If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Evolution vs Creationalism. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Evolution vs Creationalism paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Evolution vs Creationalism, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Evolution vs Creationalism paper at affordable prices with !

Niles Eldredge believes in evolution, which states that all science is theory; he also believes that creationism should not be taught in a classroom environment. Many creationists disagree; over this heated debate that has been going on since the idea of evolution. “Although technological advances since 15 have been prodigious, and although science news magazines are springing up like toadstools, the American public appears to be badly informed about the real nature of science as it ever was” (p. 516). I agree with Niles Eldredge that evolution should be taught in the school system over creationism. “Much of the success of recent creationists efforts lies in a prior failure to educate our children about science � how it is done, by whom, and how its results are to be interpreted” (517).


Eldredge states that evolution is only a theory. “To the charge the ‘evolution is only a theory’, we say ‘all science is theory’. Theories are ideas or complex sets of ideas, which explain some aspect of the natural world” (p. 51). Eldredge shows the reader that, “All biologists, including biochemists, molecular geneticists, physiologists, behaviorists, and anatomists, see a pattern of similarity interlocking the spectrum of millions of species, from bacteria to timber wolves”(51). He continues to inform us that, “All forms of life have the nuclei acid RNA. One major branch of life, the vertebrates, all share backbones. All mammals have three inner ear bones, hair, and mammary glands” (51). It seems that evolution comes with some scientific proof, even though; it is still only a theory. Evolution is a process of change in a certain direction, a historical development of a biological group, and it is a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other pre-existing types, and that the distinguishable differences are due to modification in successive generations.


“Creationists, of course, have an alternative explanation for this order permeating life’s diversity. It is simply the way the supernatural creator chose to pattern life” (51). They continue to say “...evolution is only a theory. Scientists cannot agree on all details either of the exact course of evolutionary, history, of how evolution actually takes place’” (518). They continue on to say “Creationists then declare that many scientists have grave doubts that evolution actually [has] occurred … They argue that since evolution is only a theory, why not, in the spirit of fair play, give equal time to equally plausible explanation of the origin of the cosmos, of life on earth, and of mankind” (518). Creationists believe that God created everything, I feel that more people would believe their theory if they had physical evidence to prove their theory. “No form of creationism even remotely qualifies for inclusion in a science curriculum” (50). Some schools are letting teachers adopt the “equal time”. “Increasingly, teachers are left to their own discretion, and whether out of personal conviction, a desire to be ‘fair’, or fear of parental reprisal, they are teaching creationism along with evolution in their biology classes. It is simply the path of least resistance” (50). I feel that this theory; if taught at all in public schools should be taught to students in high school or older, so they can make their own opinion about which theory they believe and which one they do not believe.


“Biologists of all disciplines agree to a remarkable degree on the outlines of this theory, the so�called ‘modern synthesis’. In a nutshell, this was a vindication of Darwin’s original position that evolution is predominantly an affair of gradual progressive change. As environmental conditions changed, natural selection favored those variants best suited to new conditions. Thus evolutionary change is fundamentally adaptive” (51-). I feel that creationism should not be taught within the public school system. Evolution in the other hand; while not a finally theory, has more credibility then creationism and should be taught in the public school system. Creationism should be continued to be taught at Sunday schools, and in private schools, where religion is accepted by the attendee’s choice. “If the public were more aware that scientist are expected to disagree, that what a scientist writes today is not the last word, but a progress report on some very intensive thinking and investigation, creationists would be far less successful in injecting an authoritarian system of belief into curricula supposedly devoted to free, open rational inquiry into the nature of natural things” (p. 5).








Please note that this sample paper on Evolution vs Creationalism is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Evolution vs Creationalism, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on Evolution vs Creationalism will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!

If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on California Recall. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality California Recall paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in California Recall, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your California Recall paper at affordable prices with !

California Recall


A matter of conscience invites me to declare my perspectives as I cast my vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of the State of California. As the rest of the world peers in and amuses themselves at the state of our State, I would like to present a perspective of a ninth generation Californian, a product of our public schools, and a graduate of our University system. In the recall election, my vote is cast based upon three essential arguments.


