livendive

The worst case I've heard of was on a website dedicated to stopping "paternity fraud" (for lack of a better description). I'd say it might not be true, but it's on the internet so it must be, right? Anyhow, Man A is married to a woman who is cheating on him with Man B and she has a child. Man A finds out about the infididelity, divorces her, and is ordered to pay child support. The woman then marries Man B, who is later shown by paternity testing to be the father of the child. Man A goes to court to get rid of his child support obligation and loses because he was married to the woman when she conceived the child. So now, Man A, who is not the father, is paying child support to the mother and real father of the child produced by their extramarital affair. In Washington State, the worksheet for calculating the amount of child support owed is based on need and ability to pay. It figures in income and monthly expenses, including other children in the household. So a divorced woman who is receiving child support for her one child can marry a man who has 3 kids of his own and then sue her ex for more support on the basis of her greater need. And if three years down the road she pops out another kid with Husband B, she can do it again. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

The Democrats seek a balanced budget, speak well of individual freedom, and encourage protection of our environment. Those are good things. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

The Republicans oppose further gun control, speak well of individual responsibility, and have John McCain on their side. Those are good things. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

only if you recognize it as a threat, do you think a two dimensional projection triggers an instinctual response from a 3 year old? Good question. I doubt such a projection would trigger such a reaction in and of itself, but I can imagine that monstrous dripping fangs might trigger some sort of reaction if they appear very suddenly and are accompanied by screams of pain and/or terror. If mom & dad jump when something comes flying out of the darkness to kill something else in a similarly loud manner, I can imagine that prompting some sort of fear. When the kid's imagination is hard at work role-playing the next day, fantasizing that he is one of the characters in the movie probably won't be a positive experience. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

OK, we've clarified the statistic a bit. I thought you were talking about the failure rate of the condoms themselves, not the method of birth control as a whole. Condoms break a lot more frequently than 2% of the time, but these occurrences can be managed (or just lucky as to time of month) such that pregnancies are avoided. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

How many pictures do you want? Five per post. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Source? My experience with them (anecdotal, but all I have to go on) suggests a higher failure rate. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

What he said! If you can extend such objectivity to gear reviews as well, so much the better. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

My stance is that it's an extremely complex issue. If we accept that the value of human life is the foundation of morality (i.e. that without humans, there can be no morality), we get into the question of when something becomes human life. All I can say with any real conviction is that sperm, eggs, and early stage conceptus bear little similarity to humans. Since we're discussing the morality of abortion, it might be reasonable to use morality as the frame of reference for what is human. From that perspective, a fetus is not human because it is amoral. However that view seems a bit shallow, at least as a stand-alone. When I think about the value of human life principle, I realize that I have to also consider *potential* human life because the principle basically hinges on the propagation of the species. Involuntarilty sterilizing every human on earth would be an immoral act of the highest magnitude, as it would violate the concept behind the value of human life principle as well as the value of individual freedom principle (i.e. removing everyone's freedom to reproduce). That said, it would seem illogical to extend the value of human life principle to include ALL potential human life, as such a perspective would suggest that it would be immoral for a woman to go through ovulation without at least trying to conceive, because she is denying her egg the chance to realize it's potential. Once again we get into the gray area. I can't say for sure when I consider something to be human enough to deserve consideration as a human, nor can I say how much potential something must have in order to warrant consideration as a potential human life. Given these uncertainties, I'm left with the impression that abortion is often used in a manner that I consider to be immoral, but that the method by which I've reached that conclusion is not well-enough developed or supported to impose it on others except in obvious cases (e.g. viable, healthy fetuses that pose no substantial risk to the mother). I don't personally believe that such a thing as a soul exists, and I think it's interesting that you believe it exists prior to conception. I guess I'll just drop it though. It sounds like you and I both recognize that there are questions surrounding conception and potential human life that we can't answer, we only differ in how confident we are in our conclusions. We agree that abortion is likely immoral in many cases, but I'm not confident enough in my conclusion to suggest others should accept it for themselves. You seem considerably more confident in your reasoning, in that you seem to be saying that because you have concluded that abortion is immoral, everyone else should too. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

