There is only one way to prevent women being forced into prostitution and that is to legalise prostitution, set up safe houses and venues where the women can work in a safe, clean, monitored environment. Let’s be fair you cannot stop something that has been going on since the beginning of time. Prostitution dates back to the 18^th century BC recorded as the ‘code of Hammurabi’ and the first recorded brothels were in the 6^th century BC in Greece supported by the government (An Illustrated History and Timeline by Tom Head).

Sex is a natural urge it is not dirty or unhealthy, it can be, but as long as the participants are consenting adults then I see no problem. In my view, which I do not believe I’m alone on, prostitution is a business. There is a lot of money the government could get from revenues by making this business legal. Money they could then reuse to crack down on those who still act outside the law, on helping destitute women get back on their feet and keeping women healthy and clean who wish to sell themselves for sex. Let’s not forget that women are not the only prostitutes and men are not the only users of prostitutes. It’s estimated by several internet sources ‘ABC News’ and ‘End Violence Against Women’ as two of them that there are some 80,000 sex workers in the UK.

Now lets be fictional for a moment, lets imagine that out of those 80,000 half were legalised, willing prostitutes, seeing 15 clients a week at £20.00 a time over a 50 week year, in total they would collectively earn £600 million a year which again fictionally the government could tax them 20% and earn its self in the region of £120 million. That’s a lot of revenue to throw back into making it safer for women and men in that business.  

Many people who go to prostitutes, go because it is their only means of being with someone for sex, as I said sex is a natural urge we all get at times whether single, married, young, old, gay or straight, some are lucky to be in a relationship, some blessed with the gift of chatting up and pulling, others happy with self administration and others

with self control. For others there is no other choice. Considering we are a 21^st century race, with advanced development in science, medicine, technology and even space travel we have a very Victorian attitude to sex, we still seem to think that if we hush it up and put a stigma label on it, it will go away. WRONG, it’s time to grow up as a nation and as a human race, to accept that prostitution is here has always been here and always will be, and to try and make it better and less of a stigma for those who wish to partake in it, this is the only way in cracking down on those who use force and bribery and making it a safe business to be in.   

Unfortunately it seems that this special place in my heart has become burdened by a metaphorical malignant growth of hypocrisy and has been removed by the metaphorical doctors of injustice.

The law, allowing parents to leave their kids at a Nebraska hospital without questioning, has been overturned to something "more reasonable."  Now you can only leave your children there if they are 30 days old or younger, or something to that effect.  At any rate, one of the few good ideas left in the world has been spit upon by a parliament of fascists who believe that parents ought to be responsible for their children.

Lies!

When I was a child the only person in the world who had the responsibility to take care of me was every taxpaying American, as well as a few illegal immigrants I lived with in my adolescence.  My parents, as was their right, believed that I would have a better future if they left me in a basket at the porch of an orphanage.  The idea that parents could be charged for this is appalling.  Our government is trying to make up for it by giving us a 30 day grace period to get rid of our kids.  This, to me, is one of the most frightening things I have ever imagined.  The idea that parents will have to pay for their children for a FULL 18 years is worse than HIV, AIDS, SAARS, or MTV.  

I'm challenging all of you, nay, pleading to all of you to please, please help me in my quest to end this affront to justice!  Comment below stating your displeasure for these laws and I will print up a few copies and mail them to my city council.  One of the members met Mike Huckabee once, so it is highly likely that Nebraska's law will be reinstated as long as we can get about 30 signers, give or take.  We will not give in to the heinous demands of our government.  If we band as one, we shall succeed!

To state the obvious, the Act of 1949 does not replace or annul the exemption stated in the Act of 1836. Royals are therefore excluded from the benefits of civil weddings. It follows that the civil wedding of the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker-Bowles is null and void. This should end the discussion, one would think.

But it is the Royal Family, and the British press become all mealy mouthed where they are concerned. So instead of just stating the obvious, they now take an oblique approach roundabout the government to secure papers that should be made public on the issue. It’s the typically British way of saying, we all know that something went wrong, but could please somebody find a wormhole through which it becomes suddenly legal.

