Nightingale

You can't go wrong with a garmin. I have the 200, and my dad and my boyfriend both have the 350s, I think. I'm amazed at how much I use the thing. It's wonderful to look at the gas gauge and say "I need gas." and just hit the "find gas" buttons on the garmin, and find out there's a station a block down, turn right. When James and I were driving up to Davis, he'd forgotten his sunglasses and needed to buy some. Instead of driving through town searching for a SportMart or something, we checked the GPS, realized there was nothing nearby that would carry good sunglasses, and he just bought a cheap pair when we stopped for dinner. James and I even named his Garmin... we call it "Karen" because the voice we chose is "Australia Female - Karen". It's funny when he says "Get Karen out of the glove box" when there's someone in the car that doesn't know. I've been trying to think of a name for mine... my friend said I should just call it "Hermione" because I've got the Brit voice on, and she knows everything.

I tip for take-out, particularly at my local favorites. The staff get to know you, and they make sure not to forget things you want, like salad dressing on the side or whatever. I'll usually tip a few dollars at least. While they're not waiting on you during your meal, they make sure that the food is properly packaged, utensils and napkins are in the bag, and the order is correct.

While I do usually give to an American charity, I was careful to pick one that has the potential for benefiting everyone. St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital works on finding cancer cures, which benefits everyone, not just Americans. As another example, donations to the American branch of the Red Cross will probably get counted as donations to an American charity, but the Red Cross will send aid to wherever it's needed, in America or outside. Ditto with the American branch of Amnesty International. So, many Americans may be donating overseas indirectly.

The thing is, in court, the defense doesn't have to prove the defendant is innocent, and frequently they don't. Reasonable doubt is enough. The vast majority of not guilty verdicts come from not enough evidence or not good enough evidence, not proof of innocence evidence. If there's proof of innocence (DNA says they've got the wrong guy, for example), most of the time it doesn't even get to trial. The problem here is that even if this guy is proven innocent by DNA, the woman still could have been raped, but misidentified her attacker. Eyewitness accounts are about the least reliable evidence out there, because the brain easily tricks us into seeing what isn't there or remembering things we never saw. Many rape victims don't speak up, for various reasons. Some women don't want to explain to their boss that they need time off work to go testify at the trial of the man who raped her. Others don't want friends and family to look at them differently and choose to confide in counselors instead. However, from what I've seen, the lack of reporting is mainly because of the hell they'd have to go through in court. Imagine, sitting in the same room with the person who was responsible for tearing your life apart, the person whose face haunts your nightmares, the memory of their voice makes you sleep with all the lights on... Imagine facing that person in court and having your personal, private life completely laid open for the court records. Imagine pictures of your body being handed to the jury so they can see the bruises and tearing and blood. Imagine having to explain to a defense lawyer that no, the sex wasn't consensual, reliving every detail as you describe exactly what happened right down to what got stuck in where, and keep your nerve and not completely have a break-down in front of twelve strangers who are going to decide the rest of your life and his. Think about that really hard, and you might have some inkling of why a victim wouldn't speak out. Think that doesn't happen? It does. I've seen it. More than once. And then think about whether you really, truly want to force her to go through all that just so she can terminate the pregnancy he left her with and try to move on with her life.

By "tranny" do you mean female transvestites (females who wear male clothing) or female transsexuals (biological females who want to be biological males)? When I was doing research on a paper about the legal issues of intersex, I came across the terms "Trans-woman" (male to female) and "Trans-man" (female to male) for transsexuals. As for transvestites, the only thing I ran across is TV (transvestite, male) and FTV (female transvestite). Female transvestites are very, very uncommon, and experts think that this is probably because it's far more acceptable for a woman to go walking around in pants and a shirt than for men to wear a skirt and tank top. Female transvestites are usually simply unremarkable in today's society. Hope that answered your question. If not, I can do some more digging.