1.) The truth of the matter is, no matter whom California elects, no one will be able to solve our budget crisis. Over half of our state’s financial resources are allocated to the numerous propositions that are routinely passed by the voting public, and cannot be touched by the executive branch. Even Harry Houdini could not get us out of the financial and bureaucratic mess that we have created for ourselves. In order to balance the budget, we will need to drastically raise taxes, which the citizens of California will not allow to happen. This is a very important point in the context of national politics, as it is becoming very apparent that, in the near future, California will need a federal bailout. Many of our states are racing towards bankruptcy, with California as the case subject, and our national government is not anticipating their future bailouts. Already the national government, under this administration, has greatly reduced the funds allocated to relief of the States. While our national deficit soars, we are failing to anticipate these future expenditures.


.) As for political capabilities, as career politicians Bustamante and McClintock are more familiar with our budget and the nuances of our governmental structure. However, Arnold, as Governor, has many advantages. Although a Republican, he is very liberal, as is much of California (even our conservatives here are liberal conservatives). Arnold’s high profile will give this great state, the fifth largest economy in the world (or so the commercials tell me), the visibility and cultural gravity that it deserves. No one expects Arnold to become entrenched in partisan politics or embody the right wing of the Republican Party, but instead to stay, more or less, in the medium of the political spectrum. The fact that Maria Shriver is his wife, would lead me to believe that much of his personal political advise would be coming from democratic leaders, as well/in addition to Republican leadership, providing for a sound base.





.) To vote for Arnold as Governor is very Californian. While I am hesitant to embrace the capitalist and commercial culture that is growing ever more prevalent in our nation’s composition (I have neither refinanced nor bought a cell phone that emails pictures), I do believe local culture is special and essential. California is unique is so many ways, and the fact is, electing Arnold is very Californian. In some respect, leaders of localities should reflect the customs and cultures of their regions- just as I expect the Prime Minister of Great Britain to reflect in some capacity the British, the Chancellor of Germany to reflect in some capacity the Germans, and the Governor of say, Georgia or Montana, to reflect in some capacity the citizens of Georgia or Montana; Arnold is very Californian. Immigrant (so many of us here are), Hollywood, and a man who found fame and fortune in California- think Silicon Valley, the Gold Rush, and telecommunications.


Final Note- In respects to the notion that a No vote is prudent, and that the recall is too expensive and frivolous, that may be correct. However, it is my opinion that it is here now, and the time and money have already been spent. Whether we vote no or yes, the costs have occurred. Therefore, I do not have a problem with ousting a tremendously unpopular public servant. And as for my new choice, I would like to think I’m voting Californian!!!


Thank you very much,


Brian Bent


Coronado, CA





Please note that this sample paper on California Recall is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on California Recall, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on California Recall will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!

If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Consent to medical procedures and best interests of the child in Australia.(This essay won a University Prize). What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Consent to medical procedures and best interests of the child in Australia.(This essay won a University Prize) paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Consent to medical procedures and best interests of the child in Australia.(This essay won a University Prize), therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Consent to medical procedures and best interests of the child in Australia.(This essay won a University Prize) paper at affordable prices with !

“In the overwhelming majority of cases, the best judges of a child’s welfare are his or her parents.” Lord Fraser, Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [186] AC 11


This statement by Lord Fraser has been incorporated into Australian law since Marion’s case was decided in 1 and rest on the presumption that parents will always act in the child’s ‘best interests’ when making decisions for the child. However, is this the case in all situations? In critical matters, are parents granted the right to make decisions for their children? What are a child’s ‘best interests’? What degree of autonomy do children have in the context of health care choices? What considerations are deemed to be relevant in a contest between the parties? This discussion paper explores these issues as well as examining what is likely to happen if a dispute comes before the Family Court under the current law in South Australia.


Who is a child?


The stipulation of what age separates childhood from adult hood is purely arbitrary. In both domestic and international law , children are those persons who have not yet achieved the age of 18 years. The Family Law Act 175 declares that a child is a person under the age of 18 years. All other persons are deemed to be adults.








In South Australia, in the medico-legal context, a person of 16 years of age may exercise the ‘adult’ right of granting their consent to medical treatment by virtue of s 6 of the Consent to Treatment and Palliative Care Act 15.


Why are parents responsible for children’s welfare?


