Not added any friends yet.
No favourite stories listed.
Not following any authors
I agree to a certain extent. I do believe it would be rather callous for a woman to have an abortion without at least discussing the decision with the father of the child.And I'm sure I've said this before earlier in the thread, but I'm absolutely certain that if a woman were receiving full support from the father of the child, abortion wouldn't be considered. Abortion is usually a decision made alone because of circumstances...not out of callousness. I'm sure there are vindictive women who may abort out of spite...but that's their issue. And still their decision.I'm not sure what child support has to do with this discussion, as it's about abortion. If there's an abortion, there's no child to be supported, correct? Feel free to google that the abortion rate among black women in New York outnumbers the newborns of black women (unfortunately lush doesn't allow to give URLs here). Then get a grasp on reality. The guy earlier is right. There are quite a lot who use abortion as just another contraception.
Perfectly justified then. No. Never.I've read plenty on the philosophy of life and abortion, and could cherry pick as well as you. I'll refrain. So instead you express your opinion and then pull out like a coward?
The recipe for slavery. In slavery you atleast have the chance to break out of it. When you are dead, you are dead. No second chance. Aside from the fact that its only 9 months of "slavery" On the contrary. On a philosophical, physiological, psychological, and every other point of view except _certain_ spiritual/religious POV's, there is an immense difference. Feel free to read several philosophical opinions on the matter: minerva.mic.ul.ie//vol2/bh.html Decisions and opinions are easy to have when you are not faced with the situation. And that makes exactly what difference? Its easy to have an opinion about circumcision for a woman as well. Yet, we should have opinions and we should confront ourselves with as many possible points of views. Emphasis and expanding your horizon.
I will say only this - each woman must decide for herself whether to continue the pregnancy or end it.Laws that deny this freedom to choose for themselves are a denial of the basic human right to free-willI personally do not wish any woman to go through the emotional and mental anguish of removing a life from the world, but my own philosophy prevents me from telling someone who wishes to that it's wrong and attempt to prevent them. Life > Free will. In pretty much any situation.
As a young woman (22 years old), I believe this topic to be one of the most important issues. How can we, as a nation, continue to spout to others that our people are free, if women are still unable to make choices that feel are best for them? "It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish" - Mother TeresaOn a philosophical point of view there is no difference between an 1 week old fetus and a 10 years old child. Both are ultimatively growing human beings. What happens if you dont interfere with abortion into the pregnancy? A child gets born. So if someone decides for abortion, they take away a potential human life - even if its by medical definition not a human being, yet.Its about taking up responsibility. If you have sex, you are taking the "risK" of getting pregnant. If I jump out of a plane, I have the risk of the parachute not opening. Abortion is the easy way out of this responsibility, yet barely anyone talks about abortions already catching up with the number of births in big cities like New York. Source is on "Nypost" under the article title "Where New York’s not proud to lead"So grow up and become responsible adults. Be responsible for your own actions.Exceptions are of course special cases like a rape victim becoming pregnant and life risks for the mother. Interestingly though - I know 3 women working as nurses and all 3 told me that despite their lifes being at stake most pregnant women decide for the birth. You should take an example of those strong women who are willing to make the biggest sacrifice for their unborn childs.
A good thing would be starting to not care.You have all the power to ignore face beauty standards and be the way you want to be. The decent guys I know prefer a natural look anyway.You can work on yourself becoming a better person instead. Become confident, gain self-esteem, learn to love yourself and generally become a good person.Alternatively you can cry like a baby about it and asking how girls are capable of feeling beautiful - which literally means you are admitting you have no control over your own life when others tell you what is beautyful and what is not. And when you are at it, then you can also forget about how men are objectified and degraded in similar ways in media.The choice is yours.
