instruction:
Your task is to extract the thesis of an opinionated news article by selecting some of its text segments. The thesis is a summarization of what the author wants to persuade the reader of. Your answer should consist of segments of the given text. Note that you are not allowed to combine different sentences.
question:
Do we really need to cancel Christmas? It's wonderful (and a good thing) to see the new emphasis on"giving over receiving" at Christmas time . It's become a trend this year with so many families because as parents we want to teach kids about generosity . Moms and dads everywhere are using Christmas as an opportunity to get their kids thinking about serving others and giving to the less fortunate , rather than encouraging them to create monstrous Christmas lists describing all the things they want this season . Some parents are even "cancelling" Christmas for their kids, not giving any family members any gifts . But do we really need to cancel Christmas in order to foster a spirit of generosity in our kids? Wednesday I joined Lisa Henderson on "Fox & Friends" to debate this very question . Lisa has "cancelled Christmas" in her Utah home because , she says, her kids have become too entitled,"acting so ungrateful" and "extremely disrespectful." So there will be no presents for Christmas , but , as she writes on her blog Overthebigmooon.com,"There is a good possibility that Santa will be writing them a letter of how proud of them he is and perhaps put a few pieces of hard candy and an orange in their stockings." While I have great respect for what Lisa wants to accomplish , I disagree with her approach . Christmas should begin, not end, at home . We are already under immense pressure to purge Christmas from our culture . First nativity scenes in public places were under attack, now it's Christmas trees . Even saying"Merry Christmas" has taken a back seat to "Happy Holidays." Cancelling Christmas and using letters from Santa to motivate our kids to be generous is not the answer . The answer is in putting the emphasis on the miracle not the material . And here's the good news . Even our gift giving can point to the miracle . So, yes, we give a few gifts to our kids . But we also give many gifts to the less fortunate . For example ,  we've taught our own kids that the gifts we give them at Christmas aren't based on whether they've been bad or good all year . The gifts we give them are free, unearned, underserved gifts , just like the gift of Jesus is a free, unearned, and underserved gift . This is a very tangible, concrete concept for kids to grasp . And when we serve and give to others, we teach our kids what Jesus said in Matthew 25:40 : "Whatever you do for the least of your brothers and sisters, you do for me." So we give gifts to Jesus on his "birthday" by serving and loving and giving to others! This is how parents can infuse real meaning into Christmas -- not by refusing to celebrate it all together . Cancelling Christmas is simply not the key to fostering generosity in our kids . The key to fostering generosity in our kids is by making giving something we do all year round. By making it a lifestyle . And a lifestyle of giving springs from a deep well of gratitude for how Jesus first gave his life for us . We have to be so careful not to teach our kids that Christmas is about doing more, trying harder, and being better to be worthy of gifts . Christmas is about anticipating and celebrating the greatest gift that has already been given-- the unconditional love of God in the birth of Jesus Christ . Our focus shouldn't be on whether or not we have a tree overflowing with gifts, but on whether we have a home overflowing with love . His love . And if that's our starting place , we have a pretty good shot at getting Christmas, and all the 364 other days of the year, right .
answer:
It's wonderful (and a good thing) to see the new emphasis on"giving over receiving" at Christmas time


question:
When should voluntary euthanasia not be an option? This week a court in Belgium announced that the convicted rapist and murderer Frank Van Den Bleeken would be put to death by a lethal injection, in spite of the fact that the death penalty is banned across Europe . Van Den Bleeken's case was unusual : having previously been declared insane and not criminally responsible, he had himself asked to be euthanised on the grounds that he would rather die than spend the rest of his life in jail . Today the Belgian justice minister announced that Van Den Bleeken would not be euthanised after all, amid reports that the prisoner had changed his mind . Nonetheless ,  the case provides a fascinating twist to the old debate about euthanasia . Should Van Den Bleeken have been allowed to die? The moral defence of voluntary euthanasia is usually applied to people suffering from a terminal illness . But Van Den Bleeken isn't terminally ill and isn't in physical pain . Another traditional requirement is that the wish to die should be voluntary and competent . But how can the choices of someone who has been declared insane be regarded as voluntary and competent? The concern is that granting his request would make it a case of involuntary euthanasia , and that is usually seen as morally unacceptable . If there is an issue about Van Bleeken's sanity that is because of his alleged inability to control his sexual impulses . But it could be argued that this doesn't affect the validity of his request to be euthanised . The implication is that while some of his decisions might be involuntary or incompetent, this doesn't apply to his choice of death over a lifetime behind bars . Even so , should his request have been granted, given that he isn't terminally ill? One argument for allowing voluntary euthanasia where terminal illness isn't an issue turns on the idea of wellbeing : people should be allowed to choose death where they would literally be better off dead or where their life literally isn't worth living . Another argument turns on human autonomy : we should respect a person's free choices as long as they don't harm anyone else . Someone who is not terminally ill could still satisfy these requirements . Had Van Den Bleeken been allowed to die, critics may say it would have risked opening the floodgates for other similar cases . Belgium has seen a dramatic rise in euthanasia since the practice was legalised in 2002 and permitted in cases of pain and psychological distress, as well as terminal illness . Some are opposed to voluntary euthanasia as a matter of principle . The philosopher David Velleman argues that there isn't a fundamental right to choose between life and death, and that a person's rights don't expand when they become terminally ill or psychologically distressed . He is heavily influenced by 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant . According to Kant, morality requires that we respect the dignity of persons, and the dignity of persons makes them intrinsically valuable . For Kant, a person's dignity can't be traded against their wellbeing or happiness , and the fact that a person believes that their life isn't worth living doesn't make it acceptable for them to be euthanised . The Van Den Bleeken case puts pressure on these standard arguments for and against voluntary euthanasia . Suppose that, contrary to Kant's view, voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible as long as the person asking to be euthanised would be genuinely better off dead . Relatives of Van Den Bleeken's victim may well argue that the fact(if it is a fact) that he would be better off dead is precisely a reason for not allowing him to be put to death . From this perspective, euthanasia looks like a way for him to circumvent his sentence . Van Den Bleeken's victim was Christiane Remacle, a 19-year-old he raped and strangled in 1989 . Her sisters are reported to have said that Van Den Bleeken should be forced to languish in jail , and their reaction brings out an ambivalence in how we think about the death penalty for murder . Relatives of murder victims often demand the death penalty as the ultimate punishment , but the Van Den Bleeken case suggests that, at least from the standpoint of the perpetrator, the ultimate sanction may be life behind bars . But the intrinsic value argument against voluntary euthanasia can also be hard to swallow, in this case . Christiane Remacle's sisters might balk at the idea that a murderer's life is intrinsically valuable . It's hard not to sympathise , and there remain strong reasons for not allowing Van Den Bleeken to be euthanised regardless of whether his life is intrinsically valuable . As long as euthanasia is seen as a way for him to circumvent his sentence, respect for his victim and her family demands that he isn't given the option .
answer:
One argument for allowing voluntary euthanasia where terminal illness isn't an issue turns on the idea of wellbeing Some are opposed to voluntary euthanasia as a matter of principle


question:
Obama hands Cuba's Castros a major victory, but Congress can still stop it. Establishing ties with Cuba has been on President Obama's bucket list for some time . Health care -- done . Amnesty for illegal immigrants  -- done . Cuba -- next . This last one also has the added bonus point that it puts him right with the international left , which lionizes Castro . And the president will go on picking off the next items on the bucket list for the next two years of his term unless Congress decides to stop him . Should they work up the gumption , lawmakers will find they can do many things to stand up for the prerogatives of the legislative branch . Obviously, the release of the 65-year-old American hostage Alan Gross should be welcome . His "crime" was to bring computers to Jews on the island . For the last five years, he has been a victim of Cuba's state terrorism , just as 11 million Cubans have been held hostage by their government for the past five decades . Exchanging three hardened Cuban spies for Gross, however ,  establishes an insulting moral and legal equivalency . The spies actions led to the death of an American in the 1990s , and they were duly convicted . Their release in exchange for Gross creates an incentive for rogue regimes and individual actors to kidnap Americans all over the world . Not only does President Obama's action fail to advance freedom in Cuba , it throws a lifeline to Cuba's dictators , whose current supplier of funds, Venezuela, is on the ropes because of plunging oil prices . It surrenders to the demands for normalization that the Castros have been making for decades . So what can Congress do? Right off the bat, Congress must make it crystal clear to President Obama that he lacks the authority to lift the embargo on Cuba, allow trade to take place between the two nations, let tourists to go to Cuba to bail out the regime or give Cuba have access to capital markets . U.S  law--the Helms-Burton Act of 1996--gives the Congress power to override any action taken by the executive to lift the embargo . In order to lift the embargo, the Cuban government would have to give the Cuban people a number of rights--of association, speech, political activity, etc  -- that President Obama obviously failed to secure in his 45-minute conversation with Cuban dictator Raul Castro Tuesday . Congress can also make clear to the president that there are statutory criteria that must be met before his administration can take Cuba off the State Department list of terrorism sponsors . The president must inform Congress that there has been a change of leadership and policies of the Cuban government and that Castro has given assurances that it will no longer support terrorist acts . Can President Obama do any of that? Senators should also make clear that they will put a hold on any ambassador that Mr  Obama nominates to serve in Cuba unless he can guarantee that the Cuban government is no longer a threat to the United States and has decided to grant freedom to people in Cuba . Sen  Marco Rubio, R-Fla , has already said he plans to do that . Additionally ,  Congress can look into the possibility of using policy riders in the upcoming DHS appropriations debate in February and the Fiscal Year 2016 appropriations process to deny the president funds for setting up relations . Congress must act because President Obama has been completely feckless in his entire approach to Cuba . He received nothing in exchange for many substantial concessions made to the Communist regime . After five years of "negotiations" President Obama ended exactly where Raul Castro's demands began five years ago . As Senator Marco Rubio said, President "Obama is the worst negotiator since Carter." Mr  Obama's statement was filled with Havana's communist talking points, such as affirming that Cubans are poor and unfree because of the embargo, or that Cuba was a U.S  colony . None of that is true , and yet Mr  Obama said it . Congress must act to limit the damage inherent in this Havana Giveaway . Left unchecked , Obama will simply move on to the next misguided item on his bucket list .
answer:

Establishing ties with Cuba has been on President Obama's bucket list for some time


