REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Women's rights that have nothing to do with abortion.

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Monday, July 25, 2011 20:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2903
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:16 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


One place women DON'T have rights - equal protection under the constitution. The ERA is still not a constitutional amendment almost 150 years after slaves were given equal rights as freemen.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:17 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Strictly speaking a parasite is one species that lives off another. Although you might view a fetus as being parasitic, its probably more true to say that they are symbiotic, and it is certainly less offensive. A fetus does not harm its host, unlike other parasites, and in fact, there is some evidence that pregnancy actually has health benefits for women, so long as they have access to adequate nutrition.

I'm not sure that your example actually gives credence to this debate.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:19 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Strictly speaking, a symbiotic relationship in one of mutual benefit. How does a fetus benefit a pregnant woman?

Also strictly speaking, KIKI is correct: Women do NOT have equal rights granted by the Constitution. The USA is pretty regressive about that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Most women will never have an abortion, or even consider one.
At least 30% of all women in the USA have had at least one, as I did when I was young (birth control failure). I realize that's not "most", but it's a damn fair sizable minority. Being pregnant and raising a child is AT LEAST as significant a factor as getting a professorship or buying a house. And unlike buying a house of getting a professorship, being pregnant is a situation MOST women will face at some point in their lives. Unless a woman is secure in her person, she isn't secure.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:56 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Strictly speaking, a symbiotic relationship in one of mutual benefit. How does a fetus benefit a pregnant woman?

Also strictly speaking, KIKI is correct: Women do NOT have equal rights granted by the Constitution. The USA is pretty regressive about that.



I said in my earlier post that there are reportedly health benefits for a woman carrying a fetus, and at the very least PROVIDED that she has access ro proper nutiants, there is no detriment to her wellbeing. A parasite is one species living off another different host species. Not the same technically, but if you want to be a dick about it, go right ahead.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 21, 2011 7:56 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"A fetus does not harm its host ..." A pregnancy and birth are more risky (morbidity and mortality - toxemia, isolated high blood pressure, diabetes, infection, hemorrhage, severe depression etc) than an abortion, an abortion is more risky than not being pregnant at all. In the short term, pregnancy and birth are statistically far more likely to cause harm or death to the mother than either abortion or not becoming pregnant at all. And while a single pregnancy in young adulthood is associated with a slightly decreased risk of breast cancer later in life (a very specific set of circumstances), pregnancy at any age is associated with a large increased risk of autoimmune disease later in life. It's hard to make the case that pregnancy and birth are beneficial to the mother or even merely benign, and easier to make the case that they're risky.

Considering that the fetus is sucking nutrients from the mother and putting her health at higher risk without returning a greater or equal medical benefit, the fetus is a parasite.

BTW - there's an interesting study that shows that tapeworms reduce the statistical risk of asthma by 'training' the immune system. Does that reduce their status as a parasite in your mind?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:32 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"A fetus does not harm its host ..." A pregnancy and birth are more risky (morbidity and mortality - toxemia, isolated high blood pressure, diabetes, infection, hemorrhage, severe depression etc) than an abortion, an abortion is more risky than not being pregnant at all. In the short term, pregnancy and birth are statistically far more likely to cause harm or death to the mother than either abortion or not becoming pregnant at all. And while a single pregnancy in young adulthood is associated with a slightly decreased risk of breast cancer (a very specific set of circumstances), pregnancy at any age is associated with a large increased risk of autoimmune disease. It's hard to make the case that pregnancy and birth are beneficial to the mother or even merely benign, and easier to make the case that they're risky.



Possible health risks associated with pregnancy and or abortion do not mean that the fetus is a parasite. A parasite will strip its host of nutriants, often killing it. A woman's body compensates for pregnancy by cravings for particular food, and by the woman eating more food. The eventual outcome, if all goes well, is birth and a healthy body will bounce back quickly. The body is flooded with hormones which adapt it to pregnancy, producing a mixed bag of sensations from sickness to happiness. The female body has evolved for pregnancy, at a primitive level it is our raison d'etre, not that we have to be primitive.

Now none of this is either an argument for or against abortion. Just because the female body can grow babies, doesn't mean that it has to.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:34 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

BTW - there's an interesting study that shows that tapeworms reduce the statistical risk of asthma by 'training' the immune system. Does that reduce their status as a parasite in your mind?



