Background:
There are several reasons behind international migration which are economic as well as noneconomic, for example international migration can also take place due to political or religious regions, although after the Second World War, economic reasons were the main motivation behind international migration. The prospect of earning higher wages abroad was the main reason. However the cost and the benefits of foreign labor has been debated hotly in international economics. The large number of asylum seekers has become a pressing issue for many countries including the United States, Australia and the European Union. These governments are committed to protect the human rights of the refugees as they are bound by international agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; however it appears that the governments are facing difficulties in coping with the large number of immigrants motivated by economic or social reasons. Generally the governments make a distinction between the asylum seekers who have left their country due to war or the fear of persecution but turn away the migrants looking for better economic opportunities.

Continue Reading »

Points in favour of :

1. It is the obligation of the government to protect the citizens from the ill effects of harmful substances. Alcohol alters the mind of a person which can cause such individual to take actions which they would not take otherwise. It is not about loses inhibitions but extends to dangerous acts which can harm the person and others also. It is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens including those who behave irresponsibly by consuming harmful substantial like alcohol. Such a ban would help these individuals in making significant contribution towards the society which they could not make if they consume alcohol in large quantities.

2. A ban on alcohol would protect third parties like family members. Alcohol is the cause of a large number of disputes and distress in the society. It causes psychological problems for the children whose parents consume alcohol. They number of children with at least one alcoholic parent is increasing throughout the world. These children should not be made to suffer if their parents have decided to indulge in alcoholism. Psychological studies have shown that a large number of children coming from alcohol abuse families face problems like loneliness, guilt, fear of abandonment, feeling of helplessness, low self esteem and chronic depression. In some cases the children even start feeling themselves responsible for the problems created by the alcoholic person. Apart from the psychological damage it also causes great physical harm. Alcohol has always been an easy accuse domestic violence and the incidents of domestic abuse are higher in households where there is alcohol abuse.

3. A ban on alcohol would result in healthier individuals. A ban on alcohol would also have a positive impact on the health of the individuals. Long lasting abuse of alcohol leads to several chronic diseases like pancreatitis, liver cirrhosis, high blood pressure and different types of cancers including mouth, liver, larynx, throat and esophagus. A ban on alcohol would decrease the rate of consumption as has been seen in case of the present drug laws. Therefore a ban on alcohol would decrease the cases of alcohol addiction and also reduce the financial burden caused by health problems among the alcoholics.

Points against :

1. Alcohol should be kept legal so that the rights of the citizens could be maximized. The government should allow the people to live freely as long as they don’t cause any harm to others. A government may wish to have a society which is obedient, productive and free from all flaws such a society would be without alcohol, drugs or cigarettes. While such a society may have some benefits in short term, in long term it would only result in a large number of unsatisfied individuals. A lot of people consumable alcohol responsibly and do not cause any harm to others. A free society has a high number of happy individuals who contributes significantly in the development of society.

2. Ban on alcohol is impractical and can create a black market for alcohol. As compare to other drugs, alcohol can be produced easily moreover it is deeply engraved in a lot of cultures. Therefore any ban on alcohol would be ineffective due to its cultural acceptance and the ease of production. While the legal implications of the consuming alcohol would scare some people if a ban on alcohol is imposed, a large number of people would be attracted towards consuming more alcohol as there would be strong demand which would be met by illegal supply.

3. Ban on alcohol is a quick fix treatment for the wider social problems. A ban on alcohol is like a quick fix treatment which ignores the real causes which make people drink excessively and make bad decisions under the influence of alcohol. For example drunk driving is a problem faced by many countries but with the help of strict laws, some governments have been able to reduce the number of accidents cause by drunk drivers. This is a battle which has to be fought by the governments for a long time and quick fix solutions will not work effectively.

4. A ban on alcohol would harm the economy. A ban on alcohol would not only infringe the civil liberties of the citizens, it would also cause great financial loss. A ban on alcohol would put thousands of persons out of work as the alcohol industry is an enormous industry of the world. Large amount of revenue is collected by the governments in the form of taxes and duties levied on alcoholic drinks. A ban on alcohol would take away a major source of revenue which used for public services.

Background:
Advertising has become $1 million industry spreading throughout the world. We can see advertisements at almost all public places and in all types of media. Advertisements are present everywhere be it the newspapers, Internet or the road side hoardings. Advertisements help the companies in selling their products and services but many people believe that too much advertising has its own harmful effects especially in case of children.

Arguments In Favour of
1. Advertising has reached such a high level that some people consider it as an invasion in their life. They do not want a huge amount of information that is being constantly provided to them through advertisements while driving or walking down the street, watching television or even while reading their e-mails.

