anonemouse

I said this in another thread, but I'll say it again here. I find it ironic that many of the people that are supporters of limiting a woman's right to choose an abortion yell about their reproductive rights when someone talks about limiting the number of kids that they can have. They talk about not wanting another person to make a reproductive decision for them, yet many want to make the same reproductive decisions for other women. To me, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose her own reproductive behavior, or you don't.

To be honest, I don't care. I won't cry for "millions of babies" because I believe the woman takes precedence over a clump of cells.

Because I don't think the right of every citizen to carry a handgun is spelled out in the constitution. The right to free speech is. Last time I checked, we don't need a militia anymore. "Evil guns", IMO, include any that have a primary purpose of killing. What good's an AK-47 except to kill? Who the hell needs a fully automatic pistol or rifle, other than possibly a cop? The only purpose for those guns is death.

Not in all states, there isn't. Take Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, etc., for example. You don't have to pass a safety exam to get a CCW.

No, it wasn't, which is why she got fired. I think it is abundantly clear that she acted inappropriately. I also believe that something like that happening is relatively rare. Of course, it happens, but I believe the vast majority of abortions are done professionally. You got suckered in by someone that wasn't professional. That sucks, but it's no reason to outlaw all abortions. And she may have manipulated you (which I think is a little too strong), but at the end of the day, you were the one responsible for the decision. She couldn't have forced you into a taxi and taken you to have an abortion. You were willing. At any time, you could have changed your mind and left, but you didn't. It was your responsibility as a sexually active adult to know the options and the consequences of those options.

I agree. This girl could have left at any time, if she was so upset. You can't legally force someone to have an abortion in this country. And Gadgetlady, I wouldn't say that there was no one supporting her in choosing life. From the way it sounds, there were plenty of people outside that would have supported and praised her if she decided not to have an abortion. There are organizations out there that are specifically aimed at helping women who don't want to keep their babies, but also don't want to have an abortion. I hate it when people try and blame other people for a decision they made. No one forced her into this, or at least, I'm assuming her husband didn't force her because she still married him. Yes, she had an abortion. She knew that, it's why she went to the clinic. She could have walked out of that clinic at any time. When they sent her home, she could have not gone back to that clinic. She could have had the baby and given it up for adoption. Stop blaming these so-called "ringers" (if they existed) for her deciding to go through with your abortion. Whether or not they were there, she is the only person responsible for her decision.

And by the way, even a cadre of "air marshals" won't make a damned bit of difference if these people aren't breaking any laws until they snap. Cho never broke any gun laws until he went on his rampage. You can't arrest people that aren't breaking the law. And what are you going to do? Plant "air marshals" in every single building and along every walkway on every single campus or in every single public building (because of the CNN shooting, etc.), period? By the time they would be able to do any good, people would already be dead. The only solution I see is prevention. And if that prevention comes by the limitation of my right to bear any type of gun I want to, so be it.

Yes, I do. I feel a heck of a lot safer with only law officers carrying guns on campus than I do a lot of yahoos whose only qualifications to carry a concealed weapon is ownership. As many people that are out there with anger problems, giving them no limits on where they can carry their weapon is lunacy. So I'd rather have one nutjob firing at me on campus than have a thousand prospective nutjobs carrying lethal weapons, especially if I'm likely to get caught in the crossfire, and especially if they aren't required to pass a class on basic safety. Or how about this? We set laws and we actually enforce them, instead of having organizations like the NRA trying to block any and every form of legislation, even when it would make us safer? Not everyone should have the right to own an AK-47. People should be required to take safety courses in order to buy a gun and carry it. I'm sorry, but when just about any yahoo that isn't a felon can buy a gun, my safety (or yours) isn't exactly ensured.

I should make this statement in the other thread, but I don't feel like trying to find it. It really burns me that they (meaning pro-lifers) are trying to tell us that we have to have a child and don't see anything wrong with it, but the minute someone suggests that they might want to limit the number of children they produce, they all scream about having their reproductive rights infringed upon. And they don't seem to see the hypocrisy!

Yeah, I do. Make more restrictive laws. The same could be said for any law. Why have laws against drugs? People that are going to use them are going to use them, regardless of the drug being illegal. Why have laws against drinking and driving? People that are going to drive drunk would do it, regardless of the legality of it. To me, it's simple. If the current laws can't prevent things like this from happening, then the current laws need to change.

