Jennie1976

I just want to see what the average person thinks. I think we tend to surround ourselves with like-minded people. We have people from around the world on here, and I think it would be interesting to see everyone's opinion. 1. Does racism still exist? 2. Does "reverse-racism" exist (prejudice against White people from other races)? 3. Does affirmative action still have a place in today's society? 4. Are stereotypes warranted? And if you post in here, you have to PROMISE not to get offended!!! (me included!!)

In my opinion, the LACK of a stigma is a problem. I think there should be MORE stigma attached. I don't see how you not understanding something makes me look bad, but okay. Sorry, reasoning and common sense are something I have yet to see from you, and yet I keep reading! You fascinate me, Snuffy, but for all the wrong reasons. Still, I AM interested in seeing what you say to an actual argument...to follow at the end of this post. To me, that is YOUR argument...screw science and fact and let's pass a law on YOUR gut feeling. Okay, if you want science, here you go. I'm interested to see in how you respond to a scientific argument. I'm not posting sources because it would take too long, but if you really want them, I will give them to you. But, this is elementary science, so I think you can follow it: MY ARGUMENT: FIRST: In order for something to be alive it has three requirements: 1. It must take in nutrients for energy (and get rid of waste). 2. It must have the ability to reproduce at maturity. 3. It must grow. This is basic, third grade science. Thus, the newly conceived sperm/egg combination is alive. You might argue it, but courts, public school science text books, and college biology/anatomy books all agree with me. SECOND: A newly conceived sperm/egg combination is a human being. It has all of the chromosomes required for a human being. The DNA is solely human. Therefore it is human. Thus, we have a human that is alive. Again, you can try to argue, but courts, public school science text books, and college biology/anatomy books agree with me. THIRD: The ONLY argument here is whether or not it is a person and, therefore, deserving of all the rights of human beings in our great country--including the right to life. MY CONCLUSION: Because a newly conceived sperm/egg combination is a live human being, it is deserving of the same rights as other live human beings. P.S. This is the ONLY part of the argument that courts/you can disagree with, but, I'm interested in seeing how you scientifically and factually disagree :-) COUNTER-ARGUMENTS (before you make them and to save time): YOU: It can't survive outside the mother. This infringes upon the rights of the mother. ME: True, it's not fair. Life is not fair. If someone breaks in my house and shoot him, *I* can be sued? That's not fair either. And if science comes up with a way to avoid having the mother carry it to term, I will support it 100%. YOU: It's a fetus/embryo not a baby. ME: So? It's a child, teenager, geriatric. That's a stage of development, not a different species. YOU: What about rape? Incest? ______ (fill in the blank)? ME: Again, if it is a live human being, we do not have the right to kill it. The conditions of it's birth/conception have nothing to do with it. Like I said, you fascinate me. I am looking forward to your responses.

If she says something that makes sense, it would be easier to grasp! Trying to read past spelling/grammatical errors sometimes makes it more difficult. If she would like to try again, that's fine, but, as I said earlier, it seems more appropriate to discuss the issue of abortion rather than statistics. My only reason for bringing them up was to prove that married people and people who wait to have sex until marriage are not the ones having the majority of abortions. If you disagree, great. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If you want to discuss abortion, give me your argument and I'll give you mine. But, I don't think statistics should have anything to do with it. Just my opinion.

Okay Snuffy, I'll try to explain it a bit more simply this time. YOU SAID: "There is a general belief that the same religous orders who preach abstinence and no sex before marriage, are actually pushing their own people towards abortions." MY QUOTE SAID: "Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies." TO SIMPLIFY FOR YOU: Married people and people who wait for marriage to have sex are not the ones getting a majority of abortions. Let's try the next one: YOU SAID: "There is a general belief that the same religous orders who preach abstinence and no sex before marriage, are actually pushing their own people towards abortions." (remember) MY QUOTE SAID: ""Most women getting abortions (83%) are unmarried; 67% have never married, and 16% are separated, divorced, or widowed.4 Married women are significantly less likely than unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion.6" AND "Women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians4; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic,7 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics.1" TO SIMPLIFY FOR YOU (FIRST QUOTE): 83% of women who get abortions are not married. TO SIMPLIFY FOR YOU (SECOND QUOTE): 13% + 27% = 40%. 40% is NOT a majority. YOU SAID: "3rd, this doesn't prove me wrong becuase what you would be telling me is tat most black, Hispanic, and teenagers, don't have any religious affiliations. Thats dumb assertions." I'M SAYING: Huh? Actually, I'm not saying anything because I don't think you'd understand it even if I tried. Moving on... YOU SAID: "This also proves my point that unmarried woman are shunned and so talk down to about not getting pregnant they feel that the need to get an abortion." I'M SAYING: If you want to have a discussion about married people raising children versus unmarried people having and raising children and the results thereof, we can, but this is about abortion. YOU SAID: "Heres a picking from a more extensive poll, from no other then an prolife site( Abortion Statistics )." IF YOU READ YOUR ENTIRE SITE, YOU WOULD READ AT THE TOP: "The following is a list of useful abortion statistics as well as some facts on abortifacients. All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives." And finally, YOU SAID: "Please read your stuff before cutting pasting from Prolife sites and just assume it backs you up." I'M SAYING: Do you really think that the Washington Post and PROCHOICE.org are pro-life? I'm not seeing where you got that. A FINAL THOUGHT: Statistics lie. You can change statistics to say whatever you want. I deliberately chose statistics from a pro-choice website so that it might be harder to disprove them. However, statistics don't mean anything in the fight to end/keep abortion. It just shows what has happened already. That is why my pro-life arguments had nothing to do with statistics, religion, or feelings.

That was funny! I say that we should ALL have a list! If not, we're being WAY to critical of ourselves and why did we do this in the first place!?!?! (Okay, I know the health thing, but, only being in our thirties, you CAN'T say looks wasn't in there somewhere!!)

Ha! I was a sarong CONSTANTLY too! From mid-thigh up, my legs are grotesque (to me). From mid-thigh down, I think they look great! As long as a skirt goes to mid-thigh, I think I'd wear it :-)

I think I read somewhere (probably on here) that massaging the area helps. Not just a simple massage, though. It had to be a deep tissue-hurts like heck massage. She actually had a picture where she did it to one arm and not the other. You could DEFINITELY see a difference. If that person reads this, can you confirm? Or has anyone else heard/read about it?

I feel I said all that I needed to say on this debate a few pages ago, but this forum still sends me the e-mails which I enjoy reading. I didn't feel the need to respond until I read this one: If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that people who promote abstinence and/or no sex before marriage are the same people who receive the majority of abortions. While I understand that this would make pro-life arguments and beliefs seem ridiculous and, therefore, further your cause, it is simply untrue. People who practice those beliefs and bring up their children to practice those beliefs are not the people in need of abortions. By their nature, abortions are for unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. The rates of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies are not all that high among married persons: From the Washington Post: "Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies." Abortion: Just the Data From "prochoice.org": "Most women getting abortions (83%) are unmarried; 67% have never married, and 16% are separated, divorced, or widowed.4 Married women are significantly less likely than unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion.6" AND "Women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians4; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic,7 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics.1" ALL of those percents are well under 50%. Therefore, you are sorely mistaken if you think "the majority of abortions come from the same group of people who overwhelminglingly support the pro-life side". Just wanted to correct that blatant misinformation.

Okay, I always used to say my favorite body part was my eyes or hair. But, now that I'm losing weight, I want to focus on parts that weren't worth focusing on before. Now, my favorite body part is my legs. My least favorite (still) is my belly. So, DO NOT SAY EYES, HAIR, OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT CAN'T BE IMPROVED FROM WEIGHT!!! Be proud! What's your new favorite body part!!!???!?!??

Okay, I admit it...I WAS singing "Shot Through the Heart" in my head! And the fact that I was "caught" made me almost fall out of my seat laughing!

Pix...I absolutely agree. I have WAY too many kids in my classes who are just "talked to". So what? If I knew all I was going to get was a "talking to", I DEFINITELY would have pushed the limits more! And so would each of the kids in my class. Yes, there are a few (and I mean just a FEW) who are naturally good kids. They don't need to be spanked. They are going to be good kids, no matter who their parents are. However, the majority of rational, AVERAGE kids will not. I'm glad parents "talk to" their kids. It's a good tool. But if it is the only disciplinary tool, even if used in conjunction with loss of privileges, it is not the BEST tool. People want to give adult emotions to kids. How does a kid show he/she is repentant? They cry. If an adult cries, he/she is immature. But it's natural for kids. It won't hurt them. But many adults are afraid of this for some reason. How does an adult get reprimanded? Usually, at work, you are "written up". This works because there are consequences to it. Consequences that you, as an adult, understand. And the consequences are not just a week without something. The consequences can be long-standing...a loss of a good reputation, embarrassment, etc. Those are physical pains to us. The loss of a toy to a kid has its place. But it is not the same as physical pain. And, in physical pain, I mean it is usually just the shock. I was spanked, but, looking back as an adult, I don't think I was ever actually spanked hard enough for pain! :-) Funny now, though! Usually, by third grade, my kids are smart enough (regardless of how well they do in school) to tell the difference between a "talking to" (who cares!) and spanking (I'd better not do it again!). And, if done correctly, spanking doesn't even need to be done much beyond that! The sad part is, ALL of the parents who "talk to" their kids, think they are doing a great job. EVERY single one I've ever met in my entire teaching career. And, MOST of them are NOT successful. Most. Not all. Like I said before, there are some kids who will be good kids no matter what. But most of these kids have so many more problems than they would have if they were disciplined with more authority at home rather than "talked to". I know this will offend many people on here who, no doubt, believe they too are successful with "talking to" their kids (as their only discipline...including taking away privileges). And some may be. Not having met/taught your children, I am not judging you personally. I am only saying that, based on my experience, this is almost always not the case.

It sounds like you and I both know people there. I found it interesting that it sounds like the people you know are in the social work field. The people I know are in the law enforcement field. Considering our polarity of opinions, I just found that interesting :-)

Then I'm confused by your next statement: If it is life and it is human, then logic dictates that it is human life. By your own logic, you believe it to be human life. Your argument is exactly what I said a few posts earlier. As stated earlier, you cannot argue the following: 1. It is life (see previous posts for proof). 2. It is a human being (again, see previous posts for proof). No one disputes these. These are not belief. These are scientific fact. They are not even theories. The ONLY thing you can "disagree" with is whether or not it is deserving of basic human rights--i.e. a "person". As stated earlier, this is also what the courts cannot agree on.

Okay, I thought I'd try and get something going in the thirties. When/as you lose weight, would you wear a mini skirt? I'm not talking obscene, just pretty short. I find I'm having to re-evaluate everything I wear. Is it appropriate. Do I look good enough to wear it. Husbands are no help! :-) Just thought this might be fun. What are your thoughts?

BJean...you are totally my favorite poster! I soooo look forward to seeing what you write! By "It's not fair", I only meant to the woman who has to carry the baby for nine months. It's not fair that there is no other way to not kill that human being.

It's true, we CAN argue religions and feelings, but they are unproductive. They cannot be proven. I try to stick with what I can prove. I have faith...that is why I am Christian. I believe in my faith wholeheartedly. But I accept that it is faith. When arguing for a law, I do not believe faith (mine or anyone else's) has any part. The law needs to be objective, not subjective...otherwise it's called a monarchy. It's true. And if it took getting rid of the death penalty to get rid of abortion, I would be for it. That WOULD be only fair. As you said, a life is a life. However, we do NOT have the death penalty for children. While I ALWAYS hesitate to call on the government for intervention, I do believe in it if someone is harmful to another individual. If the schitzophrenic (sp?) down the street is harmful to his family, he should be take into custody and dealt with appropriately. If the man down the street has no mental illness, but has indicated a desire to harm his neighbor, he too should be dealt with. A woman who has indicated a desire to harm her child should also be dealt with. "It's not fair!" is never an acceptable defense. Not everything is fair. But, sometimes, we have to do things we don't want to do.

Honestly, I wouldn't unfill at all. Just before Thanksgiving and Christmas and Easter, I got fills. I only WANTED to eat three to five bites of something before having to stop. Yes, it's awkward and not as much fun, but I've had 32 years of eating like everyone else (and then some). To me, enough is enough.

Okay, I just re-read my last post. I was a bit rude in places. I apologize. My opinion stays the same, but I DEFINITELY could have said it in a better tone. I am truly sorry for letting my emotions get the better of me.

I apologize...I thought it was a 911 tape. True. See my other post about the laws of Texas. Absolutely true again. USUALLY when that happens, they send one, maybe two police officers to THAT house and not take down the whole neighborhood. LEGALLY, they can't go in blindly. They can go into the house of suspected abuse...that's all. Actually, I do have SOME (not a lot, but some) inside information, not released to the press. This is why I feel so strongly about this. I'm sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree. There was NO reason for a tank. And don't even get me started on Waco. Like I said, I actually know inside information on both of those (which I can't get into on a public forum). What I CAN say is that unnecessary police violence is despicable. Child abuse is even worse, but, to me, taking the children of INNOCENT people--even for a SECOND--is despicable as well. I'm so glad they didn't USE the tank. Maybe, instead of police cars, they can just use tanks! Oh wait, isn't that called a "police state"? And isn't that against our Constitution? Good, then show me the report that shows they got him. They went in with a tank! Surely they are competent enough to find ONE man in a SECURE compound. Surely you are not suggesting that our government is inept? So that gives us the right to arrest the rest of them? Unless they have PROOF, and it's ABSOLUTE proof, then they need to back off. Yes, I would rather the government back out of our lives, even if a few innocent people get hurt than to have a government run society. Socialism, fascism, whatever. People who want it can go live in another society. These police had no proof. They have arrested two men...one for tampering with evidence. The other for interfering with the duties of a public servant. If so many girls were being molested...or even if one was...where's the arrest?

Sex with minors definitely should not be allowed. So the high school up the street from me...the one that offers child care because so many girls have had babies...all of them should be arrested? And their boyfriends? And, since I know that's not what you mean, how about this: Those fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen year old girls that are pregnant and/or have babies...should they be taken from their homes? Their parents allowed them to become pregnant and/or have sex. In the Catholic religion, the Eucharist is believed to be the actual body and blood of Christ. Should they be arrested (and come after with TANKS!!!) for canibolism (sp?)? In Christianity, Mary married Joseph when she was about 14 and Joseph was about 30. If you aren't Christian, this doesn't matter and has no meaning to you. But if you ARE Christian, what does THAT say? And I am VERY Christian! I'm NOT AND WILL NEVER say that I agree with these people. I'm saying that the government had NO right to go in there. There WAS NO phone call. The man who supposedly raped the 16-year-old girl had not been in Texas for 30 years (as verified by his parole officer). The 16-year-old girl has never been found and, interestingly enough, the 9-1-1 tape has not been released. They went in there with A TANK! A TANK!!!!! I'm sorry...the government had NO right to do this. These are their (very strange) religious beliefs. While child abuse should ALWAYS be punished, they had no proof of that.

If I remember correctly, I called for an appointment sometime in the end of June, got my all-day appointment in July (nutritionist, psychologist, seminar). Then I waited about three weeks for insurance to approve it (I had a few complications due to missing paperwork, but that was all). I met my surgeon in the beginning of August and my surgery date was September 6, 2007. So I guess it was about six or seven weeks? Something like that.

Actually, that is not entirely accurate. There IS an official scientific definition of life. No one disputes that it IS life and that it IS a human being. The dispute comes from whether or not it is considered a "person" and, thus, entitled to protection under the law. My contention is that if it IS life and it IS a human being, how could it be anything other than a person and, consequently, protected by law. To me, you can't argue religion or feelings. You can only argue facts and science. I am VERY Christian, but it has nothing to do with my argument. I am also VERY against the government intruding in our lives. However, that also has nothing to do with my argument. We can argue that it's not fair. She didn't choose to get pregnant. She chose to get pregnant and is using abortion as birth control. She chose to get pregnant and changed her mind. She was raped. She's religious. She's not religious. The mom deserves ______ (fill in the blank). None of that matters. What matters, and what cannot be denied is the following: 1. It is alive. 2. It is a human being. The question here is whether or not to kill that human being. It is the same as the death penalty or euthanasia. The only difference between abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia are the reasons behind the killing. People always want to fight facts with emotion. I am VERY guilty of that at times (just ask my husband!!!). But this is not (or should not) be an emotional issue. Emotions mean opinions and opinions don't count. Facts count, and the facts cannot be denied. If you are pro-death penalty, you are pro-killing a living human being (and, honestly, I go back and forth on this--giving people at opportunity to attack my inconsistencies ) If you are pro-euthanasia, you are pro-killing a living human being (another one I go back and forth on). If you are pro-choice, you are pro-killing a living human being--a fact that cannot be denied. The only argument to this is an emotional or religious one--both of which are not relevant and still make this a true statement--even according to the Supreme Court. **I know this can be a very heated argument. I just love arguments and am not trying to insult anyone. I know that PROBABLY no one will change their minds. However, I am first and foremost a Christian, so if someone DOES change their mind, yay! If not, I'm also a dork who loves debate! :-)

Speaking of skirts...I wore one today and the Walmart worker told me (about fifteen minutes ago), "I hope you don't mind me saying so, but you have REALLY nice legs! Very well formed!" So yes, I definitely wear skirts! :-)

A baby one day old (or, heck, 3 YEARS old) would "die a natural death" if not for someone to take care of it. The ability to survive without assistance is not a requirement for life -- or *I* wouldn't even be alive!! "Baby" is a relative term. Homo Sapien (sp?) or human being would be more scientifically correct. And yes, that clump of cells is alive (scientifically) and a human being. And I'm only arguing this scientifically because when we start dealing with unknowns (or beliefs), then choice DOES come into question. But, when we deal only with science, choice has no place. Some people DO mourn these things--provided they know about it. However, no one's going to mourn the death of one of my particularly obnoxious uncles. Does that mean he's not alive? I believe that too, but my beliefs only hold true for me. I hope, but don't expect others to believe that way. To me, this is not a topic of belief. Polygamy is a topic of belief. This is a topic of science. Not exactly correct. Once something is alive (and human no less), what right do we have to kill it? And since I can prove that it is alive (and human), and I'm sure we agree that it is not okay to kill humans, then your logic makes no sense to me (but I might be misunderstanding this part). It's true, the woman has to "bear the burden of this physical reality". Life's not fair. In a truly fair world, there would be a way that this doesn't have to happen. Unfortunately, technology is not at that stage yet. When it is, I will be an advocate for that. But, it doesn't change the fact that we are killing something alive. Not that long ago, we didn't have geriatric hospitals. If someone couldn't take care of their aging parent, did they have the right to kill them? Even if they were the one "bearing the burden of the physical reality"? No. They did not. This is the same scenario. It sucks that they are in that position...whether by choice or not. But they are. And, technology being what it is, for the next nine months they are responsible for another human being. After that nine months is up, technology (or social services!) has made it possible for her to forego any other responsibilities. The fact is that they ARE living, breathing (getting oxygen from the mother), human beings already. THAT is my point. They eat. They grow. They reproduce at maturity. That is ALL that is needed to be alive--in a scientific UNBIASED argument. And because it is a human being, it should be illegal to kill it. I know this is a long post, but I'm bored and had nothing else to do! This is fun and I appreciate your opinions and arguments BJean. You've obviously put a lot of thought in this and I look forward to reading your responses!

True...the mother is more than likely inept. However, the point I was trying to make was not for her personally. It was for the four or five other girls who are dissuaded because this girl was kicked out. Sacrificing her for the four or five others is what I'm okay with. Because then, instead of 5 or 6 kids that way, I only have 1. You see it all the time -- people talking about how wonderful someone is who beat drugs/alcohol/teen pregnancy. Those are NOT the people who impress me. The people who impress me are the ones who don't make the stupid choice in the first place.