No, because a tapeworm IS a parasite. It fits the 'one species that lives off a different species' definition, which you don't seem to be able to grasp. Last time i checked, a fetus was of the same species, being the young of the body that carries it.

"A parasitic relationship is one in which one member of the association benefits while the other is harmed.[21] Parasitic symbioses take many forms, from endoparasites that live within the host's body to ectoparasites that live on its surface. In addition, parasites may be necrotrophic, which is to say they kill their host, or biotrophic, meaning they rely on their host's surviving. Biotrophic parasitism is an extremely successful mode of life. Depending on the definition used, as many as half of all animals have at least one parasitic phase in their life cycles, and it is also frequent in plants and fungi. Moreover, almost all free-living animals are host to one or more parasite taxa. An example of a biotrophic relationship would be a tick feeding on the blood of its host."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:52 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Well, I'm just too lazy to go look up your definition to see what else it might say. But nowhere does it say separate species. And it says that 'depending on the definition used, as many as half of all animals have at least one parasitic phase in their life cycles'. I'm guessing that is the placental sort of animals (non-egg laying) which have a parasitic phase. And in your first post you claim that parasites are deadly to the host - "often killing it" is how you put it. Whereas your second post allows for parasites that don't kill their hosts, calling them 'extremely successful'.

Just saying I don't find your definition in your reference post, but I see how mine could fit.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 21, 2011 9:01 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well, I'm just too lazy to go look up your definition to see what else it might say. But nowhere does it say separate species. And it says that 'depending on the definition used, as many as half of all animals have at least one parasitic phase in their life cycles'. I'm guessing that is the placental sort of animals (non-egg laying) which have a parasitic phase. And in your first post you claim that parasites are deadly to the host - "often killing it" is how you put it. Whereas your second post allows for parasites that don't kill their hosts, calling them 'extremely successful'.

Just saying I don't find your definition in your reference post, but I see how mine could fit.



Whatever. If you want to see a fetus as a parasite, then go for it. Clearly, I[m going to change your mind.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 21, 2011 9:13 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"I('m not) going to change your mind." Eh - goes both ways. Agree to disagree then, I hope. Not sure where your time zone is, but in mine it's way past my beddy-bye. See you on the other side.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:18 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
What. The. Hell?

I'll stab anyone who tries to take that one away from me in the gonads. And I don't even vote, it's the damn principle of the thing.


BOOYAH!

Hell, I'd hand you the knife!

THAT comment ties in very much exactly with what I said in the other thread about what the real purpose is, here.

-Frem
PS. That actually made me bounce happily in my chair, mind you - it's been a rough week.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:23 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Where did the "rights" of slaves come from to be free? Where did women's "right" to vote come from? Where do animal "rights" come from? Where did worker's "rights" come from? Where did the "rights" of the accused come from?

The exercise of power, and ONLY the exercise of power.

We have our ideals, and in our ideals we would like to be fair (to people like us) and the framing of that "fairness" is what we like to call "rights", and we enshrine it as some sort of "natural" or "god-given" thing. But our ideals are not the real world they are simply our ideals, and those who hold power don't give it up willingly.


I don't mean this in a snarky way at all, Siggy, but has this epiphany changed your viewpoint of the Second Amendment ?
I don't necessarily mean in the idiotic ways we exercise it currently, but rather in the principle and concept behind it ?
Cause I'm curious to know - although as both of us are well aware, there are many ways to exercise power other than via weapons, indeed - so it's just simple curiosity rather than incentive to debate, in this case.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2011 2:47 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

What a fracking JOKE! It doesn't even need saying, but I will; what about rape, which doesn't even permit abortion in many states? Wake up, Raptor, you're being even more thick than usual.


Genius, I stated - If you've made the decision to have sex, you've made the decision to deal w/ the consequences.

Unless you've decided to get raped... then I fail to see where your comment even warrants a response.

Name 1 state which doesn't allow abortions for rape victims.




Instead, they just decide to redefine "rape"...




Which of course doesn't address the issue here, while the question I asked remains unanswered.