As the statements of the laws are quite clear, it surprises no end how Lord Falconer speaking for Blair could have given the go ahead in the face of legal facts. Lord Falconer was cited as having used human rights considerations. That, dear Sir, is plainly ridiculous in a country where a family is held state prisoner and prevented from using freedom of speech.

If we want to grant the Royal Family human rights, then let the Queen speak her mind openly. I think the levellers at some government officials past and present would be quite refreshing.

On the other hand, who really cares if marriages are legal? If two people want to be considered as married, fine. If the rest of us pretend that we think it is legal, it is legal. That’s how the law has always worked, by coding down common agreements after the fact.

But I've got a few political thoughts of my own.  This campaign has raised for me some interesting questions.  I feel like assumptions have been made and taken for granted.  I can't help but wonder, would be saying the same thing about these men, and lady, if their personal histories were reversed.  

The point is to ask yourself, WHAT IF...?

What if the Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin tickets and personal histories were switched around? Would the country's collective point of view be different?  It’s something to consider…

What if the Obamas had walked five children across the stage, including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if Obama had left his first wife after a severe car accident disfigured her?

What if Obama met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama was the candidate's wife who became addicted to painkillers and acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?

What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five? (The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if McCain were a charismatic, eloquent speaker and Obama had difficulty reading from a teleprompter?

What if Obama were the candidate whose military experience included discipline problems?

What if Obama were the candidate known to display publicly a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer distribution?

What if McCain graduated from Harvard with a Juris Doctor (J.D.), Magna Cum Laude (that means "top of class")?

What if Palin earned duel BA’s in History and Political Science from the University of Delaware and a Juris Doctor (J.D) from Syracuse University College of Law?

What if Obama ranked 894 of 899 in the United States Naval Academy

What if Biden spent 1 semester at Hawaii Pacific University, 2 semesters at North Idaho College, 2 semesters at the University of Idaho, 1 semester at Matanuska-Susitna College, then finally three semesters at University of Idaho earning a B.A. in Journalism

Iran has been pursuing nuclear ambitions for years. Starting in the 1950's with help from the United States, the program has progressed from one research reactor installed in 1967 to fifteen possible nuclear research sites including two nuclear reactors, one at Bushehr and the other being constructed at Darkovin. In 1968 Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Up until 1979 the civilian nuclear program was heavily supported by the west and guided by the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, after the 1979 Islamic Revolution the nuclear program changed gears. From 1985 to 2003 parts of the Iranian nuclear research program were hidden from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and up until 2003 evidence points at an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The United States National Intelligence Estimate stated with, "a high level of confidence," that the Iranian weapons program halted in 2003 and remains inactive.

Recently, Iran has even been cooperating with the international inspectors. However, the United States and Israel still argue that Iran is secretly pursuing nuclear weapon related technologies behind the back of the International Community. The EU-3, consisting of Britain, France, and Germany, also believe that Iran has intentions beyond that of civilian nuclear power. Several exchanges have taken place between the Iranian government and the International Community. Beginning in 2006 with Resolution 1696, the Security Council of the United Nations demanded "Iran suspend uranium enrichment...or face possible economic, diplomatic sanctions." Iran has henceforth refused to stop uranium enrichment. A series of resolutions have since been passed. Resolution 1737 (2006) barred the sale of all nuclear related technology to Iran and seized assets, Resolution 1747 (2007) added an arms embargo, Resolution 1803 (2008) mandated states inspect cargo bound for Iran, and Resolution 1835 (2008) reaffirmed the previous four resolutions. Iran has refused all offers that impede its, "inalienable right," to nuclear technology including offers to enrich its uranium in Russia and face to face talks with the United States if it halts enrichment. Today experts vary in opinion but most think Iran could enrich uranium or plutonium to weapons grade within two years. They are approaching virtual nuclear power status, meaning they have the technology and fissile materials to build a nuclear weapon. The IAEA determined Iran already has enough uranium to make six nuclear bombs if enriched high enough.

