This is true.
You're 24 and 23? When did you invest? At 12?
Recipies call for you to pre-brown your meat because it can look a little grayish and unappetizing if you just cook it in the slow cooker. It's really just for appearance, it will *cook* either way, you won't be eating undercooked meat. I mean, unless it's a hunk of meat that you put it in for just a short period of time, be reasonable.
I think that would be highly controversial. Who would want to be the organization that pays for all of Planned Parenthood's abortions? I mean, I donate to Planned Parenthood and, pro-choice as I am, it would feel distinctly different if I knew my money was ONLY going to abortion. I like that I am donating to comprehensive services - annual exams, birth control, mammograms, and, if needed, abortions. I have no issue with the idea that some of my money might go to abortion services. I, personally, would probably even still donate if I knew all of my money was going to abortion because abortion should be easily accessible, but it would definitely feel different. It wouldn't be good PR for a charitable organization.
My interest in their mission isn't so much about abortion, it's about allowing women control over a range of reproductive choices. So, if it were limited to that...
It'd be like... donating to a food bank and knowing your money was only going to fund the chocolate cake. Yes, everyone should have chocolate cake, I have absolutely no problem with some of my money going to chocolate cake. I'd probably still donate because, hey, everyone deserves dessert. but if that's where all my money went, I wouldn't feel like I was truly funding the larger mission.
I wonder if anyone's ever made an abortion/cake analogy before...
I asked this question before too. I don't get it.
I also said, if anything, protecting the rights of the accused? That's not really a Republican concern. I feel like we're missing something.
Ok, but bruises do not only tell one story. I don't actually know what I believe about Taylor, I think she's shady, but I think there's probably some truth to her story. But just because someone has a bruise doesn't mean they've been beaten. My stepmom fell on a slippery dock last year and got a a black eye. My female cousin got one in a mosh pit. (And, yeah, their significant others did get dirty looks whenever they went out with them after).
Just because a Taylor says the bruise is from one place doesn't make it impossible it's from another place. There's speculation that these are plastic surgery bruises.
I don't understand what the possible rationale is for this bill. Unless I'm missing something about what it does.
Really, what political gain is there to be made by saying: let's not protect victims so much?
If anything, Republicans are all for police discretion, why would they limit it? They're not really known for caring about the rights of the accused. Also, since when do police have to witness an assault to make an arrest? That's not the case for any other kind of assault.
Nothing about this makes sense to me.
I might be the one person in the world who gained weight when I was living in Spain. My host mother was all "Come mas! Come!" and I did. Because I wanted to show appreciation. And because one of my roomates ate hardly anything and I felt this weird compulsion to make up for her. It was all good, healthy food, but I guess I eat relatively healthy here too and I walk because I already live in a city, so Spain just increased my portions.
I saw Sharon Stone in person a few years ago - that woman is STUNNING. She's beautiful but also graceful and there's definitely some kind of star aura about her.
Many transgender folk begin identifying as a gender that does not match their sex at a very young age. By all accounts, this is one of those kids. The original article doesn't say this is a boy that likes to play with dolls (which would make him totally and absolutely still a boy), it says that this is a transgender child who identifies as female and uses the female pronoun. There is a big difference between liking "girly" things and identifying as female, and this girl is an example of the latter, not the former.
I get that her personal life has become political because her husband has used it to his own ends, but I still wish that *we* would stop focusing on her personal life. Let's focus on their bad ideas. Let's focus on the simple fact that it is important for women to have access to safe, legal medical procedures.
So what if she had a relationship with an OB-GYN? Seriously, so what? That's guilt by association, it's what Republicans tried to do with Obama. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. We all have close friendships and relationships with people who may not necessarily share our ideals. Also, she was 22, a person's opinions can't change over time? It means absolutely nothing.
And, in my opinion, she lives by her stated ideals and did everything she could, including putting herself at great medical risk, to save the pregnancy that some are calling an "abortion." She had a risky medical surgery to save the fetus, she got a deadly infection from that surgery and did not induce labor, even though she was at risk of sepsis and they knew the fetus was not viable, etc. Her only direct hypocrisy is that she admitted she would have induced labor if it came down to the final hour, but, in fact, it did not and she got to make choices consistent with her beliefs. But the point is that everyone should have the option and not everyone is so lucky. The only way this saga is relevant is that you'd think it would make her have some empathy. But, it doesn't. Oh well! But I don't actually care what her choice was. Even if she DID have an abortion or even if she did induce labor, I don't care! The point is that the choice should be available to every woman, even ones who say one thing and do another.
I don't know that we advance anything by making personal attacks on bad people, I think we make progress by attacking bad ideas. And their ideas are bad enough and our ideas are powerful enough to shut them down without us grasping at straws to overstate their hypocisy.
