tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post6278103112920449412..comments2024-03-25T17:38:55.490-07:00Comments on Dar Kush: A Hell of a RideSteven Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-69711454873288968532009-06-03T20:43:41.865-07:002009-06-03T20:43:41.865-07:00Oh and by the way I absolutely believe that if DNA...<em>Oh and by the way I absolutely believe that if DNA testing show the child has a major abnormality such as Downs Syndrome the mother who doesn't abort is displaying poor judgment and I would never vote for Sarah Palin.</em><br /><br />Marty, Dr. Tiller's third trimester abortion practice? Was made up of women who had discovered that they were carrying children with conditions incompatible with life. Such as anencephaly, or Trisomy 13 and 18 (which kill children within the first month), or twins conjoined in such a way that separating them will cause one to die right away and the other to just die more slowly. Here are some examples: http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/kansasstories.html.<br /><br />Honestly, I'm not sure what I think of abortion in general. But I do know that the abortions that happen at the creepier time in pregnancy tend to be for the graver reasons (third trimester abortions, in fact, are legally restricted to such reasons, as well they should be).Lynn Gazis-Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16775215056055972392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-74956042774674324372009-06-03T19:30:15.646-07:002009-06-03T19:30:15.646-07:00Dan: I guess in this world it takes all types. I k...Dan: I guess in this world it takes all types. I knew a guy who made in the high six figures. He went back to school evenings to study tax law so he could minimize the taxes he payed. One year the government amended his return and gave him a bigger refund than he expected. He checked their amendment decided they were wrong, sent them a letter explaining why they were wrong and a check for the difference because it was his duty as a citizen to pay in taxes what he owed. I don't believe that I would have done the same but I wish I could say I would have.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-85684341661798036412009-06-03T18:13:53.109-07:002009-06-03T18:13:53.109-07:00I wrote:
the correlation between "what peopl...I wrote:<br /><br /><i>the correlation between "what people believe" and whether they're good or bad people seems close to irrelevant to me.</i><br /><br />Within certain broad guidelines, to be sure. "I believe whites in genreal are inferior to blacks" -- fine by me. So is "blacks in general are inferior to whites." Do you treat <i>individuals</i> decently and fairly?<br /><br />A lot of people I know think I'm going to burn in hell for all of eternity. But as long as they're not stacking firewood around my house to get the process started, I won't get my feelings hurt. I think they and I are probably going to get eaten by worms, but as long as I don't start thinking their nutrient value for worms surpasses the calorie count of keeping them alive, I don't see they have room to bitch either.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-19134973310823275502009-06-03T17:57:35.452-07:002009-06-03T17:57:35.452-07:00It's always where one chooses to draw the line...It's always where one chooses to draw the line, Marty.<br /><br />My grandson Nate, who is almost three, is Down Syndrome. My daughter-in-law had the test and knew he did, and elected to have him anyway. <br /><br />The child laughs, plays, doesn't talk much, but can sign, and shows every evidence of developing enough intellect to eventually live on his own.<br /><br />He's the only one of the grandsons who has ever cried when I left his house, because he didn't want me to go. <br /><br />What you or I or anybody else would have done is moot. She was the one carrying the fetus, and she was the one -- along with my son -- who made that choice.<br /><br />Pro-choice means just that -- not necessarily pro-abortion. But on the other side, the pro-life moment tends to think that the limits should be severe -- in some cases, such as South Dakota, there would be no exception in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life, if they could get the law passed.<br /><br />Or that it's okay to murder doctors who don't agree with them. Pro-lifers tend to support the death penalty, if you look at the surveys. Something of a disconnect there ...<br /><br />If Jehovah appears over New York City tomorrow and allows that life begins at conception, then you might have an argument. Right now, the only thing you have is a belief, and no evidence that such is the case. <br /><br />Pro-lifer want to impose their singular belief on everybody. Pro-choicers offer the option.<br /><br />You can see how folks who aren't big on the Judeo-Christian notion about this subject might not feel you have made your case, can't you?Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-15056674026997767672009-06-03T16:37:44.272-07:002009-06-03T16:37:44.272-07:00Marty,