The first question to consider in these issues is whether or not Iran has the right to develop nuclear capabilities. The most pertinent document in regards to this is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1970). Key elements to examine include Article II, Article III, Article IV, and Article X. Article II of the treaty prohibits non-nuclear states from "seeking control over such weapons," and instructs them, "not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons." This provision in and of itself is enough to theoretically outlaw nuclear weapon proliferation. Article III, P. 1 demands non-nuclear states comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency and their safeguard system preventing peaceful nuclear activities from being diverted to nuclear weapons. Article IV, P. 1 affirms the "inalienable right" of all states to develop peaceful nuclear energy sources without discrimination. Lastly, Article X, P. 1 asserts that any state can withdrawal from the treaty, "if it decides that extraordinary events...have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country." The only precondition is that it must give notice of the withdrawal three months in advance. According to Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty civilian nuclear development is perfectly legal and is in fact inalienable. If Iran really desired nuclear weapons it could indeed withdrawal from the treaty, and thus it argues that this is evidence that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Why then would the United Nations be so insistent on Iran halting its uranium enrichment? The reason is from 1985-2003 Iran conducted secret nuclear development programs away from the eyes of the IAEA. According to the IAEA November 15, 2004 report titled Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, "Iran's cooperation up to October 2003 was marked by extensive concealment, misleading information and delays in access to nuclear material and facilities." A 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate document Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities also stated, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." These documents clearly show reason for the continued attacks on Iran's civilian nuclear program. According to the IAEA and the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, Iran violated both Article II and III in pursuing nuclear weapons for a time and failing to comply with the IAEA safeguards. Iran also violated the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 26, known as the "Pacta Sunt Servanda" clause, in not performing the Non-Proliferation Treaty in good faith. The sanctions imposed in Security Council resolutions 1737, 1747, and 1803 were in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Article 41.

However, from the Iranian point of view sanctions are an effort to deprive Iran of its "inalienable right" to a civilian nuclear program and an effort for the nuclear power states to consolidate control. The argument can be made that Security Council Resolution 1696 violates Article IV, P.1 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in discriminating against Iran's enrichment program. Also Resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803, and 1835 could be seen to violate Article IV P. 2 in blocking the sale of technology and materials vital to Iran's civilian nuclear program. The United States and the EU-3 state that Iran gave up these rights when their secret nuclear program came to light in 2002. However, one could argue that Iran has no legal binding obligation to comply with Resolution 1696 because it violates the U.N. Charter. The Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Article 38 makes no reference to the U.N. charter being superior to that of any other treaty. It states, "international conventions ...establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states," as the main source of international law. Under this theory the requests and sanctions put forth under Articles 40 and 41 of the U.N. Charter violate the principles of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and therefore do not have to be followed and are implicitly illegal. Glancing back, Iran does have the right to develop civilian nuclear power under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, the controversy surrounds the issue of whether or not Iran gave up that right when it violated said treaty to seek a nuclear weapons program that is no longer active.

Another aspect of the problem involves national sovereignty. If the controversy cannot be solved does the concept of collective security trump the national sovereignty of Iran? The west fears Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. If Iran succeeds in enriching uranium to weapons grade it will then be too late to take action against it. Iran knows this; the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is ingrained far too well. Any violation of Iran's national sovereignty to stop its nuclear program would be constituted as intervention. The principles of sovereignty and non intervention goes back to 1648 and the Peace of Westphalia. It is prohibited by several modern treaties and legal documents as well including: Chapter 1, Article 2 of the U.N. Charter; Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States; the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty; the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States; and by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the Definition of Aggression.

Collective security, on the other hand, draws from all the sources of law outlined in Article 38 of the Statue of the ICJ: multilateral treaties, international custom, the principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and the writings of highly qualified publicists. Collective security usually applies solely to the idea of multilateral political or defense treaties such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or the European Union (EU). Even the United Nations was designed to promote collective security by guaranteeing peace in the world. To the West however, the idea of a nuclear Iran violates the very notion of collective security. To them, Iran is an unpredictable theocracy bent on regional dominance, threatening their interests and the status quo. A nuclear Iran would encourage other members of the Middle East to seek nuclear weapons to balance Iranian power and therefore, turn one of the world's most volatile regions into the new Balkans. To them, Iran's declarations of hate against Israel justify their collective security theory. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's pronouncements that Israel will be, "wiped of the map," and that it is, "head[ed] toward annihilation," provide just moral reasoning to the West.

Iran has stressed the principle of non-intervention in its internal affairs, specifically, in regards to a military attack by Israel or the United States. The West, however, often believes it has a moral duty to save the world regardless of certain peremptory norms. It is this international concern that drove the United States to lead the crusade to create the League of Nations and 25 years later the United Nations. Recently it was behind the pronouncement of Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil" and the War on Terror that has encompassed much of the Middle East. It is this international concern that has led the opposition to the Iranian nuclear program and the view that it is a destabilizing factor in an unstable region. It also goes against the interest of maintaining Western hegemony in that region, which is exactly what Iran desires. Iran is steadily achieving regional dominance. Even becoming a virtual nuclear power would cement Iran in that position, which is clearly its goal. That being said, Iran has publicly stated that nuclear weapons are antithetical to the religion of Islam. It has also proposed the Middle East become a nuclear free zone, but the United States and its allies in Europe and Israel reject this proposal as an empty ploy to lure Israel out. Regardless of why, the fact remain that at least Israel and the United States have not taken the use of force off the table when it comes to Iran.

According to the General Assembly Resolution on the Definition of Aggression any use of force outside the police actions of the United Nations or in self defense is illegal. Article 5 of this resolution states, "No consideration of whatever nature...may serve as a justification for aggression." Combining this with Article 2 which states, "The first use of armed force....shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression," any use of force outside a United Nations mandate that is not in retaliation of an attack is illegal. Ideally a peaceful settlement would be found but under Article 42 of the U.N. Charter the Security Council can order the use of force against a member nation to "restore international peace and security." However, this is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council. When the Security Council cannot agree to take action in times of international peril should nations under siege just be abandoned? Or, perhaps can they take actions on behalf of themselves and others to secure international peace? Clearly they can. This is precisely what happened in the World Wars with the western European Powers declaring war to defend smaller neighbors. Then, can this principle be extrapolated to defend nations before attack? In the era of nuclear weapons when the complete eradication of a country can happen in minutes the logical answer is yes. This is the theory of anticipatory self defense.

If Iran had the intent to use nuclear weapons then under the theory of anticipatory self defense its nuclear facilities could be attacked to protect international peace and security. However, Iran has not proclaimed this. It would amount to political suicide if it did. Nevertheless, Iranian motives are clear. President Ahmadinejad's ranting against Israel clearly shows he would shed no tears if the Jewish state disappeared, mushroom cloud or not. Their claims about Islam's prohibition of the stockpiling of nuclear weapons could very well be a Machiavellian façade. In this case it would not be considered aggression. There is no legal obligation for suicide. The real question then is whether Iran has intent to develop nuclear weapons, and then whether it has intent to use them.

The use of nuclear weapons in any case whatsoever is prohibited by the General Assembly Resolution on the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and Prevention of Nuclear War, Security Council Resolution 984, and the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat of Nuclear Weapons. In stating that "the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons should therefore be prohibited," the General Assembly affirms that Iran should not even consider obtaining them. This clause even technically outlaws the policy of deterrence. This means that Iran would have no reason to build nuclear weapons, period. If only the world were perfect. Iran has to think to the balance of power. As long as Israel has nuclear weapons, and as long as Israel is backed by the United States, Iran will be inferior without the threat of nuclear deterrence. The balance of power in the Middle East has long been in the favor of colonial or Western masters. Only recently have the nations of the region even achieved independence. Since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution it has resented the United States' influence in the region, looming like the colonial masters of old. Iran yearns for the glory of the Persian Empire and is striving toward regional dominance to obtain it. Even independent civilian nuclear power would further this goal, giving it the possibility of virtual nuclear power and the influence that comes with it. The West should also fear Iran's connection to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. If Iran enriched nuclear material to weapons grade and then gave it to Hezbollah it could find its way to the hands of Hamas and Al Qaeda and into Western cities such as Washington, New York, London, Paris, or Berlin. Rather than becoming a nuclear suicide state it could use proxies to destroy its enemies. This fear alone could trigger and anticipatory attack. If such an attack occurred, more than likely Iran would retaliate and there would be a large scale conflict.

The legal argument goes as follows. Iran has a right to civilian nuclear power but its history of concealment and failure of compliance with the IAEA makes it questionable to whether it has sacrificed its rights to nuclear technology. Nonetheless, the Non-Proliferation Treaty views civilian nuclear power as an inalienable right, a peremptory norm if you will. This makes it impossible to place restrictions on its peaceful nuclear development. As long as there is no military program and it cooperates with the IAEA it is not currently violating the treaty. However, Iran's past violations do have to be accounted for. Iran's history of concealment makes it seem untrustworthy and the Security Council now needs additional assurances to prove Iran seeks no military program. The fact that Iran has failed to comply with Resolution 1696 proves it is not willing to provide such assurances anymore. It also refuses to withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, trying to seek the protection it grants. If Iran refused to comply with the U.N. resolutions and then it is either subject to the use of force under Article 42 of the U.N. Charter or expulsion from the United Nations under Article 6 of the U.N. Charter. If the General Assembly and/or the Security Council refuse to take such actions, as they probably will, then the ramification of a nuclear Iran and the country's intention toward Israel must be examined. Recalling the holocaust like statements of Iran, a clear threat is identified. If Iran were to achieve efficient civilian nuclear power then it would become a virtual power with the high possibility of creating a weapon in secret. This follows that Israel has a right of anticipatory self defense against Iran in destroying the Iranian nuclear program. By no means should this attack be nuclear in itself, it should be sufficient to protect Israel's interests. The principle of proportionality must be observed. Yet, if Iran were to accede to the demands of the Security Council it would retain its rights and sovereignty. Trust would be regained and a civilian nuclear program could indeed be established. Unfortunately, this is not likely without a change in heart from the Attoyllah and the President.

In consideration of all the bodies of work on nuclear proliferation and related topics one has to conclude that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran would cause a drastic change in the balance of power and have possible devastating consequences for Israel and the West. This in turn would disrupt global security and peace which is a violation of the U.N. charter with costly ramifications. Iran should not be allowed to achieve nuclear weapons by any means. If they can generate trust through good faith and actions then they should be allowed to maintain their fully operational civilian nuclear program. The West in turn should accept Iran's actions of good faith if it chooses to present them. If not, then they are trying to play by a double standard and the possible deadly outcomes necessitate a response, even one of force if required. The best possible outcome would be a peaceful one resulting from Iranian acquiesces to the Security Council and the U.N combined with renunciation of inflammatory rhetoric by both sides. If that is unattainable then the world will indeed see violence, the measure of which, while unknown, is surely more than the world can pay.

Under the thin veil of medical research, Parliament has opted for opening Pandora's Box, and only the Lord and the Lords may now stop this madness. For centuries, scientists have been the immoral leaders of progress. The pharmaceutical industry and other parasitic companies are living proof of this. Now the door has been opened to the nightmares of hell, as gargoyles become a life reality.

One wonders if the members of Parliament themselves are not already chimaeras; a cross between human and worm, with the brains of the worm and a supposedly human body. To give such license to scientists with Napoleonic delusions of grandeur is equates to high treason against humanity.

What kind of mirage did pharmaceutical companies use to bedazzle the members of the Commons? Or, to say it quite plainly, how much was paid into their bank accounts? No human being with a drop of intellect could possibly want these gerrymanders to happen. The Prime Minister has already ordered a life unicorn for the stables of the Queen, apparently.

The city of Basel, being home to several multinational pharmaceutical companies, is expected to order a life basilisk for its zoo.

Image source

In the same go, we get to breed life human organ banks. Sisters or brothers of sick children will be produced exclusively and made to measure to serve as their older sibling's life storage for fresh spare parts. Children of love, indeed. Pre-produced, they may be ordered with two livers, two lungs and other goodies. And may we add something for the parents, too? You get them made to order.

If one combines hybrids with children made to order; it should be possible for the Isle of Man to order just a single living arm, don't you think? How was it humanely possible to pass such a law? Maybe, I should now get used to say ‘humanimally possible' when one of the next Prime Ministers might be Nostradamus' half-pig-man.

