similarly, it has the intention of relieving pain, which despite the good morals within it, should not be considered a reason to terminate a life. If euthanasia were to be considered moral because it relieves pain, could a murderer also state that he was relieving pain from the one he killed? The principle remains the same.

As seen in the past, doctors have often misused their positions, as have care workers and the likes of, and thus it could be considered an immoral act if a doctor were to be given the right of euthanasia above another life. Doctors are, as we are, humans and can often make mistakes or abuse the position which has been bestowed upon them and euthanasia could be a method of doing so which would have detrimental effects, not only upon the doctor and the terminated life, but also on families and the social structure of life. Laws would be applied to prevent the misuse of such a method but, as often seen, laws are but guides and it is free will that controls life. Laws cannot guide a doctor into making the decision as to whether to terminate a life or not; what regulations would be applied or which specifications would be needed to end a life? Could a doctor not state that all said specifications were met to help meet a hospital's targets?

Analyzing the religious aspects of euthanasia, some would perceive that it is an act of God to terminate a life, as He himself as a plan for each life upon the Earth and thus, if euthanasia were to be legalized, it would be considered an attempt at playing God' because it is ignoring the will of God. Whilst, to some, it would be of little relevance, those of a religious nature would perceive it as offensive and would also consider it to be the abandonment of God in hospitals. Some would believe that God would heal' those people and thus euthanasia would be a lack of faith and have no true benefits to the person or the family. If a doctor were to begin playing God', what other matters of life could a person have an effect within and therefore unbalance the nature and society of life?

Some would believe that it could be a tantamount to other crimes. Some would perceive it as immoral. For the most part, however, it is considered wrong because no defined specification would help a doctor to make such a decision and, as each person's case is different, the specification would change accordingly. Most would state that none have a right above another life and that there is no true mercy in it as the person has not made the decision themselves. The question, if one were to be perceive euthanasia as ethical is, when does it stop becoming merciful and start becoming murder?