Group 5 - Abortion

Abortion has been a controversial issue in America for many years. There are several questions to be asked when taking a position on whether or not one supports it or does not. First, whether or not the fetus is actually human or not. Second, does a woman have the right to decide whether her unborn child lives or dies? Third, what repercussions happen when a woman actually has an abortion? Last, is the child better off being dead rather than living a life of 'unwantedness'?

People argue as to when a fetus is actually human. At 3 weeks, the baby's heart begins beating. At 6 weeks, brain waves are traceable, and at 11 weeks, all of the baby's organs are present and functioning. Doctors recommend that an abortion is perform at or before 12 weeks into the pregnancy, to make it easier for the mother. The mother can technically have an abortion at any time before birth, but debate is there as to when the time is appropriate to have an abortion.

As for the second question, debates again arises as to when the fetus is a part of the mother's body, and when it is a separate being. One can also question when the change between those two states happens. If the fetus is considered simply a part of the mother's body, is it okay for her to remove that part at will? If the fetus is alive, does it not have a say as to whether it lives or dies?

The third issue deals with problems a woman can face after and during an abortion. Medical issues can arise during the procedure and cause issues after the fact, such sterility. Also, severe mental or emotional problems can be caused by the abortion. The mother has to deal with the fact that, depending on her beliefs, she has killed her own child.

The last question deals with whether or not the child is better off dead rather than having a bad childhood if the mother does not want it. If the child is born and raised by mother who does not want it, many issues can arise in the child's life, such as behavioral, emotional and criminal problems caused by a lack of affection from the mother.

The debates still rages over abortion, and likely will for many years to come.

Group 4: K-12 Teacher Tenure

Tenure is a form of job protection given to teachers. A teacher who is tenured cannot be fired, barring certain violations or misconduct. The first tenure laws in the U.S. were passed in the early 20th century. These laws prevented teachers for being fired for racial bias, change of local political party, or personal bias. Additionally, tenure laws allowed a sense of academic freedom. Tenured teachers could teach potentially unpopular subjects which they believed were important without the threat of being let go. Assuming teachers were productive, they could teach in any manner that they wished. Recently, however, controversy has been raised over the issue of tenure. It has been blamed for the under-performance of U.S. public schools, and has also been related to school budget crises.

Those who support tenure have many arguments in their favor. The practice of firing experienced “senior” teachers and replacing them with younger teachers who require less pay has become relatively frequent in some areas. Those in favor of tenure realize that one solution to this practice is tenure. If a senior teacher is tenured, they cannot be fired simply to make more money available to the district. Another argument is that tenure itself draws many teachers into the education field. It can be argued that without tenure, potential teachers would take their talents elsewhere, leaving a shortage of teachers and subverting the educational process. Tenure itself also encourages a more careful hiring process. A school board which knows that a teacher will be teaching in their district for years to come will likely me more particular, being sure to choose the best teacher for the job. Tenure also protects teachers from false accusations of misconduct by students or parents. A teacher who is not tenured could be quickly fired to prevent potential scandal, even if the accusation is false. Tenure forces a fair investigation of the matter. Lastly, tenure gives under-performing teachers a better chance to improve.

On the other side of the argument are those who wish to abolish tenure. Tenure, they say, causes complacency and keeps under-performing teachers in schools. A teacher who knows he or she cannot be fired has less incentive to work hard. Even if a school tries to fire an under-performing teacher (which is a legal action), they usually choose not to. The reason for this is the bureaucratic red tape involved with firing a teacher. This process can take up to a year, and costs most districts tens of thousands of dollars per teacher. Additionally, the requirements for receiving tenure have changed significantly. Initially, receiving tenure was based on a teacher’s performance. In the present day, tenure is simply given to teachers after only 2 to 5 years in the classroom. According to critics of tenure, this is not enough time to determine whether a teacher is actually performing at a level which makes him or her deserving of tenure. Those against tenure also cite the fact that not having the ability to fire teachers prevents schools from being financially responsible in a time when schools are already struggling financially. Even worse, they argue, tenure is no longer necessary. The recent increased focus on standardized testing has in and of itself limited academic freedom-- because teachers have to teach more to the test, there is less room for teachers to teach potentially controversial materials. Also, many other due process laws exist which prevent anyone from being fired without just cause.