I do not have anything against that Church official, nor the Roman Catholic Church itself. I have been born and raised by my parents to always have fear and love for God. My family has been a devotee of the Roman Catholic Church ever since. But in that case, I am expressing my disagreement to this institution.

How can they say that the Reproductive Health Bill is anti-life when it only tries to enlighten the minds of the Filipinos to the wrong notions of family planning? How can they say that the Reproductive Health Bill is anti-life when it also promotes the use of the natural methods of family planning that the Church even promote? The only addendum that it suggests is the use of contraceptives such as pills, condoms, and the like which the Church disagrees with. Where is anti-life there? Isn't it more anti-life if because of the lack of proper orientation to Filipinos, population explodes to the ceiling and more and more cases of unwanted pregnancies, early marriages among the youth, and abortion increase?

Yes. Because of ignorance and improper orientation, innocent lives are deprived of their rights to be born, have name, and enjoy the wonderful creations of God for them. How many more cases of fetus discovered in restroom trash cans or near creeks and gutters will grace the news headlines? How many more cases of infants left in front of orphanage gates or even church entrances will be found? How many more young children will be used by syndicate groups because they have been deserted by their parents at their young age? How many more families starve to death because their parents cannot sustain all the needs of their countless children?

Why should the proposed Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 be approved?

Simple. To stop population explosion and save the lives of innocent Filipinos.

I don't want to get too into detail, but what happened to poor Nikki's body is awful. I myself have stumbled upon the pictures and witnessed the mess she became. And let me just say to those who think it is, it is NOT funny. It is never funny when something like this happens. Not much later, Nikki's little sister received a text message of her sister's mangled body. As well as her dad through an email. And later, her myspace even held the pictures. How did this happen? Two officers who were supposed to turn the pictures in, decided to forward them to their own email address, and then to a few more people. That is how the pictures got out. What was done with the pictures was terrible. I have visited sites, where I have read one terrible comment after another about this poor girl's death. I have seen jokes about the pictures of the accident, which I tell you now, they are not pretty, and it's not a joke. What happened to her is not funny nor should it ever be. I will not post the pictures, out of respect for her, her family, and just because it's the right thing to do. 

I have a word to say to those who think it's funny, to those who participated in making her family's life hell, o those who just really don't have a heart. God is watching. Making a joke out of her tragic death is only hurting yourself. It makes you look stupid and heartless. For everyone else who is curious to see the pictures, go ahead and look at them. But don't laugh about it, or make jokes about her, you should mourn for her, and for her family's loss.

With people today on the internet, pushing her pictures around, showing them to everyone they know. That is how this girl became so famous. How wrong is that? People shouldn't want to know about her death, or see pictures of her accident. They should want to know about her life! See pictures from when she was happy and alive.

To her family... God be with you. I'm sorry for your loss, I could never imagine going through what you are today. You have such courage, and you had a beautiful daughter. So may God bless your life, and may she rest peacefully in heaven.

Now is the time to think. If we contemplate on this issue deeply, we remain unable to blame anyone for being at fault. If we see the law, then it is correct as many people having no such serious issues can approach for the same. If we see the society, then the increasing rate of living relationships and increasing conflicts in married relationships as well can result in the same. And at last, if we see the depressed couple's face ( Nikita and Haresh) then, they also don't seem to be defaulters. Which mother of the world would like to have a paralyzed baby with a hole in his heart? And even if Nikita delivers the baby, who will be the ultimate sufferer? Not only Nikita and Haresh, but the baby will also become the center of this traumatic situation throughout his life. Neither the parents would be able to love the disability of their child nor would they be able to hate the same. How the baby would feel that even after being aware of all the facts he was brought into the world.

So, what's the solution of this situation? This situation can fall on anyone. Today, the law was not changed as Nikita was the lonely figure to approach the court and fight against such laws but many more may have suffered the same situation in the past and many others can suffer in the future as well. But, a common approach will not help in this case as it fist goes in the wrong hands not eligible for that. So, the society, government and the law makers should keep in consideration all the fact and allow exceptions in such situations. In this way, neither the law would create any conflict nor there be any fear of going in the wrong hands.