Life in any society involves trade-offs. Of course it does. But those should be wighted up against each other. As I said earlier. All the security in your country in form of security checks, more police, etc you have didnt helped you to decrease terrorism. Maybe you should start thinking about some other options to fix those problems. Complete and unfettered freedom does not exist, here in the US as well as in every other developed society. One cannot drive a car without a background check and a renewed registration, for instance. Yes, I suppose if you want to venture into tin-hat conspiracy territory, it's possible that "the government" could execute some sort of power grab, but let's face it, if that happens, they'll do it with or without some sort of legislative foothold. By the way, they won't. If you choose to believe otherwise, then effectively, you've written off the rule of law in general, and all of this becomes moot. Why need to get personal? I am just offering you examples of what could happen and what are the risks. The government might or might not be corrupt, BUT it can become at any time or place and here it is necessary to think today about the consequences in law. If you give away all your power to the goverment without an backup plan you are literally inviting possible abuse of this power. There needs to be an balance between power the goverment has and power the people have.And that doesnt have to do anything with tin-hat conspiracy, but with thinking about possible consequences.
So, to sum it up, here's the complete list of those who benefited from yesterday's Senate vote: 1. Gun purchasers who would've failed a background check had it been required. Outstanding. Well. Here is the question how far you want to go without cutting too deep into someones personal life and freedom. Sometimes freedom and safety are contradictions. The problem here is that if you need an basic background check before ordering an gun (mentally and specific criminal records like theft) you completely give away your right to the government. Lets for example say this would go through and there would be an basic agency opened up where you need to send an small request to when buying an weapon. They check and send you an positive or negative letter back.So you give away the control to this to the goverment and they could just say inside this agency: "Refuse all requests."So even if your right would be to order one and the law allows it, you dont get it.Furthermore documents can easily be faked.So in theory it sounds completely reasonable and I agree on this, but you would have to think about the practical use as well. And here I see some issues which needs to be overcome before you go through with an law like this.
Well the 100 deaths was updated (as in the title) to Dec 21, 2012as about a month ago (Mar 22, 2013 8:03 pm EST) we're at 2,244 more people. Shy of 25 per day.p.s. Would that be a reasonable priority? Because what you guys are doing is symptome-fighting and not cause-fighting. Guns dont kill people. People who use guns kill people. But they could use knifes, selfmade bombs, etc.The point is that people - who want to harm other people physicially - will always get their weapon for it. Illegally or selfmade if necessary. So when you ban guns you will only harm the people who have them for self-defence.As an example about the Batman-Shooting. If there is no one in the cinema where the shooting starts all you can do is run away. If one of the people got an gun for self-defence he could liquidate the shooter before he could do more harm.Instead of working on the actualy cause linked into society you found your scapegoat, push out some tears and thats it. But scapegoating never solved problems.Just a few examples:- Since 9/11 you got more and more police and safeties in your country. Yet the number of terristic acts and gun-rampages is increasing. -> The higher "safety" isnt working, yet you give up freedom because of it- You have violence in every media. Your people are exposed to violence each day. Think thats healthy? Common Sense tells me its not.- Your goverment is in constant war and therefor an bad rolemodel. Around 120.000 Civil deaths alone in the Iraq-war since 2003. And thats just direct deaths. Not even involved indirect deaths of the destroy infrastructure.- Of all the school-rampages it is proven that more than 95% of the shooters were on constant pharmaceutical drugs. No one blames medics though who can later your personality.- Increasing proverty is forcing desperate people to become criminal.- Your prison-system is an whole lobby earning money with laws.- Instead of educating the people to solidarity and cooperation your whole system forces egoism.- 80-90% of your medias is owned by 6 companies (GE, News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner & CBS) and you still think you get neutral news coverage.Now think about if scapegoating on guns really is the right way to fix things or if you start opening your eyes and search objectively for the cause of the problems and dont get hyper and emotional about the symptoms (terroristic acts)
Focus on about 100 death people and ignore tousands and millions of civil deaths caused from US military in wars. Lets talk about relations.P.S. Not saying any life is worthless, but there should be some reasonable priorities.
It's 200 years from today in a utopian future. Mankind is living in peace and has been for more than 150 years. All diseases have vanished and people are generally happy. Things changed massively after the third world war, way back in 2023. All government and religions amazingly came together to fix the damage we had done. Humanity now lives under huge domes to stay safe from radiation. But...
Added 06 Aug 2012 | Category Novels
| Votes 1 | Avg Score 4
| Views 2,627
| 3 Comments
Attach a note to this member, which only you can see.
Please tell us why you think this profile page is inappropriate.