This illustrates one of the problems I have with the anti-choice folks. Many of them will say "abortion only in cases of rape or danger to the mother" but they've never thought about how the logistics of something like that could be implemented. How much danger would the mother need to be in? Medical opinions conflict all the time. Would the condition need to be deadly, or just risky? Where do you draw the line? What if doctors disagree? What about fetal malformations? Most anti-choicers wouldn't allow abortion for a child with down syndrome, but what about a child with anencephaly (no brain) or other 100% lethal conditions? Does she carry the child to term just to watch it die after it's born? What about babies that would be so severely developmentally disabled that they could never walk or talk? While their condition isn't lethal, is it fair to demand that the parents care for a child who will be an adult sized infant? If someone's going to draw a line here, where would it be? Whose medical opinion gives the final say? Rape, we've already kinda discussed. So, I guess that I have such a problem with the shades of gray here that I can't find a place to draw the line that doesn't risk denying a rape victim an abortion or potentially killing someone while courts hash out whether or not her condition is serious enough to permit an abortion. How can that possibly be called "pro-life"?

The thing is, a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean the crime didn't happen or the person didn't do it. It just means that we can't prove it. It's very, very difficult to prove that something did not happen, and also sometimes very difficult to prove that it did, especially if it was something that went unreported until the pregnancy was discovered. You're looking at probably at least four weeks of evidence loss. If it was a stranger rape, unless they've got DNA on file from a prior offense and manage to match the DNA with a real person, the guy's long gone and the odds of catching him are slim. If it was a date rape, it's easier to find the perp, but harder to prove the rape. The other issue is that not all women want to report their rapes. You're putting them in a very tough situation. They either report the rape and go testify at trial, look at the guy in a lineup, and if it's a date rape, probably get grilled by defense attorneys about the details of their sex life, or they carry their rapist's baby to term. The thought of having to face their rapist in trial may drive them to seek out one of the illegal abortionists that will start popping up once the legal alternatives are gone for women who don't want to lie to the police.

To be able to live in a particular climate or environment. If the child can live, even in the artificial evironment of a neonatal unit , until it can survive on its own, it should be given a chance to reach its full potential. Just trying to get some details from your plan here... Who is going to pay for the NICU care? Certainly not the mother who didn't want the child to begin with. Certainly not the health insurance companies. Are you saying we should bill society the hundreds of thousands of dollars it can take to keep a 28 week preemie alive?

Just out of curiosity, how exactly does slapping a magnet of a yellow ribbon do anything at all to support the troops?

Here you go: "The problem with [allowing an exception to an abortion ban on the basis of rape] is that it encourages women to falsely report rape. They either have to: 1. allow any woman who says "rape" to have an abortion 2. allow any woman with a substantiated claim to have an abortion (investigations take time...), or 3. only allow abortion after a conviction (very impractical). The logistics of that just don't work out. If you go with 1, the woman gets her abortion and a man (possibly innocent) gets investigated for rape. This encourages women who want abortions to file false police reports. Sure, they may get investigated and charged for this, but they got their abortion. If you go with 2, the woman may have actually been raped and the evidence just isn't there (sometimes it really isn't), and if you go with 3, well, investigations and trials can take a long time. Sometimes much longer than 9 months."

Holes versus dents probably depends on whether you're loading dove shot or buck shot. Of course, there's always a slug.

Oooohhhh.... good idea! And there happens to be a range right next to the dz... If only I had something that would leave bigger holes than my .22 revolver will. Next time you're down at Perris, let me know, and we can take it to Lytle Creek and see what kind of holes my shotgun will put in it.

In LA, from what I've seen, the policy is no stickers on vehicles that advertize any non-city sponsored campaign. For example, the department of children, youth and families sponsors a campaign against domestic violence. Those stickers are on the cop cars. Fire sponsors a drowning education program, so some of the fire cars have "watch the water" stickers. The space on the vehicles is used to support city programs, not to make political statements. I understand any city adopting similar policies. If it's just targeted at "support our troops" stuff, that's stupid.

Because unlike other surgeries, abortion does terminate a potential person. Also, you didn't address any of my concerns with providing only rape and health exceptions.