For a society to exist there must be struc...Marty,<br /><br /><i>For a society to exist there must be structure which everyone agrees to follow.</i><br /><br />Nope. Society exists fine with people violating the law as suits them. Lot of stupid laws out there. Prostitution, drugs, speed limits --while you can make the case in specific instances for laws in any of those areas, you can also find perfectly good people who visit prostitutes or provide prostitution as a service, who use drugs, and who violate the speed limits. (And, of course, perfectly good people who do none of those things.)<br /><br />I have never agreed to abide by laws passed by men and women of limited intellect and morals, the great majority of whom I never voted for. I'll abide by those that suit me, and ignore those that don't. So do almost all of us, if they're honest enough to admit it.<br /><br /><i>You have a definition that says a fetus is not a person.</i><br /><br />Never said any such thing. I said that no creature the size of my thumb, with no self-awareness, is a human. A fetus occurs at the 9th week of a pregnancy, at which point the average fetus is still smaller than one inch, and yeah, not a human being.<br /><br /><i>Embryos</i>, which are what you get before fetuses, are not human beings. Fetuses become human over the course of that period between the 9th week and delivery. When does this happen exactly? Well, not being religious, I can't give you a defining moment, except to say that what seems reasonable to most people seems reasonable to me: no one should be having abortions for casual reasons after the first trimester, and no one should be having abortions without extraordinarily good reasons in the third trimester. (Fact is, some women do have abortions for casual reasons in the first trimester: and I am completely OK with it. "It was inconvenient" is good enough for me in the first trimester.)<br /><br />But all that's merely opinion. If I were a woman, I think those are the criteria I'd use to guide my own conduct. Since I'm not, my best understanding is that women should be permitted to make those decisions for themselves, by the criteria they deem appropriate. If only women could vote on abortion laws, they'd look a lot different from what a bunch of men would (and did) produce.<br /><br /><i> To me what counts is that 1) its alive and 2) its DNA is human so its human.</i><br /><br />You could detach my thumb, connect it to a blood supply, feed it with nutrients, and keep it alive indefinitely. It would be alive, its DNA would be human, but I still wouldn't permit it to vote.<br /><br /><i>Dan: Your entitled to your definitions that you are comfortable with and the fact that they don't agree with mine doesn't mean your irrational or evil. But, if you believe absolutely that anyone who doesn't agree with your definitions is at least one of irrational or evil then you are being a little bit of an egotist.</i><br /><br />Are you getting that from me? I hope not, it's not how I feel at all. Some very good people disagree with me about extremely fundamental things. I don't care a whole bunch what people believe -- the correlation between "what people believe" and whether they're good or bad people seems close to irrelevant to me. Anyone who hasn't known good and bad religious people and good and bad atheists, good and bad liberals and good and bad conservatives, isn't getting out enough.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-13503560475197488812009-06-03T16:17:53.648-07:002009-06-03T16:17:53.648-07:00Marty, society needs structure, but the law is not...Marty, society needs structure, but the law is not the only source of structure. It's probably not the most important source of structure.<br /><br />It's no longer current practice in the US, but it's possible to have juries judge the law as well as the case, and this doesn't make things fall apart. It's a way of making the legal system not be much worse or better than the populace.Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-50816469192319254622009-06-03T15:03:50.823-07:002009-06-03T15:03:50.823-07:00Dan: What is the definition of a person. Ask a hun...Dan: What is the definition of a person. Ask a hundred individuals you will probably get a hundred different answers. You have a definition that says a fetus is not a person. To me what counts is that 1) its alive and 2) its DNA is human so its human. There is no guarantee that the fetus will survive, but there is also a relatively high death rate during the first year after birth. Also by the standards many people would use for being "a person" rather than simply of the human species children under age one lack many of those qualities too. Dan: Your entitled to your definitions that you are comfortable with and the fact that they don't agree with mine doesn't mean your irrational or evil. But, if you believe absolutely that anyone who doesn't agree with your definitions is at least one of irrational or evil then you are being a little bit of an egotist. Oh and by the way I absolutely believe that if DNA testing show the child has a major abnormality such as Downs Syndrome the mother who doesn't abort is displaying poor judgment and I would never vote for Sarah Palin.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-87364253281314630802009-06-03T13:24:50.279-07:002009-06-03T13:24:50.279-07:00Lot of people are missing your point, Marty, and t...Lot of people are missing your point, Marty, and that's because you can't really make it. Every sperm is potentially a person, as is every egg, under the right circumstances.<br /><br />A sperm is "alive". So is an egg. <br /><br />Every fetus won't come to term. Some of them that are born will do so dead, or will die shortly thereafter. Some will be severely disabled to the point that they will essentially be vegetables, with little "human" experience past breathing. Some will be born without most of their head and no brain function past the autonomic.<br /><br />Where to draw the line? That's tough -- but, having worked in a place where some of these not-quite-persons were warehoused, I can tell you that from where I sit, it would have been a blessing to everybody concerned had they not been born. <br /><br />They are people only in the strictest technical sense, and have no more consciousness, some of them, than a house plant. <br /><br />I wouldn't wish that on anybody.<br /><br />All life is not equal and most of us are killers -- if you ever ate a hamburger or bacon or lamb chops, you already acknowledge that. All people are not off equal value. I'd swap ten Hitlers for a Gandhi every time. <br /><br />If you endow two joined cells with the status of person, then you have mangled the definition beyond recognition. The reason you are having trouble convincing folks is because we know better.<br /><br />I have two children and five grandsons, two of whom are developmentally disabled and I love them. But both of them are people, and have the potential to live productive and happy lives. <br /><br />A clump of cells the size a pinhead is not a person. It might be someday -- that's what potential means. You trying to change the definition won't do the trick. If your cat has kittens in the oven that doesn't make them biscuits. <br /><br />You can believe that the moon is made of green cheese if you want, but all the smoke and mirrors in the world ain't gonna help prove it.Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-90258157030171186692009-06-03T11:15:25.961-07:002009-06-03T11:15:25.961-07:00Suzanne: You completely missed the point of my pos...Suzanne: You completely missed the point of my post. For a society to exist there must be structure which everyone agrees to follow. When enough people decide they don't have to follow the agreed structure the society falls apart. As a juror if somebody fails to follow the law and I arbitrarily decide that this shouldn't be a crime so I am going to vote not guilty, I am committing a crime worse than the defendant by contributing to the downfall of the society. Lets look at a different example. A man loses his job and can't feed his family. He goes to rich neighborhood and robs a house. He is caught and I am a juror. If the evidence clearly shows he is guilty I must vote guilty. even if I sympathize greatly, because he broke the law and I am not entitled to make up my mind that the law applies to one person and not the other. On the other hand if I were the judge my role gives me discretion as to the degree of punishment. Depending upon my evaluation of the likelihood of him repeating the offense I might give him a very light sentence and even suspend the sentence.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-27163879595475658562009-06-03T10:37:17.272-07:002009-06-03T10:37:17.272-07:00if I were on a jury and and a woman had been charg...<i>if I were on a jury and and a woman had been charged with prostitution and the evidence clearly showed she was guilty I would vote to convict.</i><br /><br />meanwhile the guy who uses her<br />erm, her services, <br />is probably scot-free<br />and on the jury. . .<br /><br />yu sure see the world in <br />that old bugaboo of black/white<br /><br />a simplistic perspective <br />that doesn't take into account<br />the complexities of life<br /><br />while there are women<br />who use abortion as a m ethodd of birth control<br />I suspect the number is same<br />and late term abortions<br />ARE NOT common<br />and are not a "convenience"<br /><br />go read some of the letters at Andrew Sullivan's blog<br />(the daily dish)<br />from folks with personal experience<br />of abortions<br />or talk to the folks you know<br />who've been party to having them<br /><br />my take:<br />embryos and fetuses<br />are NOT persons<br />there are as many reasons<br />for having an abortion<br />as there are wmen <br />who've had them<br />one size law does not fit all women<br />or couples<br />faced with the decision<br /><br />way too much specious "reasoning"<br />is offered up<br />for denying women control<br />over their reproductive systemssuzannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-38736631564749904902009-06-03T04:47:08.341-07:002009-06-03T04:47:08.341-07:00Anonymous: Okay we both agree that prostitution la...Anonymous: Okay we both agree that prostitution laws are bad laws. However, at this point in time they are the laws of the society in many states and if we live in one of those states as members of society we are obligated to obey those laws or we are left with chaos. So while if a referendum were held on the legality of prostitution I would vote to make it legal, if I were on a jury and and a woman had been charged with prostitution and the evidence clearly showed she was guilty I would vote to convict.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-7933161590314393372009-06-03T00:36:15.807-07:002009-06-03T00:36:15.807-07:00"If women have the "ABSOLUTE AND INCONTE..."If women have the "ABSOLUTE AND INCONTESTABLE RIGHT to dispose of their bodies as they wish.", how come we haven't struck down as unconstitutional all the ridiculous prostitution laws that restrict a woman from doing what she wishes with her body."<br /><br />I hold that anti-prostitution laws should be scraped. Further, I'm in favor of voiding the entire ill-conceived corpus of "vice laws". INDIVIDUALS should enjoy the ABSOLUTE AND INCONTESTABLE RIGHT to dispose of their bodies as they wish, be it aborting unwanted fetuses, selling sex, shooting up, or scraping life entirely. To me, attempts to legislate actions done to one's own body such as abortion, "vice" or suicide/euthanasia are religion-inspired efforts to eradicate "sin", and have zero place in secular law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-9160062641312081642009-06-02T21:44:54.916-07:002009-06-02T21:44:54.916-07:00*A better translation from the original text would...*A better translation from the original text would actually be, "Thou shall not murder." Which has very different connotations from "Thou shall not kill."*<br /><br />Thanks for proving my point for me, Mike.Lobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17756383714348759007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-6151410452675708492009-06-02T19:05:43.521-07:002009-06-02T19:05:43.521-07:00Ethiopian Infidel: This whole right to privacy gar...Ethiopian Infidel: This whole right to privacy garbage is just that. It was the best of the weak excuses that a set of justices determined to legalize abortion could find. If women have the "ABSOLUTE AND INCONTESTABLE RIGHT to dispose of their bodies as they wish.", how come we haven't struck down as unconstitutional all the ridiculous prostitution laws that restrict a woman from doing what she wishes with her body.<br /><br />Dan: We've found something we agree on. Winning your argument by defining your terms is one way of getting it done. Define a fetus as a potential person or anything other than a human being is what a pro choice person has to do to live with themselves. If they couldn't do that and feel comfortable about doing it they wouldn't be pro choice.<br />I and others who tend toward the pro life position on the other hand don't feel comfortable with that definition.<br />By the way I really don't expect to change any minds on the subject. I also don't condemn pro choicers as evil people. I am merely trying present the other side of issue so as to achieve an understanding of the pro life point of view.<br /><br />P.S. There are some circumstances under which I definitely believe the mother has the right to choose an abortion and others circumstances where I feel a little itchy about it but lean toward the choice point of view.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-37380505874404086682009-06-02T18:57:54.719-07:002009-06-02T18:57:54.719-07:00The problem I see is that you all are trying to ar...The problem I see is that you all are trying to argue as if morals were objective facts, like E=MC^2. They are not. Morals are on the same level as saying "Star Wars is better than Star Trek" or "Fried chicken tastes better than broccoli." They may have bigger real world results, but they are just opinions none the less. <br /><br />Morals are the result of one's conditioning in childhood combined with the historical development of the society one is socialized in (plus some genetics - maybe, the tests are still out on that one). People treat them as if they are objective fact for very good evolutionary reasons; we are designed to live in small tribes were pretty much all members of the tribe have very similar morals and norms and if you come across someone with very different morals chances are they are The Other and should be feared and hated. But that doesn't mean they are objective facts anymore than the situation where most people desire to eat lots and lots of sweet and fatty foods means their bodies needs lots and lots of sweet and fatty foods. <br /><br />Trying to prove that "Fetus ought to be protected" or "Fetus ought not be protected" is NOT possible because you can not prove what "ought" to be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-72296167858338326692009-06-02T17:54:22.980-07:002009-06-02T17:54:22.980-07:00Steve, thanks.