From dictionary.com: Isn't prohibiting gays from marrying a form a discrimination? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Nice dodge on your part also. How do you know for sure that it’s not human at that point? Where did I say that I know for sure it's not human at that point? Where did I even say that I don't *think* it's human at that point? You stated that you believe something and I asked why. Asking you to explain the basis of your belief does not necessarily mean that I believe the opposite. So because it “doesn’t seem to have anything in common with humans other than some strands of DNA”, you don’t consider it human. That’s quite a limited perspective given how little we know. So far I believe you are the only person to state in this thread that I don't consider it human. All *I* said was that it doesn't seem to have much in common with humans. I have not stated that I know it's not human, therefore I do not need to support such a statement. I’m sorry my responses aren’t “enlightening” enough for you. I’ll try and do better. The soul question is religious in nature and isn’t needed to establish that abortion is wrong. Agreed, the debate can be waged without the introduction of religion to the conversation. I'm just curious what your thoughts are. It's obviously your call as to whether you choose to answer the question. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

First we would all have to agree there is such a thing. Not really. Only Pajarito has to believe in such a thing in order for him to answer the question. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Pretty lame dodge there. You said that you believe a fertilized egg is a human life. I asked why and your only answer is "Why not?" I further explained that a fertilized egg doesn't seem to have anything in common with humans other than some strands of DNA and your response is to ask me how I know that? As unenlightening as your responses were in this post, I'm probably being over-optimistic in asking another question, but here goes. At what point do you believe a person gets their "soul"? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I made no attempt to blame the parents or the movie for the child's death. A child choked on some something and died. That's an unfortunate but relatively frequent occurrence that has nothing to do with why I started this thread. I'd like to know how many people here think it is acceptable to take a 3-year-old to see a movie like AVP (and on the big screen no less)? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Exactly. People can be perfectly good parents and still lose their children to accidental deaths. It's sad, but it's an unavoidable part of life. On the other hand it's quite easy to not introduce a 3-year-old to boogy-men in such an overt manner...you don't take them to see AVP. I would bet a fairly large amount of money that they didn't take this kid to this movie because they thought he would like it, but rather that they thought they would like it and didn't give a shit how it would affect the kid. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Isn't it possible that there is no "real answer" that is applicable to all people, but rather that each person must devise their own answer that works well for them? Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Why? I'd agree that it has twice the potential of an unfertilized egg or a single sperm, but it doesn't seem to have anything in common with humans other than some strands of DNA. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

It's not like it's a new rumor or anything. Roger has a place all his own in the "rich history" of skydiving that's been referenced in this thread and I don't see a problem with mentioning it. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Some of us still do. I am in full agreement with your post. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Why in the fuck would you take a 3-year-old to see Alien vs. Predator??! http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/08/17/popcorn.choking.ap/index.html Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Hmm. Maybe, maybe not. Condoms protect against pregnancy as well as diseases. I'd hate to discourage their use in favor of a method which offers no protection. I don't think a better method of male birth control would be discouraging condom use, just augmenting it. Sure, there'd be some, possibly quite a few men who would see it as an either/or, but that would just mean we'd need to ramp up our encouragement for their use outside the confines of a monogamous relationship. Well, we should be teaching girls/women the same lesson about responsible sex. Condoms protect against STD transmission in either direction. That said, condoms are likely to remain an unpopular option for several reasons. 1 - Condoms substantially reduce the pleasure of sex, thus working in direct opposition to the goal of the moment. 2 - Condoms aren't all that "convenient", i.e. you can't take one a morning, week, or month and be protected...you have to have them with you and stop in the heat of the moment to don one. 3 - Condoms are unreliable. Breakage is a frequent occurrence and even an intact condom can allow conception if the couple "cuddles" for too long after ejaculation. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

I think the area that needs the most attention is birth control. We have spent so much money researching and deploying new and innovative methods for women to practice birth control, yet men still have the same 2 options, condoms and a vasectomy. We cannot be so naive as to expect (versus hope) that a condom will be involved in every sexual act, and a vasectomy isn't all that attractive an option for 18-30 year old men with no kids. So why isn't there yet a shot, pill, patch, or other means of either temporarily stopping sperm production or rendering the sperm non-viable? I believe that expanses in this arena would a) lessen the inequality inherent in today's system and b) substantially decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies we see. Unfortunately I don't own a drug company nor have the money to nudge one in this direction. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

Has it been long enough that we can now have a laugh or two at Reagan's expense? If you don't like "black" humor, don't click this link. http://www.whitehouse.org/kids/reagangame.asp Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)

And 6.9? A 69 interrupted by a period. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew)