题目内容
下列哪一种癌最易发生血道转移
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
It came as something of a surprise when Diana, Princess of Wales, made a trip to Angola in 1997, to support the Red Cross"s campaign for a total ban on all anti-personnel landmines. Within hours of arriving in Angola, television screens around the world were filled with images of her comforting victims injured in explosions caused by landmines. "I knew the statistics," she said. "But putting a face to those figures brought the reality home to me; like when I met Sandra, a 13-year-old girl who had lost her leg, and people like her."The Princess Concluded with a simple message: "We must stop landmines." And she used every opportunity during her visit to repeat this message.But, back in London, her views were not shared by some members of the British government, which refused to support a ban on these weapons. Angry politicians launched an attack on the Princess in the press. They described her as "very ill-informed" and a "loose cannon(乱放炮的人)."The Princess responded by brushing aside the criticisms: "This is adistraction(干扰) we do not need. All I"m trying to do is help."Opposition parties, the media and the public immediately voiced their support for the Princess. To make matters worse for the government, it soon emerged that the Princess"s trip had been approved by the Foreign Office, and that she was in fact very well-informed about both the situation in Angola and the British government"s policy regarding landmines. The result was a severe embarrassment for the government.To try and limit the damage, the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkidnd, claimed that the Princess"s views on landmines were not very different from government policy, and that it was "working towards" a worldwide ban. The Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, claimed the matter was "a misinterpretation or misunderstanding."For the Princess, the trip to this war-torn country was an excellent opportunity to use her popularity to show the world how much destruction and suffering landmines can cause. She said that the experience had also given her the chance to get closer to people and their problems. How did Diana respond to the criticisms
It"s no secret that many children would be healthier and happier with adoptive parents than with the parents that nature dealt them. That"s especially true of children who remain in abusive homes because the law blindly favors biological parents. It"s also true of children who suffer for years infoster homes(收养孩子的家庭) because of parents who can"t or won"t care for them but refuse to give upcustody(监护) rights.Fourteen-year-old Kimberly Mays fits neither description, but her recent court victory could eventually help children who do. Kimberly has been the object of an angry custody battle between the man who raised her and her biological parents, with whom she has never rived. A Florida judge ruled that the teenager can remain with the only father she"s ever known and that her biological parents have "no legal claim" on her.The ruling, though it may yet be reversed, sets aside the principle that biology is the primary determinant of parentage. That"s an important development, one that"s long overdue.Shortly after birth in December 1978, Kimberly Mays and another infant were mistakenly switched and sent home with the wrong parents. Kimberly"s biological parents, Ernest and Regina Twigg, received a child who died of a heart disease in 1988. Medical tests showed that the child wasn"t the Twiggs" own daughter, but Kimberly was, thus sparking a custody battle with Robert Mays. In 1989, the two families agreed that Mr. Mays would maintain custody with the Twiggs getting visiting rights. Those rights were ended when Mr. Mays decided that Kimberly was being harmed.The decision to leave Kimberly with Mr. Mays rendered her suit debated. But the judge made clear that Kimberly did have standing tosue(起诉) on her own behalf. Thus he made clear that she was more than just property to be handled as adults saw fit.Certainly, the biological link between parent and child is fundamental. But biological parents aren"t always preferable to adoptive ones, and biological parentage does not convey an absolute ownership that cancels all the rights of children. Kimberly had been given to Mr. Mays ______.
It"s no secret that many children would be healthier and happier with adoptive parents than with the parents that nature dealt them. That"s especially true of children who remain in abusive homes because the law blindly favors biological parents. It"s also true of children who suffer for years infoster homes(收养孩子的家庭) because of parents who can"t or won"t care for them but refuse to give upcustody(监护) rights.Fourteen-year-old Kimberly Mays fits neither description, but her recent court victory could eventually help children who do. Kimberly has been the object of an angry custody battle between the man who raised her and her biological parents, with whom she has never rived. A Florida judge ruled that the teenager can remain with the only father she"s ever known and that her biological parents have "no legal claim" on her.The ruling, though it may yet be reversed, sets aside the principle that biology is the primary determinant of parentage. That"s an important development, one that"s long overdue.Shortly after birth in December 1978, Kimberly Mays and another infant were mistakenly switched and sent home with the wrong parents. Kimberly"s biological parents, Ernest and Regina Twigg, received a child who died of a heart disease in 1988. Medical tests showed that the child wasn"t the Twiggs" own daughter, but Kimberly was, thus sparking a custody battle with Robert Mays. In 1989, the two families agreed that Mr. Mays would maintain custody with the Twiggs getting visiting rights. Those rights were ended when Mr. Mays decided that Kimberly was being harmed.The decision to leave Kimberly with Mr. Mays rendered her suit debated. But the judge made clear that Kimberly did have standing tosue(起诉) on her own behalf. Thus he made clear that she was more than just property to be handled as adults saw fit.Certainly, the biological link between parent and child is fundamental. But biological parents aren"t always preferable to adoptive ones, and biological parentage does not convey an absolute ownership that cancels all the rights of children. The Twiggs claimed custody rights to Kimberly because ______.
不发生癌的组织是
微信支付 
支付宝支付