Curious, the one who I asked the question, the one who generally posts as much on this forum as anyone, has yet to reply at all in this thread.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2011 3:38 AM

FREMDFIRMA


What, you can't read ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state

Just TRY doing so in say, Mississippi, where 99% of the state doesn't have any, and they'll make you go through all kinds of bullshit hoops and stall tactics to put one over the arbitrary limit(1) and then refuse you - a de-facto prohibition is STILL a prohibition, that'd be like legalizing marijuana and then making it illegal to grow any or cross country lines with it, sure, technically it'd be "legal" but you still could not have or use it without committing a crime.

Play semantics all you like, but just cause you refuse to let the ugly realities of the situation penetrate the plastic bubble of your little fantasy world doesn't mean the rest of us ain't well aware of em.

ETA (1) - Case in point, delaying that legally mandatory counselling, or refusing to schedule it, and by doing so stalling till the one remaining provider will no longer take em, claiming they're "too far along", which is a standard-issue tactic in States with mandatory counselling, cause they can schedule it or not as they damn well please and use this as a blockade.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2011 5:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I only come here in the mornings, Raptor, and I'm on Pacific time, my lack of rejoining this discussion is because of that, nothing else. I just got up, and this is the first thread I've read because it was at the top of the list. This discussion has gone on for quite some time since I left, so I'm just now catching up. Just FYI.

As to your remarks to me; currently no state has restrictions which don't have exceptions for rape. Oklahoma's newest law comes closest, but doesn't completely restrict:
Quote:

Under a new law in Oklahoma, women like Casteix, who have been sexually assaulted, will be forced to undergo a second trauma. The law requires them to undergo a sonogram, and depending on the state of pregnancy, it could be a transvaginal one, which involves insertion of a wand.

The doctor must then turn the screen towards her and describe fetal dimensions and details like the number of fingers and toes and heart activity.

There are no exemptions for victims of rape and incest. "The law takes no account of the trauma of the victim," said Casteix. "I just can't imagine what that would have done to me. It upsets me just thinking about being in that position. If you are the victim of a violent crime, it's absolutely devastating."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/okla-abortion-law-exceptions-rape/story?i
d=10507849


I'm not going to get into a debate about whether it's right to force a woman to do this; given the amount of trauma it would create is unconscionable to me, period. And I'm not going to spend more time than that to show you that they're working HARD to take womens' ability to have an abortion, even in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. They are, and one way they're working at it is, as Mike said, by redefining "rape", but it won't mean shit to you so I'm not wasting my time posting facts and figures.

DT wanted this thread NOT to be about abortion, so I'm going to abide by that and not further deal with this question. It belongs in the other thread, and the discussion HAD moved toward other rights, which is where he wanted it to go, so I'm going to respect that from here on. I'll reply to posts on abortion in the other thread.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2011 6:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


MAGONS: FYI "parasite" applies to a lot more than separate species. As my hubby pointed out, there are "parasitic" capacitances which rob a circuit of power; "parasite" is also used in an economic sense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2011 7:00 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I don't mean this in a snarky way at all, Siggy, but has this epiphany changed your viewpoint of the Second Amendment ?
You must have me confused with someone else. I've never been against the 2nd amendment; if you recall I've owned several guns and still own one.

Quote:

I don't necessarily mean in the idiotic ways we exercise it currently, but rather in the principle and concept behind it ?
Cause I'm curious to know - although as both of us are well aware, there are many ways to exercise power other than via weapons, indeed - so it's just simple curiosity rather than incentive to debate, in this case.

Apparently you're curious about a nothing then.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2011 7:46 PM

FREMDFIRMA



D'oh! - sorry about that, then.

I was just thinkin about various ways to steal a march on the folks in control of the current push against womens rights by exploiting various issues among them to try to pry the more reasonable, rational folk away from the nutters currently in control of the matter - both by exposing who they're "in bed" with and also the hypocrisy of helping cause the problem they're supposedly trying to solve...

And the notion of other "rights" came up just as I happened upon your post and as you say, I musta gotten your position confused with someone elses, so, apologies for that.

There's GOT to be way to do this, I'm thinking, cause it makes no sense for folks who have such tremendous respect for life to be all in with folk who really don't, lip service aside, just cause they have funding and political might, it's counterproductive...

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2011 7:47 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
MAGONS: FYI "parasite" applies to a lot more than separate species. As my hubby pointed out, there are "parasitic" capacitances which rob a circuit of power; "parasite" is also used in an economic sense.



Yes, you can use words in many varied ways. English is a bit like that. If you are being literal, then parasite applies to separate species - that's my understanding. A species that sucks the life out of another species to survive. If you are being metaphorical, you can say something is parasitic or a parasite and not refer to the above,...its a perjorative term, then isn't it? If you call Murdoch a parasite of society, you don't mean it in a good way. So if that is how you or ikiki feel about fetuses, that they are something akin to a tapeworm or a tick, then that is your perogative. I don't think it adds any humanity to this discussion, but I'm not going to waste any more head space on it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 23, 2011 5:07 AM

HKCAVALIER


In biology, as I understand it, "parasite" refers to a relationship, and as stated above, many species go through various relationships during a life cycle. The term "parasite" in general conversation has taken on a pejorative connotation, but it's not intrinsic to the word. The word is a description of a relationship. Biologically, of course the fetus is parasitic upon the mother for some time during its development. That's a valid and accurate description of what goes on. Doesn't really mean jack as to what the right thing to do about it is.

For me, people have jurisdiction over what goes on inside their bodies. Period. It just so happens that pregnancy is unique in that another life is growing inside a person's body, and therefore that person has jurisdiction over that life until such time as that developing life is viable as an individual person. Until such time, it is functionally, biologically parasitic upon the mother. I would argue that legally it is not "a" person. The body of the mother can spontaneously reject the life growing inside her, and frequently does, or she can, through the exercise of her will and choice, reject the life growing inside her.

This decision has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on her likelihood to commit murder. It doesn't make her dangerous, nor does it destroy her understanding of right and wrong. Sorry folks, but it's a unique circumstance.

And women have been aborting fetuses since the dawn of our species. If it's genocide and eugenics, why doesn't the Bible, f'rinstance, say anything about it? The Bible can be quite explicit about what it wants to abominate and what it don't, and it don't say nothing explicit about abortion. Gays, check. Pork, check. Not loving your enemy as yourself, check. But abortion? Crickets. Funny.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 23, 2011 6:38 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Then women might as well be mules, or cows, or goats, to be bred at will. Because once they are stuffed by whatever means, they no longer matter as free humans.




This may be the most absurd statement I have ever seen here....and coming from me....nuff said

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 23, 2011 6:44 AM

KANEMAN


END THREAD

Women have the same rights as men....even the right to kill unborn children...should it be illegal...yep. If I killed a pregnant women I'd be charged with two murders...nuff said

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 23, 2011 7:36 AM

HKCAVALIER


But kaneman,

Do you think it's right to be charged with two murders? Sure if the woman is showing, but what if the woman was only a few days pregnant and didn't even know? Would you really count the man as guilty of two murders for killing a woman a day after conception? Where do you draw the line?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:02 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
In biology, as I understand it, "parasite" refers to a relationship, and as stated above, many species go through various relationships during a life cycle. The term "parasite" in general conversation has taken on a pejorative connotation, but it's not intrinsic to the word. The word is a description of a relationship. Biologically, of course the fetus is parasitic upon the mother for some time during its development. That's a valid and accurate description of what goes on. Doesn't really mean jack as to what the right thing to do about it is.

For me, people have jurisdiction over what goes on inside their bodies. Period. It just so happens that pregnancy is unique in that another life is growing inside a person's body, and therefore that person has jurisdiction over that life until such time as that developing life is viable as an individual person. Until such time, it is functionally, biologically parasitic upon the mother. I would argue that legally it is not "a" person. The body of the mother can spontaneously reject the life growing inside her, and frequently does, or she can, through the exercise of her will and choice, reject the life growing inside her.

This decision has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on her likelihood to commit murder. It doesn't make her dangerous, nor does it destroy her understanding of right and wrong. Sorry folks, but it's a unique circumstance.

And women have been aborting fetuses since the dawn of our species. If it's genocide and eugenics, why doesn't the Bible, f'rinstance, say anything about it? The Bible can be quite explicit about what it wants to abominate and what it don't, and it don't say nothing explicit about abortion. Gays, check. Pork, check. Not loving your enemy as yourself, check. But abortion? Crickets. Funny.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.


