gadgetlady

When I had it done, you had to have shaved, but also you had to have some stubble. Of course, this was 3 years ago. Things may have changed. Also, I was also told it DOES work better on dark hair -- but if you bleach, does the bleach only bleach the external part of the hair, or does it reach the root? Does this matter? I have no idea; I'm just posing the question. You might want to ask.

Just grow your hair out for a season. If it's on the front of your neck, do it in winter and wear turtlenecks. Or ask them if you can bleach it.

Laser hair removal. Changed my life. A ton of money, but I haven't used a razor in 3 years.

I had a discussion with my father once about a friend of his who said he'd forgive his children anything but homosexuality. I quizzed my father about this (granted, he wasn't the person who made the original statement): he'd forgive murder? Yes. He'd forgive rape? Yes. He'd forgive ANYTHING but homosexuality? Yes. How do you think his children felt knowing they could do something that could make their father stop loving them? (He didn't have much of an answer to that one!) I just want to know, from Phelps supporters, where in the Bible it EVER says one sin is worse than any other?

LOL! I was thinking the same thing.

Jodie hasn't said anything and I've started and deleted my response several times, but I have to say something. I'm outraged on her behalf.

I don't understand. The website, here's the link again for reference, Pregnancy.org > First Trimester Fetal Development - week 1 through week 14, firstly isn't a pro-life website (at least as far as I can glean). Secondly, it shows gestational age, and at 6-8 weeks gestational (4-6 weeks fetal), it shows the development exactly right. Weeks 1-4 are lumped together, but after that it goes week by week. Are we looking at the same site?

I strongly suggest you go to Feminists for Life - Women Deserve Better for your own edification. Here is the byline on their "About Us" page: If you believe in the strength of women and the potential of every human life, If you refuse to choose between women and children, If you believe no woman should be forced to choose between pursuing her education and career plans and sacrificing her child, If you reject violence and exploitation, Join us in challenging the status quo. Because women deserve better choices. Welcome to Feminists for Life. There is a better way.

I have the book. I don't disagree. I don't see your point. 4 weeks gestational, roughly 2 weeks fetal, yes, that's what's going on. We were talking about 8-10 weeks.

Oh sheesh, no that's not my argument. My claim is based on reading the works of the early feminists. And since no one can come up with early feminists who were NOT pro-life, I'd have to say that claim is pretty well founded. Furthermore, since abortion organizations are trying to SKEW the words of these pro-life feminists to say they would have been in favor of abortion in the modern day, that means that there aren't any pro-abortion feminists that they can find -- lending further credence to my claim. Why take words that are clearly pro-life and try to delve into the presumed intent of the author if you could simply find another author who supported your side with her ACTUAL words?

Reproductive decisions come before the reproducing has already happened. Reproductive decisions are birth control, sterilization, NFP, abstinence, and the like. Abortion is not a reproductive decision, because the parents have already reproduced; they have produced another being.

On second thought, never mind. I'm sure you have better things to do with your time, as do I. Suffice it to say, I've researched this topic and in all of my research of both pro-life and pro-abortion organizations, I have never seen evidence of any early feminists who supported abortion. Pro-abortion organizations have tried to spin the writings of early feminists to say they would be pro-abortion in the modern day, but the statements of the feminists themselves belie that claim. I would think, if there was an early feminist who was also pro-abortion, she would have been well-touted in organizations that want abortion to remain legal.

I'll take that to mean you can't find any. "All marbles are blue." "No they're not." "Show me one that isn't." "No, you have to search the world and find every single marble that exists or existed in pictures and parade them all before me to demonstrate that they're all blue." Uh, wouldn't it be a bit easier to just come up with a green one? Unless, of course, you can't.

My apologies AGAIN, Nina -- I was actually wrong to apologize / agree without going back and looking at it. That's what I get for not doing proper research. I happened upon the page again today and they WERE talking about gestational age. The top of the chart says "Weeks from Last Menstrual Period", and the development is gestational, not fetal. The description in "Weeks One through Four" starts with ovulation, but they've just omitted the first two weeks' description because there's nothing developmental going on with the unborn. Looking at the development in depth, with the heartbeat starting on their chart at week five, that's a gestational measure. The fetal measure is week three.

That's a ridiculous argument. Kids don't always get SS#'s at birth. I didn't get one until I was about 4 years old. Many kids don't get them until much later. Does that mean they're not alive until then? What about when doctors operate on the unborn baby to fix a fetal anomoly. Who's the patient?

I just saw the photo on MSNBC. Funeral war picketers lose verdict - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com Turns my stomach to see children being brought up to hate others.

He is wrong on SOOOOO many levels.

It means exactly what it says. Once you have taken a life, you can't get it back. Saying that there are Hitlers and Stalins is not a good argument for abortion, otherwise we'd have to abort everyone in the hopes that we get all the Hitlers and Stalins.

Oops, sorry! More power to HIM. Better?

More power to her. I absolutely agree that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their own lives. I just draw the line when another life is involved.

I was speaking hypothetically about the advances of medical technology (artificial placentas already being worked on) in the future. You are right -- life doesn't begin at 10 weeks. That's a rather arbitrary time, and was the whole point of my question. LIFE begins at conception. There is no other logical time to pinpoint. You can't count back from birth to any other time and say life exists here but not one moment before. You can argue about the VALUE of that life, but there is no question but that the life is in existence from conception.

Ah, yes, but the medical technology doesn't negate the fact that the life exists or existed (in the case of that technology's failure). The medical technology only extends or preserves the life; it doesn't generate or grant the life. The life is an entity in and of itself.

Yeah, so will a full grown adult if you draw and quarter him. Viability is a measure of medical technology. 200 years ago, "viability" was very close to 40 weeks. Now it is dramatically lower. As I pointed out before, scientists are working on an artificial placenta to lower it even more. So in the 1800's, "life" began at 40 weeks, but by the mid-21st century, "life" could begin at 10 weeks? Doesn't that seem a bit arbitrary to you, that the existence of life changes as medical technology changes?

No, because sperm, left on it's own, will die. An unborn baby will not. There is no such thing as potential life. Either it's life or it's not.

When, then, does "cell-division" end and life begin?