Children live under the aegis of their adult guardians who derive their parental powers to make decisions on behalf of the child from both the common law and legislation. The explanation for the old common law powers of parental control is the oft-quoted statement by Blackstone that “…the power of parents is derived from their duty…”. However, any absolute right of control or right arising from a duty has been rejected as part of the Australian common law. Instead, the contemporary view is that the “… common law gives this power to parents simply because it perceives them to be the most appropriate repository of such a power.”


Parental responsibility is defined in s 61B of the Family Law Act 175 as meaning all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to their children. This definition does not explain what these duties, et cetera are; therefore, it must be presumed that the reference is to common law and legislative rights and responsibilities.


Why do courts have a responsibility for children’s welfare?


Courts are charged with responsibility for children under the doctrine of parens patriae, literally “parent of the nation”. The role of the courts is to act as an objective parent. The objective test is set in the context of the ordinary mother and father [more passengers bound for Clapham!] and applied subjectively to the particular child. Indeed, the Family Court has greater powers than parents do in deciding matters relating to a child’s best interests with respect to a child of a marriage. It can also override any decision by the State courts vis à vis the welfare of a child who is not a ward of the state.


What are the ‘best interests’ of the child and how are they defined?


Although much talked about, a child’s ‘best interests’ are in reality an abstract concept. They are not defined in any statute or case law, yet they are the presumptive standard used by parents and judicial officers when making decisions regarding children. The Family Law Act 175 states that a child’s best interests are paramount when making decisions with respect to the child’s ‘care, welfare and development’. The Family Court’s powers over parents in this area will be discussed later.


The sanctity of life is a presumption that appears throughout judgements concerning children particularly when parents have decided to withhold their consent for medical treatment in circumstances that might lead to the death of the child. Another presumption is framed in the context of what quality of life outcomes are associated with a particular medical treatment and whether it would have a detrimental effect on the child’s development into adulthood.


In deciding what constitutes best interests however, it seems that the emotional trauma associated with some procedures is not taken into account. Treatments that produce emotional trauma will be justified because the trauma will be outweighed by the anticipated benefits of the procedure. In fact, the predicted physical outcome of a particular course of treatment seems to be the main determinant factor in judicial decisions. This leads us to another apparent presumption made by the courts; that is, the supremacy of medical opinion over all other considerations.


The rule of law v the rule of medicine.


Medical opinion has a considerable impact on the courts determination of what constitutes acting in the child’s best interests. Without exception this will be the most decisive factor where the sanctity of life is in issue, even in cases where a ‘Gillick competent’ child has unequivocally refused consent to the procedure . In every reported case the medical profession was granted consent by the court to proceed with treatment they deemed most appropriate, despite the refusal by the child and, in some instances, contrary to the wishes of the parents. The courts have even acquiesced to medical opinion in cases where the religious or cultural wishes of the child or the parents have been contrary to medical opinion. In the case of Re Hofbauer the New York Court of Appeal allowed parents to adopt an ‘alternative’ form of treatment for their child.





Although it is thought unlikely that such a course would be taken by English or Australian courts, it would appear that they have ceded significant discretionary powers to the medical profession in a manner that is inconsistent with the Australian common law principle developed in Rogers v Whitaker . The recourse by the court to the Bolam principle, of allowing medical opinion to be the paramount consideration, is inconsistent with the High Court decision, which reposes all discretionary power in the court. In turn, his rise in the status of medical opinions to the level of matters of judicial notice overwhelms the role of the parent. The advisory role of the medical profession should not be allowed to become one of absolute authority.


Do children in South Australia attain medico-legal adult rights at 16 years?


As noted above, persons in South Australia who have attained the age of 16 years are granted the power to consent to medical treatment by virtue of s 6 of the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 15. However, this grant does not create an unfettered right to make decisions with respect to all medical treatment. Although children may be able to consent to medical procedures, they do not apparently possess the corollary right of refusal.


Furthermore, the Family Court could hold the right granted to the child under the State Act as invalid. In a contested situation where the child was maintaining this right to consent to medical treatment the Family Court could overrule the child’s ability, and indeed the parents ability, to exercise any power of consent because of its supreme jurisdiction over matters concerning the welfare of children in Australia. This is a point to which I shall return.