While I agree with the general sentiment, WHY ARE YOU REFERRING TO HIM AS A "BOY"??
The whole point is that he is not a boy, this is a little girl we are talking about, who wants to be part of Girl Scouts and Taylor wants us to boycott their cookies because that little girl happens not to have a vagina.
I was about to say the same. Plan B is more like a condom than it is an abortion. Actually, it's most like hormonal birth control, it IS that, just all at once rather than spread out.
Nitpicky, but important distinction... and, again, moot, because rapists aren't using it for that purpose.
Your sister ultimately decided to have the baby and that's great. I'm sure it all worked out for the best. But I have wonder, if they had sold it to you, if your sister might have gotten the EC sooner and prevented her unplanned pregnancy. EC's more effective the sooner you take it.
Not saying anything against your niece. An unplanned baby can be totally loved and welcomed as I am sure that she is. But, for those unprepared/unwilling/unable to decide to have the baby, as your sister did, it's discouraging that there's another barrier to them quickly getting time-senstive treatment that may prevent the pregnancy.
Sorry, I'm a stereotypical female in this situation. I do not like football and I tried to watch it with some guys a few weeks ago, my brain is not capable of watching like 10 games at once and keeping all the names and stats and what's happening straight. I just drank my beer very quietly.
But... for those women that do like it... um, maybe it's not the "musclebound dudes in tight pants piling up on one another" but that they actually understand and enjoy the sport? For the same reasons men do? It strikes me as equally condescending to say that women only like football for the eyecandy rather than for the game.
That's just so completely ridiculous! First of all, rapists are not giving their victims birth control.
But, even if they were, I'm not convinced it'd be something we'd want to discourage. If it were condoms, wouldn't we be saying, well *at least* the rapist used a condom? Of course, medication is more complicated and some people don't react well to hormones, etc. But, for some, it would be one less thing to worry about.
Heh, whatever, moot point. Because NO ONE is using it for that purpose anyway.
I agree. And that's what we should be hammering home. What if it had come to that? You say that's what you would have done? Wouldn't you like others to be able to make that same choice?
But it's just not true that she did make that choice. She did not choose to induce labor. She was lucky enough to not have to make that choice as her body expelled the fetus naturally. She would not have died if his policies were in place, as it happened. The choices she actually made, every step of the way, were to save the pregnancy, even at great medical risk to herself.
I don't think they should be able to force other people to live the same way. And, you would think, having been in that position, they'd have some empathy. Instead, they've steeled themselves that making risky choices to save the pregnancy is "right" because it worked out for them. These are the faults we should be attacking. "Your life is not everyone's life, sometimes women will actually die when they risk their life to save a pregnancy, not everyone should have to take on the risks you chose to."
But, I think we lose credibility when we say, "you basically had an abortion." She didn't.
I said something similar above. Except I don't see where it said antibiotics might induce labor. My understanding from the article is that early labor started on its own and she even asked for drugs that would stop the labor.
Otherwise, I'm with you and this whole post bugs me. Our twisting of the facts does not help our cause. She would NOT have died if Santorum's anti-abortion policies were in place because she did NOT induce labor or have an abortion. No need to split hairs between the two because she did not fall under either category. Her labor began naturally.
We can jump on her admission that, if it had come down to it, she would have induced labor. But, in fact, they acted entirely consistent with what it is they want to force everyone else to do - she took every action, no matter how risky, that might save the pregnancy.
While I really, really do not want to defend Santorum in any way, I'm not really sure how we're helping by calling this an abortion. If you read the Our Silver Ribbon article, their claim is that early labor started on its own, as her body rejected the infection. The doctor offered drugs to *accelerate* her labor, but did not give her drugs to induce it. (It's actually unclear whether she took the accelerating drugs). She even asked for drugs to stop the labor! Which the doctors refused to give her because of malpractice concerns. The Santorums really did do everything to save that pregnancy, including risky medical surgery, and did NOT induce labor/have an abortion.
His wife admits that, ultimately, she would have made the choice to induce labor had it not started on its own, but, in fact, she did not make that choice. At least according to the attached article. I don't know anything else about the situation except what I read there.
You'd think her situation would give the Santorums some empathy. You'd think they might recognize that other people might want to make other choices and not risk sepsis and death to save a non-viable fetus. Especially when his wife admits that, if it had gotten down to the final hour, she would have induced labor. You'd think they'd want others to have that final hour option. But I also see how they might walk away from that experience thinking, "God came through for us."
It just seems incorrect to call them hypocrites about it because they actually did wait and let her body decide whether to expel the fetus. A choice no other woman should have to make if she does not want to.
Again, I'm only going according to the attached article, correct me if I'm wrong.
I untag bad photos of myself all the time. Do friends really get offended? No one has ever cared, at all, that I don't think their picture of me is particularly flattering.