Travis, the "occult aspect" was a ...Steve, thanks.<br /><br />Travis, the "occult aspect" was a semi-joke. Steve's mentioned in the blog that sometimes weird obstacles turn up when people attempt serious change. On the much smaller scale, I sign up for 101days, and I get email with mentions of links that aren't there and no access to the forum.<br /><br />In re IF: I'm not terribly trusting these days. I never would have thought <A HREF="http://www.alexandertechnique.com/at.htm" REL="nofollow">Alexander Technique</A> (of all innocuous-looking things) could go wrong, <A HREF="http://learningmethods.com/ebooks/gorman-rounder.htm" REL="nofollow">but it can</A>. I've made similar mistakes with it, and if I hadn't been fairly lucky, I might still be screwing myself up.<br /><br />This is not a general attack on the Alexander Technique-- it's very valuable if done well. It isn't so good if you do it addictively.<br /><br />Additionally, I've read enough fat-acceptance stuff to know that even what's considered ordinary standard dieting can make people's lives noticeably worse. I realize IF isn't a standard diet and it sounds as though there are good tools for keeping track of how it's affecting your life, but I want more information than you're able to give me.Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-42263080813242875232009-06-02T17:40:51.078-07:002009-06-02T17:40:51.078-07:00Marty S,
A high proportion of pregnancies miscarr...Marty S,<br /><br />A high proportion of pregnancies miscarry, i.e. the body "aborts" the fetuses, no doctor required. Many such spontaneous abortions occur soon after conception, the potential Mom never realizing she was pregnant. Few decry the loss of these "Pre-people". IMHO, spontaneous abortion bolsters the case for Steve's demarcation between Fetus and child. When the pregnancy has passed beyond the gestational period during which natural termination is frequent, its a PERSON. Prior to that, it's a POTENTIAL which, like sperm, eggs or Sertoli cells, may or may not win personhold in the great biochemical chaps stakes. Till it does, it merits ZERO RIGHTS or consideration legally or ethically. Potential people are NOT children. Actual thinking, speaking, productive citizens (i.e. pregnant women) have the ABSOLUTE AND INCONTESTABLE RIGHT to dispose of their bodies as they wish. <br /><br />Ethiopian_InfidelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-73142146663161384082009-06-02T17:39:29.591-07:002009-06-02T17:39:29.591-07:00Therefore it is more accurate to refer to it as a ...<I>Therefore it is more accurate to refer to it as a future human being then a potential person.</I>.<br />No it isn't?<br /><br />Winning your argument by defining your terms is one way to get it done, I suppose. No entity the size of my thumb, with no self-awareness or sense of its own existence, is a person with the rights of a person. That's just my take, but I'm pretty comfortable with it.<br /><br />I'm going to have to go with "potential" person myself.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-41753706699816035862009-06-02T16:51:41.604-07:002009-06-02T16:51:41.604-07:00Steve Perry: Lets look at some of your arguments. ...Steve Perry: Lets look at some of your arguments. My first quibble is with the use of the term potential people. When a child is born it has the potential to be an artist, a scientist, a talk show host, etc. The unborn child whatever name you give it fetus, embryo etc. if there is no abortion and no miscarriage will 100% become a human being, not a dog or cat or anything else. Therefore it is more accurate to refer to it as a future human being then a potential person. As for comparing masturbation to abortion. A sperm cell by itself has zero potential of becoming a human being. Rarely if ever does masturbation take place when a fertile woman is available. Even if sperm cells are released into a woman at the height of her fertility any given sperm cell becoming part of a future human is of low probability so the comparison is just not reasonable.<br /><br />As for the not reasonable except by religious fiat.<br /><br />1) I am not particularly religious.<br />2) I am definitely not Christian.<br /><br />I just happen to be very pro child.<br />When my son took a position in Bloomington, Illinois I sold my house in New York and moved to be near my grandson. When the position didn't work out and he moved back to Dutchess County, New York I sold my house in Bloomington and moved to Dutchess County to be near my now two grandchildren. When my children were young I spent all the time with them I could. So my position is part personal morality and mostly the feeling that children are the most precious thing in the world and has nothing to do with God or religion.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-44751063496708443762009-06-02T15:26:24.672-07:002009-06-02T15:26:24.672-07:00My biggest concern with allowing a man to sue for ...My biggest concern with allowing a man to sue for custody of a fetus is time. Too many of the women I've known that have chosen abortion have done so as part of a leap from a bad relationship. I could write volumes on the sadness of women finding the relationships tolerable for themselves and only seeing the ugliness when confronted with the idea of bringing an innocent child in to suffer the dysfunction. How they got there isn't the point though. It's my concern that the fetus, whether in a natural or artificial womb, is growing more and more into itself while the judicial system has to sort out which, if any, of the parents are suitable to raise the poor thing. If a pregnancy is going to be terminated, the sooner the better, and suing for custody of the fetus doesn't seem conducive to that. Voluntary surrender of custody is another matter, I suppose. <br /><br />It's so complicated an issue there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Which is why I support choice as passionately as I do. I'm certainly not a fan of abortion, but I can't decide for another woman what her best option is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-63710204445141743722009-06-02T15:12:56.332-07:002009-06-02T15:12:56.332-07:00I think that some - okay, probably a lot - of anti...I think that <I>some</I> - okay, probably a lot - of anti-abortion people honestly believe that abortion is murder but I think that there are even more people who are against abortion because they do not believe that people should have sex outside of marriage and they think that the risk of pregnancy will stop women from having sex. <br /><br />A controversial opinion, I know, but that's what I have observed living in the Bible BeltLynnhttp://www.lynnspace.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-11877436135274247872009-06-02T13:58:34.162-07:002009-06-02T13:58:34.162-07:00Christian: why do you blame Jamie Foxx for grabbin...<I>Christian: why do you blame Jamie Foxx for grabbing her butt, but not blame Halle for grabbing Jamie's crotch? You have some odd ways of distributing blame, Dude. Sauce for the Goose--what she did was worse, in my mind. I've never seen a man grope a woman's crotch in public. What the hell makes it better if a woman does it?</I><BR><BR>I think I berated them both, but a man who would embarrass himself on National TV should be slapped.<br /><br />Halle is a woman and Jamie could overpower her like H'Wood. That's why. A man who respected himself and ALL women would not have done that even if she initiated it.<br /><br />I mean, I accidentally whipped out a chick's tit in the club and was embarrassed but made sure that no one saw anything else. And boy was there more.<br /><br />But national TV is not a dark club. He even showed his lack of class by being casually dressed for the Red Carpet. Did you go to the Image Awards in torn jeans looking like a refugee from a shelter?<br /><br />If so, send me a picture. I need a laugh.Christian H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16847810167041864292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-13448532993301353152009-06-02T12:13:21.010-07:002009-06-02T12:13:21.010-07:00Marty --
