pajarito

You're braver than I am. Tatoos are way too permanent for someone like me. I like your picture though. How's the foot coming along?

I've got enough money to make me happy. I don't need to be ridiculously rich to be happy. There's more to life. I love skydiving. IMO, you can't put a price tag on something that makes you truly happy. I would not sell out.

I shouldn’t be so naïve as to ask myself questions like this but I did. I thought, is this guy for real? Are there really people out there like this who think this is a “tough question?” That’s why I haven’t posted here until now. Then I looked at your profile and saw that you were from Spain. Who would have thought it?

Hope he hasn't already been mentioned. Ron Reagan, son of former President Reagan. I don't know...would he be considered a celebrity by proxy?

Great idea. Worked for me growing up and it's working for my kids now.

You might then come back and say that the elderly person, if they were in their right mind prior to their present condition, made the choice to DNR or to allow the immediate family to make the decision when the time came. I'd say that the unborn baby never got the chance to determine that or make a decision. In all probability, if left alone (I know there are special cases), the baby would be born and grow up just like you and me. I'm quite sure, if it was possible to go back in time, that they wouldn't take their mother's situation for "choosing to abort" into consideration and decide to go along with it elliminating the possibility of their existence. Is that "out there?" Sorry...

So, by your definition of when there is life considered worth protecting, you must also be in favor of euthanasia. What about a person who can’t live without life support (i.e. breathing machine, feeding tube, etc.)? Does that person then cease to be human enough to “let live” because he/she can’t do it for themselves? Do you just begin to “call them by another name” so as to make the killing more justifiable or acceptable to most? Just like, instead of calling the ‘unborn’ a child, you call it a parasitic organism? I'm very glad that you don't determine standards for everyone. You'd probably come back and say something like the life of elderly or incapacitated person would then be under the control of his/her immediate family and that they would then make the decision whether to "pull the plug" or not. Assuming that there weren't stated wishes of the elderly person prior to them becoming incapacitated (DNR or do recussetate) (I guess a judge could also declare them unable to make those decisions as well). The immediate family would then be kind of in the position of the woman considering an abortion. In the case of the elderly incapacitated person, their life expectancy is probably pretty dim. In the case of the unborn child, their whole life is in front of them, if allowed to live and they aren't terminated for selfish reasons....just thinking out loud. I'm arguing with myself now....is that bad....I keep telling the voices in my head no but sometimes they take over....

So, by your definition of when there is life considered worth protecting, you must also be in favor of euthanasia. What about a person who can’t live without life support (i.e. breathing machine, feeding tube, etc.)? Does that person then cease to be human enough to “let live” because he/she can’t do it for themselves? Do you just begin to “call them by another name” so as to make the killing more justifiable or acceptable to most? Just like, instead of calling the ‘unborn’ a child, you call it a parasitic organism? I'm very glad that you don't determine standards for everyone.

I definitely disagree with that generalization of not being allowed to even discuss it. If one considers the conceived organism a human being, it makes it more than just the mother's issue to deal with. Even though it's connected and living inside her body, it is still a separate being. If that is the case, abortion, generally speaking, would be considered the killing of an innocent life.

I'm kinda good at drawing people in to my senseless babble. No really, I don't know about those studies and wouldn't be able to refute them but crime deterrence is but one of the reasons I support it.

Our system is the best we've got. We can only do the best we can as imperfect people living in a society. I believe, despite the fact that it isn't perfect, the death penalty is unfortunate but necessary.

I'm for the death penalty. That's different for me from the abortion issue because of the whole "taking of an innocent life" thing. That's not the case with the death penalty.

Sorry...don't mean to come across as judgemental. Like I said, I wouldn't presume to know anything about it and I'm seeing it mostly from the baby's point of view. Tough situation. Once of the toughest. I really feel sorry for the ones who have to deal with that.

I probably shouldn't have gotten them vaccinated for chicken pox thinking back on it. They said the chances would be small that he'd get it but, lo and behold, he did. Leave it to me to beat the odds. I didn't research that one as well as I should have. As far as our level of research, you're right in that we don't know near enough and we're learning more and more. Who knows what advances we'll have in another 20 years or so. In your example, however, it doesn't matter to me if it's got fingers and toes yet. It's human. There's not a scientist on this planet who can tell us exactly when it becomes so. With that in mind, it's human and we don't know exactly when it becomes a human, how can we presume to kill our own like we do. Many times for reasons relating to our own convenience. It's very sad IMO.

I stated this somewhere else but I'll say again. I can't imagine the horror of having to face something like that. I wouldn't presume to know what it's like or say that I did. That said, I can't help but feel that the child conceived didn't have anything at all to do with the crime. The baby is a complete innocent. The rape victim may be also but I can't see "killing" (and that's what you're doing IMO) the baby because, however tragic it may be, the woman was raped.

I've been around skydiving my whole life. I used to sit in the harness so my Dad could pack his Para-Commander. People used to change my diaper on the DZ. All of our close friends of the family skydive. My uncle owns a DZ and his son, my 1st cousin, also skdives. My cousin's sister also jumps as well as my sister. Most of my long lasting interest originated from an early age. I fully believe in exposing them early. I think it increases their learning potential concerning skydiving. They pick up on things faster. Comes more natural to them.

Easy killer....roll with the punches.

Funny you should mention that. I had all three of my kids vaccinated for chicken pox. I have and 8 year old boy, a 5 year old girl, and a 2 year old boy. My 8 year old boy, 2 weeks ago, came down with chicken pox. It was a less pronounced case of it but it still covered much of him. by less pronounced, I mean that the pustules didn't look classic.

Right. From what I understand, you won't menstrate unless you stop the OC doseage. My wife does that every third week but I believe you can be safe and do it only 4 times a year. Correct? "You can't trust anything that bleeds for a week and lives."

And it sometimes happens that, even while using OC's properly, ovulation, fertilization, and implantation occurs and the baby goes to term. Rare, but it happens.

Just wanted to add a few things to what I've already said concerning OC's. As for modes of action in preventing pregnancy, there are more but several are listed below. 1. Primary: Prevent ovulation. 2. Thicken cervical mucus limiting sperm mobility. 3. Inhibit capacitation (changes sperm goes through in order to be capable of penetrating the egg with the release of enzymes) and sperm survivability. 4. Alters mobility through the tube thus imparing transport of both ova and sperm. 5. Preventing implantation by causing changes in the endometrial lining. Point being, the whole "prevention of implantation" thing is way down the list and probably wouldn't happen (i.e. rare if the pill is taken properly). Therefore, acceptable to use if you are opposed to abortion.

Misscarage = Spontaneous (i.e. natural) "abortion." Not the same thing as a medically induced one where ethics might be involved.

No, there is a 99% chance that a woman won't get pregnant if she takes her birth control pill perfectly. There is a 92% chance that a woman won't get pregnant with "typical" use. I have not seen the percentages of ovulation with typical/perfect use. OK....I'll go with the 99% measurement. It makes it even more rare that prevention of implantation would even be an issue when using the pill properly.

Nobody else does....that's for sure!

I was thinking about another study concerning something else. Sorry. Let me try and summarize what I’m trying to say and maybe that will clear up my point. Again…I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV. Correct me if I’m wrong but OC’s have about a 98-99% success rate in preventing ovulation, correct? Therefore, that 1-2% is all we’re talking about. If a woman is using an OC and she has “ATROPHY” of her endometrium because of it and she forgets to take her pill, ovulation might occur and implantation might not be able to occur. I agree with you on this. However, if a person takes the pill as prescribed, it would be “rare” that ovulation and fertilization would occur creating the possibility of the prevention of implantation because there wouldn’t be anything to implant. The primary mode of action for OC’s is to prevent ovulation. I agree that their goal is also simply to stop pregnancy and that stopping implantation (which is a possibility when taking the pill) is a way of doing that; however it is further down the list. That’s not what they’re trying to do in order to prevent pregnancy. Again, if taken properly and with the low percentage of failure to do what it is designed to do, I find it acceptable as a means of birth control in reference to this topic.