I emailed my surgeon's office manager last Wednesday to see if she could send me an update on how everything is going. Have I heard from her? Nope. Usually she responds within 24 hours, but not this time. This is so freaking frustrating.

That's the point. There should have been a way to refuse to sell him a gun. Legally, there wasn't. To me, if Cho could legally buy a gun, that means Virginia's criteria for legally buying a gun is way the heck too loose. People KNEW he was crazy. He's even been institutionalized. There should have been a way to stop him from legally buying a gun. I'm sorry, but not everyone in this country deserves the right to be able to buy a gun. You seem to think that all involvement from the government is bad. I don't. In fact, I think that when your right to own a gun could get me killed, I think the government has every right to interfere.

My whole point is that if laws were being followed, which they were in the Virginia Tech case, and something really bad still happens, maybe we do need new, more restrictive laws. You can't really say that Virginia has "poor legislation" when it comes to gun laws (not saying anyone was, just making a statement). Virginia has no legislation when it comes to gun laws. In that case, I argue that we do need more legislation.

I have a set of sheets that I am in love with. They are literally the softest sheets I have ever felt. I got them at TJ Maxx, and they had been repackaged, so I have absolutely no idea what brand they are or what the thread count is. I am going to be so sad whenever I can't use them anymore, because they are the BEST.

The sheets have to be nice and chilly, though. There isn't much I hate more than a warm bed, because it just gets warmer. I love having a cool bed.

You seem to be missing the fact that I quoted you exactly. It's hard to misunderstand what you said. In other words, why have laws when people who are likely to break them are not going to follow them? You did not say "some laws". You did not say "new laws". You did not say "existing laws". You said "laws". Period. And by the way, I never said that I thought you said "all laws should be abolished". But your statement in the above quote does bring an interesting argument to the table: Why have any laws? The people that are likely to act in a way that is "illegal" aren't likely to go and check to see if what they are wanting to do is against the law. So why inconvenience "law-abiding" people with burdensome laws when it is other folks that are likely to act in an inappropriate manner, in the first place?

So wait, we shouldn't have laws because those people that would do wrong would ignore them anyway? Makes a ton of sense, Jack, a real ton. Using your logic, there would be no laws about anything at all, because everyone would be doing whatever they wanted in the first place. The same way we get anyone to follow laws. We punish them and make examples of them, so that anyone else thinking of doing the same thing will think twice.

Oh, OUCH, leatha_g! You're making me itch and hurt just looking at it!

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Most of his patients were actually having RNY, not lap-band, and I think he just didn't feel like making new guidelines for his lap-band patients.

I wouldn't automatically assume that it's the band. Sometimes, our bodies just freak out and we become allergic to certain things. Try changing the soap you use, your detergent, lotions, perfume, etc. Of course, don't change them all at once, because you'll never know exactly what you might be allergic to.

Sounds like my type of gardening. I live in an apartment, so I can only do contianer gardening. Last year, I tried clematis, and actually got some blooms, but I never could get it to attach to my deck railing, so it eventually died. The only plants I have been completely unable to kill have been bamboo, some sort of vine, and a christmas cactus. Everything else? Dead in a week, it seems.

That's horrid. The rubber band is one thing, but making you inhale ammonia? That's cruel, and I can't believe anyone would really think they were helping you by making you do it. God, we have some real pieces of work in this nation, don't we? It's absolutely mind-blowing to me that someone can encourage that crap and then think they are "rightous" and "God-like". I don't understand how people can be so cruel. I mean, I am literally on the edge of tears, here. I just don't understand how people can act like that and believe that that they are the ones that are going to Heaven. It's torture.

Of course.

I definitely agree. I firmly believe that either all these so-called "ex-gays" are either lying to themselves and the people around them, or they were never gay in the first place. In which case, they are still lying to themselves and the people around them.

I have just gotten into the habit of staying up late, since I had to the week before I gave my seminar presentation in order to finish it (I'm horrible about procrastinating). And it's Friday, which means I can sleep late tomorrow. That cake sounds wonderful. It's been forever since I had a pineapple upside down cake. Now you've got me craving it!