Not reasonable, save by religious fiat ...Marty --<br /><br />Not reasonable, save by religious fiat -- "when" is the question, and it's a thin line from "conception" to either the sperm or egg, isn't it? Should masturbation be a crime? Given that the sperm wasted (Onan-like) could, under the right circumstances, create a human life? <br /><br />Onan spilled his seed rather than sleep with his sister-in-law and God smote him for it. <br /><br />It all comes back to that, no matter how you slice it. Enforcing your religious views on people who might not agree with them.<br /><br />Would allowing women to have menstrual periods instead of becoming pregnant become a crime? The egg's potential and all? Not that big a reach.<br /><br />We draw the line in different places, and "fetus" is usually not even applied until eight weeks or so. At thirty-nine weeks, a fetus could survive birth. At nine weeks? Not yet.<br /><br />Abortion stops a beating heart. So does eating fried chicken. At eight or ten weeks, it isn't a functioning human being, it's a tadpole that might or might not survive. People deserve protection under the law. Potential people? How potential?<br /><br />Virtually everybody who considers that human life begins at conception does so from religious reasons. <br />Last time I looked, religion wasn't science.<br /><br />What goes on in a woman's womb is her business until she delivers a viable child. Not yours.Steve Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12079658447270792228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-1569215981460669742009-06-02T11:12:49.658-07:002009-06-02T11:12:49.658-07:00Steve: If a woman is not pregnant one can make a r...Steve: If a woman is not pregnant one can make a reasonable statement that she is entitled to do anything she wants with her body including smoking, drinking, taking drugs or overeating. However, when a woman is pregnant one may reasonably argue that the fetus is a separate life which is residing within the mother's body and which can not speak for itself. Once children are born we recognize they need special protection and have laws to give them that protection. It seems reasonable that society therefore also has the right to extend protection to the fetus if it so chooses. It also therefore seems that any member of the society has the right to support such protections.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-40587586790503561012009-06-02T10:05:36.431-07:002009-06-02T10:05:36.431-07:00Hey Nancy,
My thoughts on the 101 program. I love...Hey Nancy,<br /><br />My thoughts on the 101 program. I love it. I was (am?) part of the original 101 beta test although I haven't kept up with it as well as I ought to, although I have recently started back in.<br /><br />Your concerns, in order of appearance.<br /><br /> 'Occult aspect'? I think that depends on your definition of occult. I would say that it doesn't though it can/ will change your mental and emotional states. Not sure why you raise this question, but I would think it is a non-issue for most people. <br /><br />IF. Works great. I'm not completly sure what you mean by 'faliure modes'. I think your asking 'what happens if you don't stick to it. You keep working. It's a growth process, not an "I did it or I didn't"<br /><br />Here's a couple of things to consider about IF. 1)There are number of articles which can be found online discussing the physiological impacts far better then I could. 2)Lots of people report good results with IF. LOTS of people. In fact, I don't know anyone who has tried it and not felt it was beneficial. They don't all stick with it but I haven't talked to anyone who said, 'Pshaw! I tried it, didn't do anything for me'. 3) While Steve still calls them 'fasting days' and you certainly can do a full fast the minimum standards is to eat only fresh, preferably raw, fruit and vegetables on the 'fast' days. Work within your comfort level. If you're doing a full fast the first couple days can be tough but it gets better once you break some of the sugar/insulin cycle roller coaster of the typical American eater. IF/fast days are a tool to learn to control your diet, rather then having your diet control you.<br /><br />Goals- this is the area I spent the most time on. goal setting skills get better with practice. The ability to imagine goals gets better with practice. And, at least for me, laying in the foundation with the reinforcement of exercise/diet/5MM has cemented the development in pretty good.<br /><br />The two things I like most about Steve's program are that it is efficient that the changes (appear) to be lasting.<br /><br />I could go on but that should help address your concerns. And here's the thing. Just try it. Embrace the system as a whole. It's designed to have a minimal impact on your daily life, a minimal time investment, and high rewards. What do you have to risk? A couple of minutes a day? What can you gain?...Travishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15353783271100674218noreply@blogger.com