Where and how, if at all, should sex education be conducted?

I believe sexual education show be conducted pretty much the same as it typically is presented in school. It should first be talked about the first year of Junior High, and I believe it should be some sort of health class. Believe it or not a lot of kids around Junior High age is when they start to experiment with sexual intercourse. I think sixth grade is a perfect age to present sex education before its to late. Also I think it should be re-presented in eigth or ninth grade with more details and information, because thats when kids that age seem to mature more or grow up some what at least. Sex education is important to be informed about and should be discussed at one time or another.

Should children be required to attend school past the age of sixteen?

My opinon on children having to attend school past the age of 16 is that I disagree. I am a firm believer in education and I think it is very important to obtain a education. But I honestly dont think there should be any law on how old a person has to be until they can stop going school. It should be the choice of that child or family or person weather they want a education or not. Some families would be better off if the kids didnt go to school, but worked instead. I feel if there wasnt any law associated with how old a person has to be until they can drop out of school there would be less kids dropping out and more sticking with attending school. Alot of teenagers around the age of 16-18 do things they arent supposed to to fit in or "be cool", so with no laws then who are they trying to impress?

Sources:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wrensnestonline.com/blog/wp-content/brown-middle-school-redux.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wrensnestonline.com/blog/wrens-nest-construction-company-and-brown-middle-school-outreach/&usg=__hLscPfTotmevAWzugJbO5iN0o4k=&h=300&w=400&sz=58&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=gpK8nSLu-0LmoM:&tbnh=149&tbnw=200&ei=MTmETez7N8ydgQff1ujDCA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dschool%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1139%26bih%3D497%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=10&oei=JTmETbPeBIHk0gGopsG9CA&page=1&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0&tx=72&ty=103

Should bartenders be held responsible for the behavior of their patrons?

I believe that bartenders shouldn't be help responible for other peoples behaviors of how they act at the bar. Although it would help if they would cut a person off if that person appears to be way to intoxicated to be drinking more. I think if someone wants to make stupid decisions they should be held 100% accountable for their actions. They are the ones who make the decision to go out and drink so they already know some sort of what their getting themselves into before they even go out. A bartender is there to be supplying drinks, thats his job. So what should the bartender have to be held accountable for a complete stranger and their choices.

Should newspaper reporters be required to reveal their sources?

I think all newspaper reporters should be required to reveal their sources. If you are going to be publishing something for all eyes to see you should reveal where you got your information from whether it be a person or place. I think this because it will cause the reporters to be honest on what they write about. Its shows you can truely trust what you read. Ecspecially if someone is quoting what another person has said or if they are writing a article on another person, they should always state who or where they heard the information. I think that revealing sources would also help improve reporters to write and share stuff that actually matters and stuff the readers can benefit from and prevent reporters copying from other reporters.

Sources:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lcsc.edu/library/ili/classes/j0314269.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lcsc.edu/library/ili/classes/college_writing.htm&usg=___yURfd1SpXAgte7l8skcdZC7y_8=&h=405&w=600&sz=39&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=2fk_IEyK7JBHwM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=162&ei=Ds5pTca8K5GXtwfSspzoAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnews%2Bpaper%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26biw%3D1003%26bih%3D539%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C81&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=113&vpy=244&dur=78&hovh=184&hovw=273&tx=148&ty=179&oei=Ds5pTca8K5GXtwfSspzoAw&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0&biw=1003&bih=539

Should surrogate motherhood be either banned or regulated by law?

Choosing to have a surrogate mother is a huge decision anyone has to make. But it shouldnt be banned or be regulated by laws. It's a choice that you really need to look into before making the final decision, but I dont see any harm it would do to anyone. If anything it seems to help alot of people whom cant have children or are afraid to go through the process of being pregnant. There are alot of things a person needs to research if they choose to go with a surrogate mother, such as who the person will be to carry their child and financial. Which I can see where financial should be the only reason there is any law to having a surrogate mother, I have heard of cases of people pretending they are going to give the baby to the parents waiting for the child and change their mind after they get all the money. But I think that can all be avoided if the person is smart about what and who they choose to nurture they soon to be child. There is also angencies and programs a person can go through so this can all be avoided. There for this is why I believe surrogate motherhood should not be banned or regulated by law. 

SOURCES:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.misterseed.com/LATESTnews/2005%2520FOLDER/APRIL/baby1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.misterseed.com/LATESTnews/2005%2520FOLDER/APRIL/LATESTapril.htm&usg=__sv6Y7DvUUPexyk5XdtTYRSnntwE=&h=550&w=727&sz=26&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=OtuT1g3MsHsVuM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=159&ei=MTFfTdWZKMHYgQfdotSrAg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsurrogate%2Bmother%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26biw%3D1003%26bih%3D567%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&oei=AjFfTba-O4L7lweTq5D4Cw&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=88&ty=111

Should juvenile offenders be tried and punished as adults?

I believe juvenile offenders should not be tried and punished as adults, except for one crime and that is murder. I think teenagers make mistakes and are growing up to learn, alot of  their friends have a big influence on them in that time in their life snd teens will usually do what their friends are doing or what they peer pressure them into doing. But when it comes to murder, I dont care who the person is they should all have the same consequence. I think for someone to commit or be associated with such a corupt crime, they won't learn there lesson and will do it again. It shouldnt matter how old the person is they should be prepared for the consequences that comes along with that crime.

Should tobacco companies be held responsible for smoking-related illnesses and deaths?

            Many people would like to blame smoking companies for smoking related illnesses and deaths or even try to sue them. I do not agree with that, people who choose to smoke should also make the decision to accept the consequences that comes with smoking or at least educate themselves on the health risks that may occur. I could see where tobacco companies could be at blame if they tried to keep it a secret that smoking is unhealthy for you, but they don't. When you buy a pack of ciggarette's there is a label right on the side of them called the surgeon general's warning, explaining that quitting smoking reduces health risks. People just need to take responsibility for their own choices and not blame others when something goes wrong.