When can children have the unequivocal right to consent or refuse?


Quite obviously, in the case of infants and ‘young’ children, it is neither logical nor practicable to allow them to make decisions on a matter that may have profound and irreversible ramifications on their future. However, there could come a time, before attaining majority, when a person is capable of not only consenting to medical treatment but also refusing to be subjected to it. Currently this is does not seem to be the case in England or in Australia.


“Every human being of adult years and of sound mind has the right to determine what shall be done to [their] own body…” even if death is the consequence of that decision. The underlying principle, the ‘presumptive standard’, is that all adults are presumed to be competent to make decisions of that magnitude. However, children are presumed to be incompetent unless they can demonstrate that they have achieved “… a sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable [them] to understand fully what is proposed.”. This level of understanding, known as ‘Gillick competence’, must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court, and has become known as the ‘evidential standard’ of competence as opposed to the presumptive standard outlined above.


Clearly the evidential standard is harder to achieve than the presumptive standard. The presumptive standard always exists until rebutted, usually by expert opinion evidence. The evidential standard however must be proven to exist to the degree required by civil law; that is, on the balance of probabilities. One of the problems that has been encountered by children with respect to establishing this standard has been that if their preference does not accord with the prevailing medical opinion, then their decision will be seen as irrational and therefore falling short of the evidential standard.


Therefore, the unequivocal autonomous right of a child to determine appropriate medical treatment can only be achieved by compliance with the prevailing medical and legal opinions. Compliance is inconsistent with the notion of autonomy.


Autonomy for children


Autonomy is recognised as a ‘general moral notion’ that empowers individuals to make their own decisions based on “… their own values and beliefs without the interference of another individuals values.”. It has been suggested that it is in the best interests of both the individual and society that autonomous decisions be respected, provided that significant harm to others does not result from that course of action.


The preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Australia in 11, recognises that children have a right of autonomy that develops in accordance with their capacity. Article 1 of the Convention states that “State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.” This article also implicitly confers on the child the right to be heard in judicial proceedings. However, in matters before the Family Court, where most decisions affecting a child’s welfare with respect to medico-legal issues will be made, children are represented by court appointed ‘separate representatives’


The findings of the Australian Law Reform Commission were that in most cases the representatives “… discount, editorialise or reject …” the child’s expressed wishes and “… argue the case in accordance with [the separate representatives] own views of the child’s best interests.” This practice, in the case of a ‘Gillick competent’ child, does not accord with either the notion of autonomy or the obligation that Australia has by virtue of its ratification of the treaty emanating from the Convention. Moreover, the actions of the separate representatives could be the subject of a challenge under the external affairs powers of the Constitution.





The ratification of a treaty does not introduce its terms into the law of Australia. However, it may have an impact on the interpretation of legislation and the development of the common law. Furthermore, in the case of Teoh v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs it was held by the Full Bench of the Federal Court that an obligation under a treaty would be a relevant consideration for a public officer who is entrusted with a discretion, or it may form the foundation for a legitimate expectation that the officer will exercise a discretion in a particular way.


It is arguable that the separate representative, as an appointed officer of the court, is a public officer within the meaning of Teoh’s case and therefore bound by that decision to conform with the provisions of Article 1 of the Convention, particularly if the separate representatives are employees of the Legal Services Commission.


In South Australia, can a 16 year old person exercise an unfettered right to consent to medical treatment?


Under South Australian legislation, a person of 16 years can give consent to medical treatment in the same way as an adult. However, this grant of right to the person is probably invalid under the provisions of s 10 of the Constitution because of an inconsistency with Part VII of the Family Law Act 175. A Commonwealth law may exclude the operation of a State law, or render the law inoperative, where there is an inconsistency between them.


An indirect inconsistency between State and Commonwealth law can arise in circumstances where it can be inferred that the intention of the Commonwealth law was to ‘cover the field’. There are three questions to consider when determining whether there is an indirect inconsistency between two laws. The questions to be answered are; what field or subject does the Commonwealth law seek to regulate; is the Commonwealth law intended to be the law; does the State law encroach upon that area of Commonwealth responsibility?





In the case of P v P a majority of the High Court held that PartVII of the Act was intended to confer on the Family Court, jurisdiction - unimpeded by State laws - to authorise the sterilisation of a child. It was determined that the jurisdiction of the Family Court was directly concerned with child welfare issues and therefore supported by s 51 (xxi) and s 51 (xxii) of the Constitution. Welfare rights were deemed to be an aspect of the jurisdiction of the Family Court, which could be frustrated if State laws were allowed to circumscribe the Courts’ powers in determining the circumstances in which a child could be subjected to medical treatment.


From the decision in P v P it is arguable that the High Court decided that the subject matter which Part VII of the Family Law 175 was intended to regulate ‘covers’ all welfare matters affecting children with respect to medical treatment. As any person who has not attained the age of 18 is a child under Family Law, this would also include children in South Australia who are purported to have been enfranchised with the right to consent to medical treatment.


Another way to determine whether the Commonwealth intended the Family Law Act 175 to be the law on this subject matter is to demonstrate that there is a manifest intention of exclusivity on the part of the Commonwealth. In O’Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd it was decided that if the Commonwealth legislation could be described as an “… extremely elaborate and detailed…” piece of legislation then this characteristic decisively demonstrated the intention on the part of the Commonwealth to ‘cover the field’. It could be contended that the extensive and elaborate details of Part VII of the Family Law Act 175 dealing with child welfare evinces an intention by the Commonwealth to exhaustively cover this field of subject matter.


An attempt by the State to make a law regulating some aspect of child welfare would be inconsistent with the Family Law Act 175 and would arguably render it invalid under the provisions of s 10 of the Constitution. Therefore, the grant of right under Section 6 of the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 15 is probably invalid. It could also be invalid because it purports to create a legal right that the Commonwealth law effectively prohibits.


How true is the statement of Lord Fraser?


In the overwhelming majority of case where there is no matter in dispute, parents are probably deemed to be the best judges of a child’s welfare. However, in matters critical to the health of a child where the parents consider issues other than bald medical outcomes to be important, the opinion of the medical profession rather than the judgement of the parents will rule supreme in a manner that is arguably inconsistent with Australian law. Therefore parental autonomy is conditional to medical opinion.





In the area of autonomy children fare no better than their parents do. In South Australia, a person of 16 years or a ‘Gillick’ competent child can allegedly consent to medical treatment. However, any right to consent they may have is circumscribed by the provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act and the fact that s 6 of the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act is probably invalid under s 10 of the Constitution.





Please note that this sample paper on Consent to medical procedures and best interests of the child in Australia.(This essay won a University Prize) is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Consent to medical procedures and best interests of the child in Australia.(This essay won a University Prize), we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on Consent to medical procedures and best interests of the child in Australia.(This essay won a University Prize) will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!

If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Argumentative paper on Socrates Death. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Argumentative paper on Socrates Death paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Argumentative paper on Socrates Death, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Argumentative paper on Socrates Death paper at affordable prices with !

It seems to be a constant discussion in the writings of Plato that Socrates does not fear death. As Socrates is pondering death to his peers after being condemned he says, “What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die and die again” (5). He does not have any fear at all concerning death. However, could he be pleased about his execution? To me it seems that the reason that Socrates has no fear of death is because he is trying to die unjustly, thus insuring that his name will live on.


In the Crito dialogue, some of Socrates’ friends are attempting to free him from prison. They are trying to bribe the guards to turn their heads until they sneak him out of his cell. However, Socrates will not escape. Crito says, “The public will never believe that we were anxious to save you but you wouldn’t escape” (0). Socrates mentions that it would be an injustice if he were to try to escape, even though he believes that he has been sentenced to death unfairly. He simply sits in his cell and awaits his death. Socrates is looking for martyrdom through his own wrongful death.


Socrates, being a man of exceptional wisdom, understands what happens to men who are killed unjustly - especially when it is a man in a leadership position. They are raised to the level of a martyr. Immediately following his sentencing, Socrates says, “ Not much time will be gained, O’ Athenians, in return for the evil name which you will get from the detractors of the city, who will say that you killed Socrates, a wise man; for they will call me wise, even though I am not wise, when they want to reproach you” (). Socrates realizes that he is held in a very high regard by some of the more prestigious members of Athens. He also knows that by dying an unjust death, his name will be remembered for all times. Socrates states, “And I prophesy to you who are my murderers, that immediately after my departure punishment far heavier than you have inflicted on me will surely await you” (). Only by insisting on his own death could he insure his own immortality.


