Should Women Be Allowed in Combat Essay Example for Free

Should Women Be Allowed in Combat Essay For centuries our women have been going into combat, so how come all of a sudden the conflict on whether they should or shouldn’t has become such an uproar. When the women in tribes fought over food and men during our beginnings, those women were undoubtedly in combat. And as the centuries went on, women warriors were not considered that unusual, for example at least 400 women soldier fought in the civil war along side their male comrades, only to be know there gender once killed. So how is it that in today’s society, we are so caught up with the though of women making their way into a male dominant world. Some say it is that women could not deal with the emotions of killing another human being, that we are not mentally strong enough to handle the conditions of a war zone, and although physically they may not be a mans equal but when shooting a gun and being shot at there is no difference. Statistics have not been able to prove that men would be better at the military jobs, but only that history shows the solitary members of the army being men. However with modern technology warfare has greatly evolved and it relies more on So how is that our on There fore howcome, our main arugment is that â€Å"women are not strong enough to fight, women are not capable of the emotions brought through war† This helps to show that women in combat are nothing new, and it is only modern times that we have thought of women as fragile and over emotional. Real women have saved lives, gone in to space, fought wars, invented, financed and designed everything from nuclear fission to radium, and from DNA to COBOL. Real women have overcome as many, if not more, obstacles and hardships than have men. Women pioneered, starved, reigned, battled, spied, strategized, and taught, doctored, nursed, reared families, started churches, and won political rights, yet few magazines, books, movies and television productions tell these stories. Its not a gender thing, its not a sex thing, its not a strength thing a highly trained, highly intelligent, strongly motivated person can do any job the military has to offer and do it well. After all, the Amazons didnt cut off their breasts any more than the Legion of Thebes cut off their testicles and both groups won battles galore! Women have been fighting for the right to be seen mentally and physically equal to the men in the Military, however how can they be seen as equal when the basic physical test has been altered so there is a chance for some women to be accepted in. Women on average only have 60% of the physical strength of men, and when put to the test the top 20% of women equaled to the bottom 20% of men. Men are taught to honor and protect women, boys are taught not to hits girls. I think this makes good sense and is an essential element of our civilization. Sending women into combat utter destroys those values and morals. Women are not suited by temperament or by physical characteristics for the highly aggressive, ultra-violent pursuit of victory in battle. Much of an army’s success depends upon intimidation of the enemy. A force composed of women is far less intimidating than one consisting of macho men. Intimidation of the enemy saves lives in wartime. Already, the side effects of abandoning traditional female sterotypes – likes the notiona that giels are extremely sensitive or have a unique role in nurturing an protecting children are apparent however girls are increasing becoming more in touch with their aggreseive instincest, leading to more girl on girl physical violence. Women should have every right to serve the country, however I do feel that service should stop when it come to front line battle. And those determined to make it to the front line should have to meet the exact same physical and mental critera of those as men. Australia is so terrified of being accused for sexism that we refuse to acknowledge that most of us shudder to the idea and thought of women being sent of to war. If a draft was reinstated, the women who have so called fought to show how men and women can be equal have now placed every other women in a position they were not fighting for.

Violence: Children Who Own The Streets Essay -- essays research papers

Violence: Children Who Own The Streets   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  There are many problems facing today's society. One of the problems is the violent condition that surrounds the lives of children in America. We are awarded of the violence among our juveniles because we read, hear and see it. The newspapers, magazines, news media, and our neighborhoods testify the living proof of the chaos. Everyone tries to find explanations of the causes and consequences of street violence and other aspects of the turbulent lives of young people. Yet, the problem facing our juveniles will not be solved over night. But that's not a reason enough to ignore the problem. It will only make matters worse and keep on doubling through the years. It is our duty as citizens, friends and family to start trying to make that difference. It is frustrating to know that violence among the children of America is increasing in many aspects. The crimes are starting to vary. It's not like in the past, where kids only stole candies or disobeyed curfew laws. Now children steal, murder, rape and use drugs. This is not the America that we knew, this is a battle. What can we do to influence these kids to stay off trouble? First of all, we have to realize this is a very serious problems. And it has to be stopped. The second step is to figure out what causes children to be violent and become juvenile delinquents. This negative attitude causes them to lead a life of delinquency and a life isolated from society's idealistic world. When we ask these question, many others come in mind. Does these problems begin in the family? Are parents good role models or are they condoning the violence? How can we prevent parents from destroying the minds and future of these children? If we try to deny a teen who seeks help, they will only turn to the streets, drugs, and gangs. When they turn rebellious they will commit crimes, minor or major. Juvenile violence is a problem, it leads to crime and segregation. If it's not lessen, it will only keep doubling. And then the future of America will devour.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Some of the main concerns of violence revolves around the family atmosphere. Some families are not creating a secured environment for their children. Instead, these children get exposed to illegal behavior and violent actions in the homes. Family morals and values play an important role ... ...are by far the most frequent type of offense. These include stealing from shops, houses, and cars; and the unauthorized taking of the person ( assaults, fighting, robbery with violence ), together with sex offenses and, in industrially developed countries, traffic offenses, come next and are more common among those aged from 17 to 21. Narcotic addiction and other types of drug dependence, though not always criminal offenses, are a relatively new and disturbing form of deviance and seem to be increasing rapidly. The 1991 UK National Prisons Survey found 83 percent of lock up young offenders had been in council care, against 2 percent of the population as a whole. In 1992 in Britain, 110,4000 children aged 10-16 were caught breaking the law; 75 percent were boys. By far the most common crime was theft or handling of goods. Throughout the 1980's juvenile crime fell in UK: 100,000 cautioned or convicted in 1992, 37 percent fewer than a decade earlier. The young population had also fallen, but only by 2o percent. In 1992, there were 3,764 male juveniles per 100,000 convicted or cautioned; in 1982 the figure was 5,028. The fall was the biggest among boys aged 10-13: from 2,929 to 1,927.

The term ‘Phlebotomy’ Essay

‘Phlebotomy’ comes from the Greek word phlebos, meaning veins, and tome, meaning incision. Bloodletting is one of the humanity’s oldest medical practices, dating back thousands of years and is linked to many ancient cultures, including the Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians and Mesopotamians. Evidence suggests bloodletting for therapeutic reasons may have begun in Egypt around 1400B.C. Tomb paintings from this time show the application of a leech to a patient. The purpose was to cure a person suffering from some kind of infirmity (leprosy, plague, pneumonia, stroke, and inflammation, pretty much anything). The patient was pierced or cut and then drained of several ounces of blood until they fainted. In ancient Greek culture, a physician named Galen of Pergamon took the practice in a more scientific direction when he discovered that arteries were filled with blood, not air. Galen’s approach to bloodletting was based on two key concepts. First, Galen believed that blood didn’t circulate, but stayed motionless in the body until it either went stagnant or was let out. Secondly, he thought the balance of the four humors (blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile) was the source of health or illness. Mapping out the blood vessels of the body, Galen would cut his patients in different areas, depending on what area he wanted to treat. For example, the right hand would be cut and drained in order to treat liver problems. He was also known to give his patients drugs in order to induce vomiting or urination. Bloodletting was also prominent in the early days of some of the world’s most practiced religions. The Talmud (a central text of Judaism) included rules for days where bloodletting could be practiced. Early Christian writings outlined which saint’s days were the best for the ritual. Bloodletting is also referenced as a treatment for fevers in some early Islamic texts. Continuing into the middle ages both surgeons and barbers were specializing in this bloody practice. Barber poles which still decorate the outsides of barber shops are a leftover tradition dating back to the days of barber bloodletting. The swirling red line on the pole represents the blood itself, the white represents the tourniquet, and the pole itself represents the stick the patient would squeeze in his/her hand in order to dilate the veins. Bloodletting as a medical procedure migrated to the Americas along with the European colonists, stretching in time from the residents of Plymouth to the Founding Fathers. Physician Benjamin Rush  (one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence) recommended bloodletting to his patients on a consistent basis. As a matter of fact, George Washington, the first U.S. president, died in 1799 from a throat infection after having 3.75 liters (9 pints) of blood removed from his body within a 10 hour period as treatment for a throat infection. The draining of 16-30 ounces (1-4 pints) of blood was typical. Blood was often caught in a shallow bowl. When the patient became faint, the â€Å"treatment† was stopped. Bleeding was often encouraged over large areas of the body by multiple incisions. By the end of the 19th century (1875-1900), Phlebotomy was declared quackery. The main process of bloodletting in 19th century medicine included the use of leeches to drain blood from a patient. During the 1830s, France imported approximately 40 million leeches for the purpose of bloodletting. Francois-Joseph-Victor Broussais, a French physician, would reportedly recommend his patients be treated with as many as 50 leeches at a time. Bloodletting, also known as venesection, managed to survive into the first part of the 20th century; it was even recommended in a 1923 edition of a textbook called The Principles and Practice of Medicine. During those days, there were four main bloodletting methods practiced by physicians. The first was the continued use of leeches as a bloodletting source. The second was called arteriotomy, a process in which the arteries in the temples would be punctured and bled. The third was phlebotomy (also known as â€Å"breathing a vein†) where a large external vein would be cut in order to draw blood. The last was scarification – a particularly stomach-turning method which involved one of a varied set of tools made for the purpose of attacking â€Å"superficial† blood vessels. Such devices included spring-loaded lancets and a circular, mutli-bladed, device known as a scarificator. The scarificator had a series of twelve blades. The device was cocked and the trigger released spring-driven rotary blades that caused many shallow cuts. The scarificator seemed more merciful than other bloodletting instruments. The reason bloodletting died comes as no surprise to modern readers that bloodletting killed far more people than it cured. Still, it wasn’t until the 19th century that members of the medical community seriously questioned  the merits of this practice. In the 1830s, Pierre Charles Alexandre Louis convincingly argued against the perceived effectiveness of phlebotomy for the treatment of pneumonia and fever. Ironically, with the gradual decline of bloodletting there was an increase of other dangerous and ineffective treatments, such as the use of electricity, elixirs and potions. These medications gained popularity for the same reason that bloodletting had in earlier times: it sometimes worked as a placebo. Because the patients believed that receiving electric shock therapy would heal their illness, the psychological factor may have been enough to actually make them feel better. As the 20th century brought a myriad of new medical knowledge, technology and medicine, however, these archaic practices (including bloodletting) died out almost entirely within a few decades. With the advent of modern medicine, bloodletting was remembered as a historical fad, similar to the guillotine as a form of death penalty. After nearly a century of new medical knowledge and leaps of progress that include the development of electron microscopes, mapping the human genome and cloning living tissue, how is it possible that the medical field is reconsidering the use of this ancient practice? The answer is fairly straightforward: Where ancient bloodletting was used to treat and prevent almost every infirmity imaginable, modern bloodletting (or phlebotomy) is used only to treat specific medical conditions of which medical research has proven the benefits. Research has shown that bloodletting could improve cholesterol, blood pressure and blood glucose levels for people suffering from metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome is a term used to describe the list of medical problems facing people who are obese, such as hypertension, insulin resistance and glucose intolerance. People with this condition are at risk for clots and strokes. Bloodletting thins down the patient’s blood, helping to prevent these problems. Perhaps the most common use for modern bloodletting is a hereditary iron-overload condition known as hemochromatosis. As iron builds in the patient’s blood, it can have a negative impact on various areas of the body, including the heart and the joints. This can eventually lead to disease and organ failure. Bloodletting, now commonly referred to as a â€Å"blood donation†, is applied as the main treatment for hemochromatosis, with patients having their blood taken on at  least an annual basis for life. There is another modern form of bloodletting worth noting, if nothing else, because it never actually went away in the first place. Leeches have continued to be used for certain medical treatments throughout the 20th century right up to the present day. Whereas leeches were formerly used to treat all sorts of injuries and sicknesses, today they are mostly used by doctors in the reattaching of severed body parts such as fingers and toes. Attaching leeches is effective because they can help to get rid of any extra blood that might start problematically flooding in the tissue. Phlebotomy plays a major role in preventive healthcare, diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Although the instruments and methods used for obtaining blood in the beginning may appear crude in comparison to the instruments and methods we use today, the concept remains the same. The exception being, instead of using bloodletting as a â€Å"cure† to remove the illness we use it as a way to analyze, diagnose and treat the illness. Without phlebotomy the process of accurately diagnosing diseases and infections would be impossible.

Conjugating the French Verb Souffrir (to Suffer)

Souffrir  (to suffer, to endure, to tolerate, to be in pain) is an  irregular French  -ir  verb. Below are simple  conjugations  of the verb  souffrir; the conjugation table does not include compound tenses, which consist of  a form of the auxiliary verb  avoir  with the past participle  souffert. Within irregular  -ir  verb conjugations, there are some  patterns. Two groups exhibit similar characteristics and conjugation patterns. Then there is a final, large category of extremely irregular  -ir  verbs that follow no pattern. Souffrir IS AN IRREGULAR -IR- VERB Soufrir  lies in the second group of irregular  -ir  verbs that display a pattern. The second group of verbs includes verbs like souffrir that all end in -frir  or  -vrir. These verbs, surprisingly,  are all  conjugated like  regular  -er  verbs. Souffrir IS CONJUGATED LIKE VERBS ENDING IN -FRIR AND -VRIR All French verbs that end in  -frir  or  -vrir  are conjugated this way. They include: couvrir   to covercueillir   to pickdà ©couvrir   to discoverentrouvrir to half-openouvrir   to openoffrir   to offerrecouvrir   to recover, conceal  rouvrir   to reopen EXPRESSIONS AND USAGE souffrir  en silence   to suffer in silenceSi tu avais souffert ce que jai souffert  !   If youd suffered as much as I have !,  if you had gone through what I have !Elle ne souffre pas dà ªtre critiquà ©e  /  quon la critique.   She cant stand  /  take criticismTu souffres  ?  Ã‚  Are you in pain ? Does it hurt ?souffrir de   to suffer fromsouffrir des dents   to have trouble with ones teeth  souffrir le martyr   to suffer agoniesSon dos lui fait souffrir le martyre. He has terrible trouble with his back.faire souffrir quelquun   to make someone  suffer  Ã‚  ne pas pouvoir souffrir quelquun to not be able to bear someoneJe ne peux souffrir cette idà ©e.  Ã‚  I cant bear the thoughtIl ne peut pas la souffrir.  Ã‚  He cant bear her.  Ã‚  souffrir  inutilement   to suffer needlessly  souffrir  financià ¨rement   to suffer financially / to be in bad straits financiallyOà ¹ souffrez-vous  ?   Where is the pain ? / Where does it hurt ?Elle a beaucoup souffert lors de son accouchement. She had a very painful delivery.Il est mort sans souffrir.   He felt no pain when he died.souffrir de la faim / soif  Ã‚  to suffer from hunger / thirstsouffrir de la chaleur   to suffer from the heatsouffrir de  (figurative):  Sa renommà ©e a souffert du scandale. His reputation suffered from the scandal.dà »t ton amour-propre en souffrir  Ã‚  even though your pride may sufferLes rà ©coltes nont pas trop souffert. The crops didnt suffer too much  /  werent too badly damaged.Cest le sud du pays qui a le plus souffert.   The southern part of the country was the hit the hardest.se souffrir (pronominal): Ils ne peuvent pas se souffrir. They cant stand  / bear each other. Simple Conjugations of the Irregular French -ir Verb Soufrir Present Future Imperfect Present participle je souffre souffrirai souffrais souffrant tu souffres souffriras souffrais il souffre souffrira souffrait nous souffrons souffrirons souffrions vous souffrez souffrirez souffriez ils souffrent souffriront souffraient Pass compos Auxiliary verb avoir Past participle souffert Subjunctive Conditional Pass simple Imperfect subjunctive je souffre souffrirais souffris souffrisse tu souffres souffrirais souffris souffrisses il souffre souffrirait souffrit souffrt nous souffrions souffririons souffrmes souffrissions vous souffriez souffririez souffrtes souffrissiez ils souffrent souffriraient souffrirent souffrissent Imperative tu souffre nous souffrons vous souffrez