2. This which amount of advertisements can lead to an overwhelming demand in many people to decide between the competing demands for the attention. This is known as choice overload or tyranny of choice. Recent studies suggests that even though people are better off and have more choices to spend their money on but they are not as happy as they were 30 years ago. The claims made in the advertisements raise the hopes of the people regarding a particular product or service but they feel disappointed when the product does not turn up to their expectations. They may feel that it is their fault as they have not chosen wisely and they also regret that we should have chosen something else. Huge amount of advertising leads to a complete inability to choose in some people.

3. Advertisers use many methods to grab the attention of the people and convey their message. Attentions grabbing words or provocative pictures are used in posters. Some advertisements even convey their message through what appears to be public information or a piece of art. In such cases people don’t even realize that they have been subjected to marketing. Such advertisements target the unconscious mind of the people and take away the freedom to make choices.

4. Some advertisements not only advertise products but also try to make the people who don’t have such product feel inferior. The perceptions of fashion and beauty have particularly been distorted by such advertisements. A lot of youngsters are suffering from low self-esteem or an unhealthy lifestyle because they feel that they should have been slimmer of more attractive like the models that will see in the advertisements.

5. Some advertisements give an impression especially to children that they should possess everything that they want to. People lose their values of hard work, patience and moderation and become obsessed and selfish with their possessions. It has an adverse effect on relationships and the personal development of individuals which in turn affects the whole society adversely.

6. Advertisements only care about profit and the welfare of society is not a consideration for the advertisers. Therefore we see advertisements about harmful and unhealthy products. The rising number of obese children could partly be attributed to the large number of advertisements regarding fast food. Such advertisements do not care about the health of the children and make them eat as much fast food as they can.

7. Advertisements provide an unfair advantage large companies and small businesses are not able to provide information regarding their products to large number of people even though they may have better products. They way, customers are not able to find out about all the choices available to them and it results in restricting the quality of products for the customers.

Arguments Against
1. The large numbers of advertisements that we see everywhere are a significant part of the income of many people. Several sports are benefited by advertisements as many teams are sponsored by advertisers. Nobody is going to look at advertisements and those who do not want to see them can simply ignore them.

2. Advertisements play a positive role in the society. They help us choose the right product. Advertisements provide us information regarding the new features of a product. Some other advertisements rely on the price advantage that a particular product provides against its competitors. Advertisements do not make us buy products, we are already thinking about buying the product. Advertisements only help us in making the right decision by providing us information about choices that are available to us.

3. Advertising using sly methods have already been banned. The other cases only reflect the creativity of the advertisers. People are making unconscious judgments continuously and we often try to influence their judgment. People wear makeup on improving their image and similarly the supermarkets are painted in bright colors for making the food more appetizing to the customers. This is not brainwashing and neither the advertisements.

4. Much more is caused by celebrity magazines and the media when extremely thin model are glorified and overweight or an attractive people are mocked at. Advertisements cannot criticize people as it would be very harmful for them. The only reflect what the people think. It is not the job of the advertisers to put the people right but it is the job of the politicians, academicians and the media.

5. In our society companies make products that people want. If people would stop wanting products what would happen to the companies and people who manufacture these products? The economy would suffer greatly. It is better that people can buy things they want as compared to the situation where people can only buy things that they need.

6. The advertisements that promoted unhealthy things are becoming rare. Cigarette advertising is nowhere to be seen and alcohol advertisements are also heavily restricted. In case of advertisements regarding fast food products, the companies are promoting healthier options. Any advertisement that is considered harmful for children is also considered harmful for the business itself. Effective regulations and public pressure could successfully keep any advertising problems under control.

7. In case there had been no advertisements, small businesses would have no chance to make the public aware of their products at all. It does not matter how small the company is if it has a good product. In case we curtail the freedom of information, it would only give an advantage to the large companies.

Conclusion
Even though too much advertising is harmful and needs to be restricted, especially the advertisements aimed at children and those promoting unhealthy products, the customers have a right to know about the choices available in the market.

Background: there are sharp divisions in opinions related the right to adopt of the same sex couples like several other areas concerned with gay rights. The 2002 adoption and children Act of UK allowed unmarried couples including same-sex partners in England to apply for adoption. While some Scandinavian countries like Norway, Denmark and Iceland exhibited a lenient attitude towards same-sex relationships, some states in USA specifically banned adoption by same-sex couples.
Arguments in favour of:

1. Societies throughout the world are undergoing a change and so does the traditional idea of the family with married father and mother is no longer the only alternate that is acceptable to many persons. Many countries across the world are granting legal rights to same-sex couples as these countries now realize the stability of the relationship. Therefore there is no reason why these couples cannot provide loving and stable upbringing to the adopted children.

2. Several examples are present in the nature when in many species, after the death of one or both the parents, and uncle or an aunt assumes the role of child rearing.