One could say that Socrates really wasn’t seeking death, but just playing in his Socratic tone of sarcasm. After all, he does end up attempting to buy his freedom from his accusers with 0 minae. Knowing that Socrates and his friends could come up with a possible amount of money to save him, it is conceivable that he was trying to save himself. Socrates definitely has his own way of dealing with everyday problems that differs from the majority of us. Maybe he was simply toying with everyone around him. However, if he was really trying to save himself, why didn’t he suggest to pay a fine in the first place? After being convicted wrongly and awaiting sentencing, Socrates suggests that his punishment should be served in the Prytaneum. He means that he should be served lunch for free for the rest of his life. Of course Socrates’ sarcasm pours through these words like a waterfall, but, when faced with death, defining your own punishment should be something that would not upset the people who have the control over your life. Socrates is not even trying to save himself. He is merely making a mockery of the system. He is not fighting in anyway to prolong his death.





Another argument could be that Socrates himself does not really know if death is a good thing or a bad thing. Although he has no fear of death, he has very little true knowledge of it either. Socrates states, “I will not say of myself that I deserve any evil, or propose any penalty. Why should I? Because I am afraid of the penalty of death which Meletus proposes? When I do not know whether death is a good or an evil” (). Socrates is wise enough to question death. The fact that Socrates is open to the idea of not knowing whether death is a good or bad thing could point to the awareness of his own humanity. In being human, Socrates would not wish an evil upon himself. He knows that the penalty could be something horrific.


As an opposition to this, no one has true knowledge of death. Not even Socrates. In time Socrates would die anyway, but dying of old age would be an honest death - not one that would help to make his name live on. It would be better to die unjustly and leave a legacy than it would be to die and leave a small following that might drizzle out in a short time.


The fact that Socrates’ name still lives on to this day may be all of the proof needed to say that he did what he had to do to insure his own death. He had the chance to escape, but he declined. He held his constant Socratic sarcasm throughout the trial, and he prophesized being a martyr at the trial to his accusers. He just seemed too calm and relaxed for a man looking death in the face. It is one thing to not fear death, but it is all together another to embrace it. Had Socrates argued a little harder in his own defense the ending may have ended up much different, but is that what Socrates would have wanted?


REFERENCES


Plato (186), The Dialogues of Plato. New York, NY Bantam Books





Please note that this sample paper on Argumentative paper on Socrates Death is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Argumentative paper on Socrates Death, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on Argumentative paper on Socrates Death will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!

If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Junk Food. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Junk Food paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Junk Food, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Junk Food paper at affordable prices with !

Junk Food Killing Ourselves with Generosity


Feeling hungry? How about pizza, burgers, French fries and cola, or chicken patties, deep-fried? Are you thirsty? Then how about a milk shake or soda? Perhaps you want something sweet? Candy bars and crisps should do the trick. The truth is we love fast food. We love it even more if its deep fried in fat, full of salt, stacked with sugar and countless numbers not to mention flavored pulp.


There are over 00,000 fast food outlets in the US alone. Fast food, junk food, call it what you like, but its taking over our world. Junk food is fast, convenient, sadly predictable and everywhere. Our nutrition comes in a box, our thirst is quenched in a carton. No matter where we are in the world it seems junk food is there to comfort us. We think we know what were getting and we like it very much.


The only trouble is, junk food just does not feel the same way about us. Nutrition experts tell us that fast food is often high in calories, sodium, fat and cholesterol. Who cares? It tastes good and it smells good. How bad can that be? After all, its all around us, frozen in the supermarket and stacked in vending machines. We see the proof of our addictions, flashed across our TV screens hourly. The key words are Quick and Tasty and wherever we are, its never very far away.





National conglomerates spend millions endorsing games and toys with their drinks and burgers. Surely they wouldnt try and sell us food that is bad for us? These same companies give even more millions to our schools and colleges. Theyre funding our lifestyles and education. All the schools and colleges have to do is ensure we have easy access to that vending machine at all times of the day. All we have to do is to buy and eat and drink the cheap colourful products stacked up inside. Everyday and all day that is exactly what we do.