Tenure laws remain in many states, but are being challenged in many. Is tenure still necessary? Should it be reformed? And does it do more good than harm, or more harm than good?

Group 4: Knowing Death?

There has been a large degree of controversy over certain medical practices dating back to abortion and beyond. One of the newest examples to arise is the idea that a medical center can perform a test that will give a person an estimate of how long they will live. The test is done by taking a blood sample and measuring the length of the telomeres, or protective caps, on the end of a person’s chromosomes. Generally, these protective strands of DNA are used to keep the chromosome from fusing with nearby pieces of DNA and mutating but they serve a dual-purpose. The second purpose is to keep the cell from deteriorating; every time the DNA replicates, a little piece of the telomere is lost. Telomere research has been a high priority in recent history due to its link to cancer. In a cancer cell, it is possible for the cell to lengthen its telomeres rendering it invulnerable to normal cell death and making the cancer cell almost invincible. This relates to life span because a person can only live as long as their cells. When telomeres begin to run out and crucial DNA is cut off of ones chromosomes organs and bodily functions begin to fail. Researchers are now able to test the length of someone’s telomeres and give an educated guess on how long they have before they experience cell failure and eventually death, but is this information a good thing?
Information concerning a persons death is a rather controversial issue. There are two opposing sides to knowing when you will die. There are obvious upsides and downsides to knowing the time of your death. The upsides would be being able to get your affairs in order or getting treatment to delay the process of death. The downside would be focusing on your dying day, being afraid of the results being wrong and suddenly dying. Another downside would be paranoia, as well as trying every way humanly possible to cheat something as natural as death. There are some religious groups who do not use science to lengthen their lives or cure them if they are sick. The same people who inhabit those religious groups would most likely also not want to use science to know when they are going to die. The possibilities would be endless, but the repercussions could be deadly.

Group2: Immigration

Nowadays, there are more than 200-million immigrants around the world. United States has hosted over 20 million immigrants till 2005, and became the second largest country of immigrants in the world. Most immigrants come from Asia and South America. I am from China, where a lot of people want to get the green card of America. According to the statistic of the number of immigrants to US in 2009, the number of Chinese immigrants is the second largest number, followed behind Mexico. There are three waves of Chinese immigration to U.S. in the history. Three waves have different reasons, but all the immigrants have the same dream that is seeking for better lives. The main reason of the first two Chinese immigration waves is avoiding war and unsteady social environment. The majority of Chinese immigration in the third wave, which started from 1980s to today, aim to get better education in U.S.. America can gain a lot of benefits from it. Well-educated immigrants have the ability to produce social wealth. It is no doubt that native Americans can be influenced by immigration, like hard to find jobs. However, everyone is equal in front of opportunities. Chances only show appreciation for qualified people. Employers will not hire employees based on you are native people or immigrants, but based on your ability. With the improvement of immigration laws, America can accept more highly qualified immigrants from all over the world. The benefits of immigration gained by American will far outweigh  the disadvantages.

Group 2: Immigration

There are many things that make up a great country like the United States of America, such as culture, art, food, landmarks, strong economic foundation, and the list goes on. However, one of the most important factors that distinguishes the U.S. from other countries is it's diversity. People come from all around the world just to be a part of the American society. They immigrate for many different reasons whether it be to avoid war, to gain the right to be independent from corrupt leaders, or to earn better jobs to support their families. No matter the reason, they're motivated by the thought of living a better life. America is "The Land of Opportunity" and a melting pot of culture, created by immigrants who all sought the same thing. This idea is contradictory of some of the things we see in the media today, in the sense that there are numerous debates and arguments on the issue of illegal immigration. A crime is an act that is considered wrong, but seeking a better life is just instinct and completely understandable as to why they would risk punishment by the law to be here.