3. In human and other species some babies are born with a predilection towards homosexuality. The upbringing of such children does not affect their sexual preferences. In fact any attempt to suppress the genetic predisposition of such children could result in misery for many people. We need to accept this fact and try to embrace gay people into the community completely and also provide them a chance to become responsible parent.

4. There are many examples where same-sex couples are responsible bringing up children where one partner is the biological parent of the child. Giving a right to adopt will only confer legal rights on their already successful but informal model of family.

5. The homophobia present in many societies cannot be justified at all and needs to be countered effectively. The complete inclusion of gays in all the institutions of society can only help in overcoming the prejudice against such people.

Arguments Against:

1. The idea of traditional nuclear family still needs to be adhered to and even in cases where the breakdown is inevitable, a close substitute, having paternal or maternal influences is the only available alternative. Nature shows us that the natural development of a child is support by both these influences.

2. While there are exceptions, the norm of the nature is that a child is brought up by mother and father. By allowing legal adoption by the same-sex couples we may end up encouraging an unnatural upbringing.

3. The primary role models of a child his parents. Bringing up a heterosexual child in a gay household could present a vague view of the minority sexuality. For example a girl child brought up by two men would not get the benefit of feminine influence at all.

4. Although it is correct that gay relationships should not be penalized by law but at the same time it is the duty of the law to promote nuclear family as the ideal option for bringing up a child.

5. We still see homophobic language and behavior prevalent in a large number of societies. Young children placed in the care of a gay couples could also be exposed to such a prejudice and also become subject of violence or ridicule. Apart from the lofty ideals, the physical and psychological welfare of the child should be the primary concern of all.

Conclusion:
Homosexuality should not be a bar to adoption and gay couples should have a right to adopt the children.

The age of consent means the age at which the assent of a person to have sexual inter-course is treated as a valid consent by the law. Persons who engaged in sexual inter-course with women or young men below this age are treated as being guilty of criminal offence. In such a case even if the young person was willing to engaged in sexual activity and completely understood the nature of such activity, the consent given by such person is not valid in the eyes of the law. In many countries it is even treated as statutory rape and very severe punishment life imprisonment is awarded to a person guilty of such an offence. The ages for consent differ greatly as in several countries people are required to be older to give consent to home-sexual sex as compared the age for giving consent to hetero sexual sex. These are some of the factors that make the issue of age of consent a vary controversial one. Age of consent laws are generally very complex as several variations are involved.

1. The persons in favour of lowering the age for consent laws state that the freedom of sexual expression is a fundamental matter of choice to the individual and it is more particularly important in case of young people who are passing through adolescence and entering young adulthood. The age for consent laws places unnatural restrictions on this freedom. Sex is an a natural act which should be celebrated through loving relationships and should not be criminalized. Although exploitation, coercion and violence in sexual relationships should be punished but not the consensual activity. Such restrictions are also against the freedom of expression as well as the human rights of privacy.

2. Consent laws are also criticized for being discriminatory as in several countries there is a different age of consent for young females and young males. Such discrimination also perpetuates the stereotypes and myths as well as the prejudices against homo sexual sex. The age of consent law should be equal across the genders if we are to have them at all.

3. The idea of restricting young people from having sex is a relic from the history with anachronistic justifications which have very little relevance in these modern times. The age of consent laws originated during the purity campaign of Britain in 1800 when sex was believed to be a male privilege. The age of consent was fixed at 16 years in Britain in 1885 and has remained so since then.

4. The age of consent laws drive underground the persons who have the highest need of receiving contraceptives and advise on safe sex. Young people need access to health and educational services as the lack of these things put them a higher risk of unwanted pregnancy or contracting STD.

Points in favour of :
1. The protagonists of age of consent laws believe that there is enough justification for these laws. It is in interest of the entire society to protect the naturally weaker members from harm. This is also the main purpose of law. Therefore it is legitimate for the law to try to protect the children from sexual harm by criminalizing sexual activities with them. The age of consent sex laws are not the only laws that depend on age. In several countries for example it is an offence to sell tobacco products to children or to employ children below a particular age even if the child consents to it. We need to understand that the consent given by a child is often different from the consent given by an adult.

2. Young children belong to the vulnerable group of society and it is particularly true in case of sex. Therefore a limitations need to be placed on their sexual activities as below a certain age, children may not have the emotional, physiological and biological development to cope with sexual activities and its consequences which include child birth, teen pregnancy , unsupported parenthood and parental and social disapproval among others. Although every person matures at a different age but selecting an average age for consensual sex should not be termed as wrong or arbitrary as there is no harm making the early developers wait for one or two years.

3. The lowering of the age consent can legalize and bring forward many problems that are being port with underground. It also gives an opportunity to the pedophiles to expand their networks and target even a young the children. The problem of pedophilia is rapidly increasing and is further aggravated by related avenues like child pornography.