Right to die? Legal or not?

Recently emerged dispute over the right to die of citizens. At this moment the Belgian and Belgian ears have adopted this law. A person who has the book to die or ask a physician to assist him if he is seriously ill, has suffered physically. At that time the doctor gave him the right to help him die with a poison injection?
Like the case, abortion or not. In this case, it is a controversial right.
The supporters put forward the use of personal liberalism: I was sick, I was sick, I could not stand it and I wanted to die. I can not take it myself because it’s so hard .. “
The party does not support that, it is also a form of murder. Ethical violation. The doctor was born to save people, not to kill people.
What is your opinion? Which side do you belong to?

Should abortion be legal?

Should abortion be legal?
Is there for abortion? has become a controversial issue among advocates and non-supporters.
According to the main point that advocacy groups make: Abortion is a human right, and we should not infringe upon that right.
As for the opposition: Abortion means killing an innocent child.
What is the right reason, and the lawmakers should listen to?
To really get to the bottom of this right-wrong reason, in Michael Sander’s book of the same name.

her body her choice

However, on both sides of the issue, advocates of abortion seem to be more persuasive. Specifically, “her body her choice” refers to individual liberalism. My body, I have the right to do anything with it, whether it is cruel or what, it is still my right. “Looking at this, the argument seems hard to break. Is it really personal, or does it matter what we want to do with our bodies? The debate turns into a harder one, requiring more persuasive arguments.
Because opponents rely on ethical arguments to argue.
However, as Michael Sander has an in-depth analysis of the book, we have a difficult question to answer: Should law be based on morality to do the law?

What threat to American Worker, Outsourcing or Automation?

There is a strong debate on the American job market, with President Trump’s forthcoming decisions and a real threat to the unemployment rate of the country.
Someone argues that the fact that domestic companies are pushing their jobs out by hiring outsourcing companies has been the cause of the rise in American unemployment for many years. President Donal Trumps pledged to put an end to this situation by localization, which prohibits local companies from hiring outsourcing companies to hire American workers instead.

Is this a good decision?

There is a controversial topic on Reddit, a big social networks, about the real threat to the American job market, this topic speaks about the competition between outsourcing and robotics. What is the real factor in the campaign to reduce the unemployment rate of President Donald Trump?
Offtopic analysis: According to some analysts, why Trump’s immigration or localization policy is not really a solution to the rising unemployment in this country in these day when President Obama still holds the presidency: There is a theory that the US internalisation of manpower, which prevents immigrants from solving anything. Because the cause is other things. Localization will make American workers even more dangerous, because it will become a big stone to crush inexperienced and low skilled workers to get the job done. Make and make a living in this time.
American worker, Outsourcing, Automation
Outsourcing or Automation, what is really threat to American workers?

Automation or Outsourcing, which is devil?

Return of the Problem, Automation or Outsourcing? There are many opinions in favor of and disagreement on this issue. Here are some of the objections to banning outsourcing as a reason to bring more jobs to Americans, instead of limiting AI (artificial intelligence robots):

  • AI do all thing in IT like programming it self using prog, more efficient & complex than people can comprehend.
  • A machine will still be cheaper for the company
  • The worry becomes losing control of AI. It’s doubtful it will become malevolent towards us.
  • AI easily use google to find pictures/videos, or a livecam of a cat shelter. Now it can observe the behaviour of cats, learn learn learn!
  • A perfectly intelligent AI would be interested in philoaophy, therefore would be interested in differences between good and evil. ( Joke AI).
  • An AI recognizes that it’s interests are not the only interests that exist. but game theory applies to AI, which means morality and justice applies to AI.
  • AI has no conscience, therefore it’ll always make the most efficiënt choice. Whenever mankind will stand in the way of AI’s efficiëntly completing it’s task, it will try to find a way to eliminate that inefficiëncy that is human.

In the other hand, there are some disagreement as follows:

  • We are the kings of general, flexible intelligence. Computers are already smarter and faster than us in most capacities.
  • There are some problems no traditional Computer can solve faster than us.
  • We are social and imperfect.
  • Machines not so much.
  • Morality has nothing to do with intelligence
  • Morality, justice, guilt, shame AND good or evil are human inventions. To interpret those an emotion is required. AI doesn’t have that. It is designed to improve itself and efficiëntly complete a task. For example: Have you ever seen a security camera turning itself off in a store of because it felt it wasn’t moral to tape people changing? It’d continue, because it has to complete it’s task.
  • Machines don’t need a programming language to program themselves.
  • there’s a misunderstanding of what programmers actually do. I don’t translate from human language to computer language – I have to figure out how incomplete and conflicting human ideas can be made logica

The controversy that has arisen in this topic and still be very fierce, should we hear this or that side and how? Follow the discussion at: