gadgetlady

kagoscuba, I think we agree on this one. I don't believe he should have to pay if it's not his child.

I think people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, including selling their organs.

People SHOULD be able to sell their organs. My body, my choice, right? Oh, wait . . . that only applies in CERTAIN circumstances.

YAY! I'm glad this is happening. It has been my concern for a long time.

OK. OUCH! (did that do it? Are you converted yet?)

I hope, hope, hope, that the "ultra-conservative Christian Republicans" aren't foolish enough to not vote for a Romney because of the Mormon "issue". Being an "ultra-conservative Christian Republican" myself, I hope they'll all do what I would do

Ohhhhh -- maybe they'll convert you!!!!!

I think the repub ticket will end up Romney/Thompson.

I can't eat breakfast so I always make a protein shake. But I send my dh to the breakfast to bring back stuff I can use to make the kids lunch!

Amen. The problem we have in these United States these days is that everyone believes they are entitled to have others solve their problems for them.

Doesn't that just say it all!!!!!!!!!! My problem is I believe it's not the government's responsibility to solve people's problems.

Brilliant post, Derick. :hurray: You hit the nail on the head.:smash:

Wow -- that's a surprising criterion. I would say if something leaves a mark for more than a few minutes it's too much.

Do you know for sure that he couldn't get away? Maybe his car was blocked in, etc. If they're not charging him with anything it's likely there are some details to that effect.

LOL! Ah, green, I'm not surprised. My closest match was Fred Thompson. My furthest away was Obama.

Electoral Compass USA This is a very easy-to-take quiz which tells you who you align most closely with.

[shaking head] Scary stuff, there.

green, I find it interesting that you wanted to be sterilized but couldn't find anyone to do it -- and knowing the potential consequences didn't try harder to find someone to do it. I know you've said if you couldn't have had an abortion legally you would have found someone to do it illegally. Why didn't you find someone to sterilize you illegally? This is going to seem like an off-the-wall question, but do you remember / would you mind telling me the exact date of your abortion?

I disagree. I have a very dear friend who had an abortion a few years ago (she still calls me to cry every anniversary of the abortion and every anniversary of her due date). She had an abortion because it was easy. If there hadn't been a clinic close to her offering them, she would have had her baby. I'm sure she's not alone. I disagree here, too. I would find that a gross intrusion of a woman's control over her reproductive organs. I firmly believe people should have the right to do what they want with their bodies so long as they are not harming another human being. That's why I draw the line at abortion, when another human being is involved. I am a big supporter of birth control, but not forced birth control.

This has been stated several times in various ways on this thread. I just read a fascinating biography of a local pastor in our area. If you want to read the whole thing, here's the link: The Beacon But here's the excerpt that disproves your statement: My parents were married because my Mom got pregnant her junior year in high school. In 1966, finding a doctor to do an abortion was not an easy task. After three days, and no success, they decided to get married. Now I'm not saying that all women will choose the route that this pastor's mother chose, but I believe with certainty that making abortion illegal will most definitely decrease its incidence. As an aside, this man definitely had a "less-than-perfect" childhood, being unwanted and all. He describes it in detail in his bio. But that didn't stop him from becoming a highly functioning, productive member of society. I know there are many on this board alone that had less-than-perfect childhoods (is there such a thing as a perfect childhood? I don't think so). But one's supposition of what an unplanned unborn baby may suffer in the future because of less-than-perfect family circumstances doesn't justify the killing of that baby to prevent his potentially unpleasant future.

I have mixed emotions about this. It's a good tool, but it can also be easily misused. To complicate matters for me, my brother is one of the key leaders in the development of RFID. If you google "Chris Diorio RFID" you can see who he is.

I haven't had time to review the entire page, but a cursory review provides this: four states (Alaska, California, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma) did not report abortion data for 1998--1999, three states (Alaska, California, and New Hampshire) did not report data for 2000--2002, and three states (California, New Hampshire, and West Virginia) did not report data for 2003--2004. Data for California and Oklahoma were estimated before 1998; however, data for nonreporting states have not been estimated since then. Third, data provided to state or area health departments by providers might be incomplete (63). Fourth, the overall number, ratio, and rate of abortions are conservative estimates; the total numbers of legal induced abortions provided by central health agencies and reported to CDC for 2004 were probably lower than the numbers actually performed. In addition, the abortion total for 2000 provided to CDC by central health agencies are 20% lower than that reported for 2000 (the most recent year for which data are available) for the same reporting areas by The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a private organization that contacts abortion providers directly. (emphasis mine) It's pretty difficult to have an accurate statistical analysis when you include a large (and liberal) state like California prior to 1998, and then don't include it after that. Remember, abortion was legal in CA prior to Roe. From my cursory review and the CDC's own admitted shortfallings in their ability to gather numbers, I have to dismiss the numbers as grossly inaccurate and the conclusion, therefore, as inaccurate as well. As an aside, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, indicates that "In 2002, 1.29 million abortions occurred, down from 1.36 million abortions in 1996." (An Overview of Abortion in the United States). Now while I don't trust the Alan Guttmacher Institute as far as I can throw them, most people who don't know their affiliation with Planned Parenthood (or don't have a problem with it) regard their information as gospel truth. So the difference of, oh, roughly half a million reported abortions is awfully curious. I will try to comment on the rest of the findings later, after I've had time to review in more depth.

This is in complete opposition to any numbers I have ever seen. Can you cite some studies or from where you get your numbers? Because if you look at the numbers immediately post-Roe vs. the numbers now, there is a dramatic increase. Can you cite contradictions? Because I don't see them. That is not necessarily true -- some women choose abortion because it is easy. Regardless, it is really inconsequential. If a teenager has decided that shoplifting is what she wants to do, she will do it. Should we then make shoplifting easier? If it's the deliberate taking of a human life, then it should be illegal regardless of whether people will do it anyway. Now I understand that you disagree that it is the deliberate taking of a human life -- I'm just trying to help you understand why the "women will do it anyway" argument doesn't hold water with me. Yes, I think it does. Because the implication with what you said is that the fetus is not alive, not yet a life, and is incapable of life. The reverse is true. The fetus IS alive and it IS a life. After all, without food and water I am incapable of life, but that doesn't mean that I'm not alive now. In other words, no. You are fine with abortion after viability (performed "lightly" or not), even though the "fetus" is "capable of life" at this point. Why? Should we determine whether a person is killed or not based on finances or emotional support? Should one person ever be allowed to decide for another person whether they get the right to live or be killed based on their perception of that person's value? I would love a fool-proof birth control method. But I don't think that would solve the abortion issue, because even now many having abortions report not using birth control at all. Scientists are working on an artificial placenta. We'll see what happens first. Me, too. Enjoy your precious children!

It's not propaganda. The quantity of regulations over freestanding abortion clinics is dramatically lower than the quantity of regulations over a veterinary clinic or any other medical facility. Not just last Tuesday. 100% of the time. And the abortion industry strenuously objects any time anyone tries to change it. And the medical studies aren't calculated or inflammatory. They're studies. I fully believe people should have control over their reproductive organs. The baby isn't an organ.

That is a reference to the fact that you are so committed to the abortion movement that you refuse to even consider that there are valid medical studies demonstrating the complications of abortion. And you are so equally committed that you don't care that abortion is less regulated than animal clinics.