Abortion doesn't kill a baby because it's not a baby. It's an inviable parasite. It cannot eat or breathe on its own without the host (woman) so it is not its own entity. Therefore abortion removes an unwanted growth. If the fetus were a person than every miscarriage would be a murder and Mother Nature causes miscarriages in 20-45 percent of pregnancies. Are you going to accuse Mother Nature of killing babies? Or the host (woman)? I think not. It's not a baby. It's a bunch of cells.
Intelligence and desire to have sex are two entirely different parts of the brain. One can be very stupid and have no sex drive. As can one be very smart, very horny and take all reasonable precautions (pill, condom, etc) and STILL end up pregnant. Sex is more than procreation. Other primates (and many other species) have sex for the pleasure alone. Humans have those same desires--smart or not.
Yes, because criticism and humor are essential to a balance, objective society. If we fear that someone somewhere will be offended, how can we possibly communicate our concerns about a faulty government, harmful actions, or antisocial beliefs?
There is a time for political correctness, but the other 99% of the time it is unnecessary and unwarranted.
I say lousy, if by lousy you mean unemployed, distant, detached, overworked, unavailable, lazy, unintelligent, boring, uneducated, and other non-criminal versions of a bad dad.
However, if pops is a drug dealer, murderer, rapist, etc... Be satisfied with being alive and not knowing the sperm donor.
"If it is ok to abort, why do those who do so end up so destroyed for the rest of their lives?"
They don't. Not if they do it for the right reasons. There is always the "what if" factor. But millions of women have had abortions and are living perfectly healthy, happy, successful lives. About half of women in the US who have had an abortion already have children, so they know the joys and stresses of children. They make the decision for the greater good--the family and society.
"Everything happens for a reason"? So incest, pedophilia, rape, and abuse are results of reason?!? There is nothing reasonable about raising a constant reminder of a cruel crime. Those opposed to any type of induced abortion have no idea what its like for a child to carry the burden of being the offspring of abuse. It is a fact that unplanned/unwanted children are more likely to be subjected to abuse and neglect--continuing the cycle. Stopping that cycle of abuse is easy. It just takes one outpatient appointment.
I use caffeine to wake me up. I use alcohol to have fun. I use benedryl to get to sleep. And I like the way catnip and spearmint make my tongue tingle.
I think perhaps you may want to specify what TYPE of drugs in your question.
I only dislike Republicans (or Democrats or Libertarians or what-have-yous) when they're hypocrites who don't practice what they preach, abuse their power, mislead the people they purport to represent, or harm the innocent for the sake of achieving greater power/wealth for themselves and their cohort.
In other words, I dislike politicians.
I drink therefore I debate.
I can't understand why this has been voted down but no counter arguments presented.
Fact: Humans reach puberty as early as age 8.
Fact: Puberty causes severe hormonal changes and sexual curiosity results.
Fact: Adolescents' brains have not fully developed the decision-making center making them more prone to spontaneous behavior.
Fact: Abstinence training doesn't work on teens.
Fact: Condoms do.
Conclusion: Allowing adolescents access to condoms is the most logical means to preventing pregnancy, AIDS, and other STDs.
So, all you who voted me down, where's the problem?
Only if you want to make the situation worse. Those on welfare may have doctors appointments to go to and kids to take to school and church to attend and maybe even a job interview so they can get the hell off welfare.
I once knew a woman on welfare who was divorced with three kids, lived in a two-bedroom shack in the desert, and earned minimum wage at catch-as-can temp jobs. She now earns over 100k a year and is involved in community and charity projects.
The woman? My mother.
This kind of oversimplification really gets on my nerves. The assumptions are hugely incorrect.
First, not all Israelis are Jews. Second, there are Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. Third, deserving of property implies that there is such a scale that is used universally.
Lets start with false assumption #3: On your hypothetical scale, which of us deserves the land your house is on? I think you only _deserve_ 1/4 of it and should be restricted from access and changes on the other 3/4. You paid for it? So what? According to this system, you don't DESERVE it. In fact, due to low incomes and high unemployment, Mississippi isn't deserving of it's land, so lets reallocate it off to laborers from California and Texas. Who cares if they're not actually living there.
Now, assumption #2: Most Palestinians are not terrorists or Muslim fundamentalists or bad people. Nor are they saints who valiantly sally forth to martyr themselves for a noble cause. They are everyday people like you and me who want basic things like jobs, food, clean water, safety, and a stable environment. They have an equal right to participate in a democratic government. However, they have failed to create any semblance of a stable democratic entity. The cannot trust their own leaders which only serves to exacerbate a bad situation.
And, finally, the first assumption. Not only are not all Israelis Jews, but not all Jews support Israel. In fact, the ultra-religious Jews don't believe in a country of Israel because only God can provide that--not some elected party. On the other side, you have Jews who are devoted to their own nations--like the USA.
So, before this gets too long and deep for a CD post, let me summarize by saying that this issue is not so simply divided and that in the end its not a matter of who deserves land but how we can protect the rights of Palestinians, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze, Israelis, and other peoples involved in the Middle East conflict.
Begin by expressing your interest in how the world today reflects the world that Brandbury so feared--though perhaps our incarnation of that fear is far worse. Speak to his interest in the underlying principles of society and survival. Express your concern for the illiterate uneducated masses who waste time watching TV and playing online games rather than spend time with loved ones enjoying a classic story. These are the types of introductionst hat 'catch' the attention of the reader.
If it was somewhere really nice, like Hawaii, I'd probably go.
If it were in some off-beat, backwater location, I'd have to think about it.
Of course, it also depends on how far in advanced the party was announced. Airline tickets ain't cheap.
If you have an opinion on abortion, then you must have an opinion on why you/your family/your parents/etc do not have any adopted children. I'm interested where anti-abortion groups want all these adopted children to go, since most "pro-lifers" do not adopt.
Well, it’s still unclear whether chicken eggs or chickens came first (the intended question in the original riddle), said Darla Zelenitsky, a paleontologist of the University of Calgary in Alberta who was the first scientist to closely analyze the dinosaur nest.
But interpreted literally, the answer to the riddle is clear. Dinosaurs were forming bird-like nests and laying bird-like eggs long before birds (including chickens) evolved from dinosaurs.
"The egg came before the chicken," Zelenitsky said. "Chickens evolved well after the meat-eating dinosaurs that laid these eggs."
So the original riddle might now be rephrased: Which came first, the dinosaur or the egg? Meanwhile, the new nest provides some of the strongest evidence in North America in favor of the bird-like egg over the chicken.
Well, it’s still unclear whether chicken eggs or chickens came first (the intended question in the original riddle), said Darla Zelenitsky, a paleontologist of the University of Calgary in Alberta who was the first scientist to closely analyze the dinosaur nest.
But interpreted literally, the answer to the riddle is clear. Dinosaurs were forming bird-like nests and laying bird-like eggs long before birds (including chickens) evolved from dinosaurs.
"The egg came before the chicken," Zelenitsky said. "Chickens evolved well after the meat-eating dinosaurs that laid these eggs."
So the original riddle might now be rephrased: Which came first, the dinosaur or the egg? Meanwhile, the new nest provides some of the strongest evidence in North America in favor of the bird-like egg over the chicken.
Well, it’s still unclear whether chicken eggs or chickens came first (the intended question in the original riddle), said Darla Zelenitsky, a paleontologist of the University of Calgary in Alberta who was the first scientist to closely analyze the dinosaur nest.
But interpreted literally, the answer to the riddle is clear. Dinosaurs were forming bird-like nests and laying bird-like eggs long before birds (including chickens) evolved from dinosaurs.
"The egg came before the chicken," Zelenitsky said. "Chickens evolved well after the meat-eating dinosaurs that laid these eggs."
So the original riddle might now be rephrased: Which came first, the dinosaur or the egg? Meanwhile, the new nest provides some of the strongest evidence in North America in favor of the bird-like egg over the chicken.
