Should we have baby hatch?

A baby hatch is a place where mothers can bring their babies, usually newborn, and leave them anonymously in a safe place to be found and cared for. This kind of arrangement was common in mediaeval times and in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the device was known as a foundling wheel. Foundling wheels were taken out of use in the late 1800s but a modern form, the baby hatch, began to be introduced again from 1952and since 2000 has come into use in many countries, notably in Germany where there are around 80 hatches and in Pakistan where there are over 300 today.

The hatches are usually in hospitals or social centres and consist of a door or flap in an outside wall which opens to reveal a soft bed, heated or at least insulated. Sensors in the bed alert carers when a baby has been put in it so that they can come and take care of the child. In Germany, babies are first cared for for eight weeks during which the mother can return and claim her child without any legal repercussions. If this does not happen, after eight weeks the child is put up for adoption.

Reasons for using baby hatches
One reason many babies were abandoned in the past was that they were born out of wedlock. Today, baby hatches are intended to be used by mothers who are unable to cope with looking after their own child and do not wish to divulge their identity. In some countries, such as Germany, it is not legal for mothers to give birth anonymously in a hospital, and the baby hatch is the only way they can safely and secretly leave their child to be cared for by others. In India and Pakistan[1], the purpose of baby hatches is mainly to provide an alternative to female foeticide, which occurs due to the high cost of dowries.

Legal aspects
Some legal problems with baby hatches are connected to children's right to know their own identity, as guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child's Article 8. Baby hatches also deprive the father of his right to find out what has happened to his child.


Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.

We shouldn't let Oscar Pistorius Join Olympic

Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius (born 22 November 1986) is a South African Paralympic runner. Known as the "Blade Runner" and "the fastest man on no legs", Pistorius is the double amputee world record holder in the 100, 200 and 400 metres events and runs with the aid of Cheetah Flex-Foot carbon fibre transtibial artificial limbs by Ossur. In 2007 Pistorius took part in his first international able-bodied competitions. However, his artificial lower legs, while enabling him to compete, generated claims that he has an unfair advantage over able-bodied runners. The same year, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) amended its competition rules to ban the use of "any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides a user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device". It claimed that the amendment was not specifically aimed at Pistorius. After monitoring his track performances and carrying out tests, scientists took the view that Pistorius enjoyed considerable advantages over athletes without prosthetic limbs. On the strength of these findings, on 14 January 2008 the IAAF ruled him ineligible for competitions conducted under its rules, including the 2008 Summer Olympics. This decision was reversed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on 16 May 2008, the Court ruling that the IAAF had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that Pistorius's prostheses give him an advantage over able-bodied athletes.

Although eligible to compete in the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, Pistorius did not qualify for the South African team. Despite achieving third place and a personal best time of 46.25 seconds in the 400 metres in Lucerne, Switzerland, on 16 July 2008, this was short of the Olympic qualification time of 45.55 seconds. He was also not selected by the South African Olympic Committee for the 4 x 400 metres relay team as there were four other runners who had achieved better times.

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.



JoVie said
Not clear (pro or con):

keren abisss...
(translation: totally awesome...)
sent on: 2008 Juni 22 02:19


RoZSsA said
Pro:

Go...go..go..Oscar...always run...

sent on: 2008 Juli 27 21:33

IRAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran's intentions are peaceful

Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction, and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them, including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Over 100,000 Iranian troops and civilians were victims to chemical weapons during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War. On ideological grounds, a public and categorical religious decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons has been issued by the leader of the Islamic Republic.

The November 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judged that Iran halted an active nuclear weapons program in fall 2003 and that it remained halted as of mid-2007. The estimate further judged that US intelligence did not know whether Iran intended "to develop nuclear weapons," but that "Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame" if it chose to do so. Iran states its nuclear program is peaceful. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said he has seen no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has stated that he has seen "maybe some studies about possible weaponization", but "no evidence" of "nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon" or "an active weaponization program" as of October 2007.

After the IAEA reported Iran's non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement, the UN Security Council demanded that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities, and imposed sanctions against Iran three times when Iran refused to do so.Iran's representative to the UN argued that Iran categorically rejected the development of nuclear weapons and that the sanctions compelled Iran to abandon its rights under the NPT to peaceful nuclear technology. The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, but not the absence of undeclared activities, and has reached an agreement with Iran on the timeline for resolution of all the remaining verification issues specified in an August 2007 workplan.The Non-Aligned Movement has called on both sides to work through the IAEA for a solution.

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.



Boim Lebon said
PRO:

why not, every country justifiably float this technology, with this technology note is for kindness and peace. .

sent on: 2008 Juni 8 10:01



treen said
PRO:

nuclear for peace...

sent on: 2008 Juni 23 17:36

WE SHOULD BETTER BE PREPARED FOR GLOBAL COOLING THAN GLOBAL WARMING

Pro or Con?
For the convinience of all readers, all comments will be also put as posting.


Should we be prepared for global cooling instead for global warming?



Boim Lebon said
Not clear (pro or Con):

"WE SHOULD BETTER BE PREPARED FOR GLOBAL COOLING THAN GLOBAL WARMING" .both ot them must we are anticipation early on, because this matter concerns human life future
sent on: 2008 Juni 8 10:04