Because the woman doesn't always get to choose. Because the legal system works slowly and may or may not accurately prove a choice or lack thereof within 9 months. Because birth control doesn't always work. Because other people are in situations that you are not in a position to understand. If you don't want people to have abortions, work to improve the availability of birth control. Work to provide options and support for women who are pregnant. Work to improve education about how babies are made. Leave women their choice, but work to let them see that the choice you want them to make is a viable one.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it the best or healthiest option. I think most of us agree that abortion is not usually a positive thing. It's a surgical procedure that is not without risk. Pro-choice just means that we're not going to decide for someone else. It doesn't mean that we want people to have abortions. It just means we want the alternative to be there if people feel they need it. I'm pro-choice, but I'd love to see a world with no abortion. That does not, however, mean I want a world with no choice. I want to see people educated about birth control so the issue of abortion won't even come up. I want to prevent abortions by preventing unplanned pregnancies to begin with. I don't want to see people go through the anguish of deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. The fewer people who need to consider abortion, the better.

No, the father should not have the right to not pay child support, because after the birth of the child, the debate is not about the woman's body, but about the care of the child. However, there are ways to remove the parental obligation, such as signing away rights, adoption, etc. After the child's birth, it's not about parents rights or choices. It's about making sure the child is not a burden on society. Men and women can both make a choice before pregnancy. Men who don't want children should wear condoms to lower their risk, even if the woman claims to be on birth control. Birth control can fail or be forgotten. Condoms can also fail, but the odds of both failing at once are extremely small. However, because the child is inside the woman's body, not the man's, her option to choose is extended for the duration of the pregnancy.

read the post above yours. "Ok, my current belief is that the right to life of the fetus trumps the choice of the women." -butters

The thing about parental consent laws for teen abortion is that, just like the laws against teen ear piercing without consent, they don't work. If a teen wants their ears pierced, they'll either: a. ask their mom/dad b. shop around until they find an unscrupulous piercer who doesn't ask for ID c. get a fake ID. If a teen wants an abortion, they'll either: a. ask their mom/dad b. shop around until they find an unscrupulous abortionist who doesn't ask for ID c. get a fake ID. The big difference between piercing and abortion is that a badly performed abortion is usually a heck of a lot more serious than a bad ear piercing. If a teen can't go to their parents and say "Mom, dad, I'm pregnant, help!" at that point, the parents have already screwed up and lines of communication have completely broken down. Most kids, if they find themselves pregnant, are going to run to mom and dad, hoping to be told what to do. They're scared and confused, and want mommy and daddy. If the kid genuinely feels that they can't go to mom or dad, I'd rather they go to a good clinic or hospital for an abortion rather than some hack with a coat-hanger. Leaving a pregnant teen with the options of a back-alley abortion or facing parents who may force her to carry the child is really not a good situation. In this age of information, a teenager can find out how to perform a coathanger abortion just using google. I don't want to see any kid get that desperate. It's really a tough call. Ideally, I'd agree with you. Parents should have a say. However, a parent can make sure they have a say by talking to their child before it becomes an issue, letting the child know that they can come to the parent about absolutely anything, and then prove it by not over-reacting or going ballistic when the child does come to them voluntarily. Law or no law, kids with a good relationship with their parents will talk to them, and kids who don't trust their parents won't go to them and will explore other options.

Of course babies cannot choose anything during their first year or so. However, at that point, the baby is a separate entity from the mother, and can be given up to other people who can care for it. Before birth, that isn't an option yet.

Define viability, please.

Do you really have any idea of the problems of prematurity, or the expense to deal with it? Premature babies are at high risk for chronic problems, because the organs did not have time to properly develop before birth. Problems include underdeveloped lungs, underdeveloped brain, brain hemorhhage, problems regulating glucose levels, immature immune system, kidney problems, digestive tract and liver problems, such as necrotizing enterocolitis. Babies born before 28 weeks are at a high risk for cerebral palsy, mental retardation, epilepsy and blindness. -http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec23/ch264/ch264c.html This article is also very informative: http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/pa/pa_premie_hhg.htm

Yes to everything but the clone, because there are many problems with cloning at the moment, and the clone would be a separate person, so it doesn't have much to do with the question, as it wouldn't have anything to do with the woman's body anymore than an identical twin would.

The government intrudes to an extent that we, as a society, allow it.

I'm not forgetting pre-pregnancy options, but I am aware that those options are not 100%, and accidents do happen. Pills are forgotten, shot window dates can be fuzzy, patches fall off, condoms break, abstinence pledges combine with hormones or alcohol, etc...