How wonderful this is on the cusp of the twenty first century. After all our time is in such short supply. We dont have time to cook. Were busy people, freed from the labour of the kitchen. Ping! That microwave meal is ready. The re-cycled packaging is already in the trash. The TV dinner soon consumed, we slump on the couch our only exercise being to switch the remote control.


How many of us realize that our diet and the way we eat and promote fast food is doing us serious damage? The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that half a million deaths annually are due to cancer, heart disease, strokes and diabetes. They say that these deaths are directly linked to what we are eating. The fact is junk food kills as many Americans as tobacco.


It doesnt seem to matter to us that both tooth decay and obesity are on the rise in teens and adults. According to the Center for disease Control and Prevention more than half of all adults are now overweight or obese. Obesity rates in children and teens have doubled in size since the late 170s. Their problems with heart disease are all in the future. The funny clown wont be around by then. Hell be close to death, his arteries clogged up. His cardiovascular disease will be about to finish him off. This will be as a result of a process that will have started when he was five or six, a process that once begun, is irreversible. His bones will be brittle and weak. His teeth will have fallen out. Still, maybe hell still be able to polish off a milk shake flavored with a spoonful of pulp.


One average burger meal contains, hidden amongst the beef and cereals, additives and flavorings, ten teaspoons of salt. Ten! Trying eating that on its own and see how you feel. Theres enough sugar in a soda, along with the fruit pulp, to fill up your hands. How about that for healthy food? Now pile on the spoonfuls of fat that make up burgers and candy alike. Would you want to feed that to a child? Would you even eat it yourself?


We know that smoking is bad for us, though it was not always thought so. We know that drinking alcohol causes major damage and impairment to our bodies. We dont offer young children and teens these lethal toxic substances. Surely we should at least try and stop them filling up their bodies with unnecessary and harmful food and drink.


Kids love fast food. We treat them to it. Its all around them. Its not bad in moderation or as part of a balanced diet, say the experts. The truth is most of us have no idea what a balanced diet is. Kids love fast food because its all they see. They are being manipulated with advertising and so are we. Researchers at the University of Toronto have discovered that fat rich diets are not only bad for your heart, liver and teeth; they may also impair essential brain functions like concentration and memory. The quick fix buzz we get from eating sugar-drenched candy, is exactly that, a quick fix. Soon after we slump and become lethargic.


We all want to do right by our children and ourselves. Parents find it a continual struggle to encourage healthy eating habits. They are up against fierce competition in this hectic day and age. Pretty soon there will be a generation of parents who will never know what life was like before the advent of burger chains and fast food outlets. Ill health and obesity will be normal. High blood pressure and coronary disease will be rife.


It does not have to be so! Education is the key. We should make it our business to find out what we are eating and what we should be eating. Our schools and colleges have come to rely on the revenue from the peddlers of junk food. Shouldnt we have the right to demand that some of this revenue is put directly into education on nutrition and the availability, even promotion of a balanced diet? Shouldnt we be teaching children about a diet that includes, high fiber and natural energy giving foods. A diet that is low in calories and saturated fats is better for us. Vegetables are a major source of our protein and vitamins. We should be incorporating these into our daily intake. We should not just rely on a small printed list on the side of a carton that we do not even understand. Obesity and disease will not vanish purely as a result of a healthy diet. Exercise should be incorporated too. A healthier diet though, is a major start.


Knowledge is good, but it is not enough. After all whatever we say, if junk food is all that is on offer, what kind of choice is that? The US government does spend money on promoting healthy eating. A mere one million dollars compared to more than a billion dollars spent by one fast food chain alone in promoting its products. Our government needs to initiate campaigns and policies to enable people to eat well and be active. Above all we need to clamp down on the junk food ads. We must try to eat healthier.


You must find out what exactly you are eating. Make it your business to know what is going into your system. You will feel better for it. You will look better for it. Who knows you might even be able to think with a razor sharp mind. Then youd know that in eating junk food you are killing yourself with kindness. Perhaps then youd reach for the ultimate in pre-packed snacks, a banana!


Please note that this sample paper on Junk Food is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Junk Food, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on Junk Food will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!