I couldn't resist.
Quote:

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. Traditionally parasite referred to organisms with lifestages that went beyond one host (e.g. Taenia solium), which are now called macroparasites (typically protozoa and helminths). Parasites can now also refer to microparasites, which are typically smaller, such as viruses and bacteria and can be directly transmitted between hosts of one species.

Unlike predators, parasites are generally much smaller than their host, although both are special cases of consumer-resource interactions.[1] Parasite show a high degree of specialization for their mode of life, and reproduce at a faster rate than their hosts. Classic examples of parasitism include interactions between vertebrate hosts and diverse animals such as tapeworms, flukes, the Plasmodium species, and fleas.

Parasitism is differentiated from the parasitoid relationship, though not sharply, by the fact that parasitoids generally kill or sterilise their hosts. Parasitoidy occurs in about as many classes of organism as parasitism does.

The harm and benefit in parasitic interactions concern the biological fitness of the organisms involved. Parasites reduce host fitness in many ways, ranging from general or specialized pathology (such as parasitic castration), impairment of secondary sex characteristics, to the modification of host behaviour. Parasites increase their fitness by exploiting hosts for resources necessary for the parasite's survival: (i.e. food, water, heat, habitat, and dispersal).

Although the concept of parasitism applies unambiguously to many cases in nature, it is best considered part of a continuum of types of interactions between species, rather than an exclusive category. Particular interactions between species may satisfy some but not all parts of the definition. In many cases, it is difficult to demonstrate that the host is harmed. In others, there may be no apparent specialization on the part of the parasite, or the interaction between the organisms may be short-lived. In medicine, only eukaryotic organisms are considered parasites, with the exclusion of bacteria and viruses. Some branches of biology, however, regard members of these groups as parasitic



Re murder - I do believe someone has been charged with manslaughter here when they ended the life of an unborn child (not their own) through reckless driving. It's fuzzy law, no doubt about it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 23, 2011 6:36 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Kaneman... you're a man, AND an idiot. Go whack off in the bathroom with a mag, in anticipation of your idiot GF getting out of prison. You have nothing of value to add to this thread, this site, or the world. 'Nuff said.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2011 1:54 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Magon's, I pretty much agree with everything you've written in this post, from your definition of a parasite to your assertion that little boys are penalized for being little boys at school, something I know about because of my lil brother being very much a boyish boy with lots of energy. I think things need to change at school for little boys, and maybe even for older boys, though we haven't gotten to that age yet at my house. Thanks also for those voting rights stats on when women got the right to vote, that was very interesting, especially the fact that Jordanian women got to vote in national elections before American women did. But yeah you and I are in complete agreement concerning the things you posted and spoke on specifically.

HK, My opinion is that the man should be charged with two murders if either the woman is showing or if he knew her, like she's his wife or something, and he knew she was pregnant. If he didn't know and she isn't showing then it doesn't really seem fair to charge him with two murders. That's what I think.

Quicko, I totally agree with you on the voting issue. I too think Byte should vote, she could just mark the empty boxes like you said, to say that she thinks all the candidates suck brick. I do forget to turn in my ballot/vote sometimes, but I usually remember to do it.

Kiki, I shall hence forth be calling you Former Paricite Kiki, since that's what you've declared yourself to be in this thread, not only proclaimed, but proclaimed vehemently.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2011 2:25 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Kiki, I shall hence forth be calling you Former Paricite Kiki ..."

Former Paricite

It took me a while to figure this out. Paricite - a killer of par? Killing pars is paricide (killing parents is paRRicide) and that makes me a paricite. What is par ...

OOOHHHH! You mean PARASITE! Former PARASITE!

Oh. OK. If you wish.

Oh, and if you get this far - the definition Magon's posted came from WIKI. I eventually tracked it down. There wasn't any more to it than that. I tried to total up all the parasites I know - ticks, mosquitoes, lamprey eels, leeches, tapeworms, and trichinella... etc. The only way I know of to make sense of this "as many as half of all animals have at least one parasitic phase in their life cycles" is to include placental animals.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2011 8:16 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Thanks for the spelling, I'm not good at spelling, so it has a s, parasite, okay. Good to know.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL