Email this topic to a friend Printer-friendly version of this topic Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)		Archived thread - Read only  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Conferences Off-Topic Forum (Protected)
Original message

LadyT 5567 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-22-03, 00:26 AM (EST) "What a week this is" Its a few minutes past midnight and today is a very important day. Its the 30th anniversary of Roe v Wade. Now regardless of where you stand on this issue, it was the groundbreaking case for women's rights. I don't want to get into a war about this hot issue, I just want to acknowledge it. Plus we have Martin Luthur King Day, or in my pathetic state, we call it Civil Rights Day. What a week to have where we can celebrate our rights and freedoms. I am proud that we can celebrate our freedoms.   Top

Subject     Author     Message Date     ID    RE: What a week this is samiam 01-22-03 1    Very odd AyaK 01-23-03 12  RE: What a week this is Esbea 01-22-03 2  RE: What a week this is dabo 01-22-03 3  RE: What a week this is wendyp 01-22-03 4  RE: What a week this is PleaseKillMe 01-22-03 5  RE: What a week this is L82LIFE 01-22-03 6  RE: What a week this is RudyRules 01-23-03 7    RE: What a week this is LadyT 01-23-03 8        RE: What a week this is SurvivinDawg 01-23-03 10            RE: What a week this is samiam 01-23-03 11                RE: What a week this is Bucky Katt 01-23-03 13                    RE: What a week this is samiam 01-23-03 16                        RE: What a week this is SurvivinDawg 01-23-03 17                            RE: What a week this is FesterFan1 01-23-03 19                                RE: What a week this is Lisapooh 01-23-03 26                                    RE: What a week this is SherpaDave 01-23-03 29                                    RE: What a week this is desert_rhino 01-23-03 30                                        RE: What a week this is Lisapooh 01-23-03 37                                            RE: What a week this is L82LIFE 01-23-03 43                                                RE: What a week this is Lisapooh 01-23-03 47                                                    Agree AyaK 01-23-03 54                                                        RE: Agree Lisapooh 01-23-03 62                                    Clinical AyaK 01-23-03 42                                        RE: Clinical SurvivinDawg 01-23-03 58                            RE: What a week this is samiam 01-23-03 20                                RE: What a week this is mistofleas 01-23-03 21                                RE: What a week this is Bucky Katt 01-23-03 32                                RE: What a week this is SurvivinDawg 01-23-03 34                                    RE: What a week this is SherpaDave 01-23-03 36                                        RE: What a week this is SurvivinDawg 01-23-03 39                                            Ham and eggs AyaK 01-23-03 44                                    RE: What a week this is samiam 01-23-03 38                                        RE: What a week this is SurvivinDawg 01-23-03 41                                            Difference AyaK 01-23-03 45                                            RE: What a week this is SherpaDave 01-23-03 46                                                More power (and money) for lawyers! AyaK 01-23-03 49                                                    RE: More power (and money) for lawy... SherpaDave 01-23-03 52                                                    RE: More power (and money) for lawy... mistofleas 01-24-03 85                                            RE: What a week this is Esbea 01-23-03 48                                            RE: What a week this is samiam 01-23-03 50                                                Indiscriminate? AyaK 01-23-03 55                                                    RE: Indiscriminate? samiam 01-23-03 56                                                        Next on the Bachelor SherpaDave 01-23-03 57                                                            RE: Next on the Bachelor samiam 01-23-03 60                                                        OK AyaK 01-23-03 59                                                    RE: Indiscriminate? SurvivinDawg 01-23-03 61                                                    RE: Indiscriminate? TechNoir 01-23-03 70                                                        Huh? AyaK 01-24-03 77                                                            RE: Huh? mistofleas 01-24-03 82                            RE: What a week this is LadyT 01-24-03 74    RE: What a week this is Spidey 01-23-03 9        RE: What a week this is RudyRules 01-23-03 65            RE: What a week this is desert_rhino 01-23-03 66                RE: What a week this is RudyRules 01-23-03 67            RE: What a week this is samiam 01-23-03 68                RE: What a week this is RudyRules 01-23-03 69            RE: What a week this is TechNoir 01-24-03 71                RE: What a week this is RudyRules 01-24-03 86  Roe v. Wade AyaK 01-23-03 14  Personal opinion and why I didn't w... SherpaDave 01-23-03 15    RE: Personal opinion and why I didn... TechNoir 01-24-03 72    RE: Personal opinion and why I didn... LadyT 01-24-03 73    RE: Personal opinion and why I didn... Naked 01-24-03 75        RE: Personal opinion and why I didn... SherpaDave 01-24-03 76            RE: Personal opinion and why I didn... TechNoir 01-24-03 88                RE: Personal opinion and why I didn... Bucky Katt 01-24-03 90                    RE: Personal opinion and why I didn... samiam 01-24-03 92                        True enough AyaK 01-24-03 96                        RE: Personal opinion and why I didn... Bucky Katt 01-24-03 98                    RE: Personal opinion and why I didn... TechNoir 01-24-03 93                        RE: Personal opinion and why I didn... Bucky Katt 01-24-03 97                    Agree AyaK 01-24-03 94                        RE: Agree SherpaDave 01-24-03 95                            RE: Agree RudyRules 01-24-03 104                                Awwww!! Spidey 01-24-03 106        History Lesson dabo 01-24-03 81            RE: History Lesson samiam 01-24-03 84  RE: What a week this is Strider 01-23-03 18    RE: What a week this is desert_rhino 01-23-03 22        Hey, everyone! SherpaDave 01-23-03 23            RE: Hey, everyone! desert_rhino 01-23-03 24                RE: Hey, everyone! mistofleas 01-23-03 25                    RE: Hey, everyone! desert_rhino 01-23-03 27                        RE: Hey, everyone! SherpaDave 01-23-03 28                            RE: Hey, everyone! mistofleas 01-23-03 31                                RE: Hey, everyone! SherpaDave 01-23-03 33                                    RE: Hey, everyone! mistofleas 01-24-03 83                                        RE: Hey, everyone! SherpaDave 01-24-03 87                                            RE: Hey, everyone! mistofleas 01-24-03 89                                                RE: Hey, everyone! SherpaDave 01-24-03 91                                                    RE: Hey, everyone! mistofleas 01-24-03 99    RE: What a week this is Bucky Katt 01-23-03 35  I weep I_AM_HE 01-23-03 40    RE: I weep sittem 01-23-03 63  RE: What a week this is Esbea 01-23-03 51    RE: What a week this is Bucky Katt 01-23-03 53    RE: What a dry, dry week this is desert_rhino 01-23-03 64        RE: What a dry, dry week this is smiley 01-24-03 78            RE: What a dry, dry week this is dabo 01-24-03 79                RE: What a dry, dry week this is AMAI 01-24-03 80                    It's NEVER too late AyaK 01-24-03 100                    RE: What a dry, dry week this is mistofleas 01-24-03 101                        Don't tell me AyaK 01-24-03 102                            RE: Don't tell me SherpaDave 01-24-03 103                            RE: Don't tell me mistofleas 01-24-03 105                                RE: Don't tell me TechNoir 01-24-03 107

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-22-03, 08:23 AM (EST) 1. "RE: What a week this is" That's okay...in my state, until recently, MLK day was the same day as Lee-Jackson day (celebrating the Confederate war heroes); it was called Lee-Jackson-King day. Tell me that didn't make ALL of them roll in their graves. "Any idiot can face a crisis; it is this day-to-day living that wears you out." -- Chekhov   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 03:11 PM (EST) 12. "Very odd" Lee would've probably been OK with it --- but Stonewall Jackson wouldn't have been, since he hated blacks --- and, anyway, it's hard to think about Confederate war heroes without remembering that Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest founded the KKK after the war. Not very much in keeping with Dr. King's ideals, is it?   Top

Esbea 7377 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-22-03, 09:20 AM (EST) 2. "RE: What a week this is" "What a week to have where we can celebrate our rights and freedoms. I am proud that we can celebrate our freedoms." Well said! -Marchioness of Mischief, and Knower-of-All-Things   Top

dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-22-03, 10:25 AM (EST) 3. "RE: What a week this is" 'Ray for Roe v. Wade! Women always deserved the right to determine their own destiny in life, and moralistic dipshits who wished to keep them suppressed deserved to be defeated. It is not about the sanctity of life (which I totally adore) but about the liberty of the living to try to make the best of things in their lives. Self-determinatioin. I do not applaud abortion, it is a horrible thing, but the right of the individual is more important. If you can't get behind individualism you truly aren't in the American spirit, so there. That's my opinion. That said, I do believe that life is a wonderful thing, and anyone who can choose it definitely should. All things are transcient, after all. SMILES ARE FREE   Top

wendyp 2081 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Roller Coaster Inaugurator" 01-22-03, 10:43 AM (EST) 4. "RE: What a week this is" Thanks for the reminder Tish! Celebrating our Freedoms is a great thing. As long as we remember we have the freedom and use it wisely and effectively is the important thing.   Top

PleaseKillMe 44 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Beauty Pageant Celebrity Judge" 01-22-03, 12:02 PM (EST) 5. "RE: What a week this is" Thank God women no longer have to die in pain and fear after having back-alley abortions. Poor women, that is.   Top

L82LIFE 5333 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-22-03, 02:36 PM (EST) 6. "RE: What a week this is" You're so right, Trish. We are so lucky to be able to have the freedom of choice. We may have a lot of political and economical problems, but we still have it better than most Countries. WooHoo for us! LMAO at Sami's Lee-Jackson-King Day!   Top

RudyRules 8360 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 00:05 AM (EST) 7. "RE: What a week this is" OMH, Am I going to actually delve into this? SOMEONE STOP ME NOW!! Yes, Trish, Thank God for the freedoms we enjoy in this country. I appreciate you bringing this up. I do have a problem with Roe v. Wade however, and with being considered a "moralistic dipshit" because I don't support the wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn babies. I do not consider most women who have had abortions to be bad people, but people, in most cases, who felt trapped and that they had few options. That being said, even though I have somewhat libertarian leanings, I cannot condone what has happened in this country or the Supreme Court's "interpretation" of the constitution in this regard. They simply "found" a right to abortion where clearly none exists in the constitution. It should be left up to the states to make law in this regard and even though I personally believe it should be illegal except to save the life of the mother, I can live with the will of the people in individual states. Many people thought that abolitionists were "moralistic dipshits", after all it was an individual decision whether or not to own a slave. Hey, if you don't like it, you don't have to do it, right? This is the same thinking that pro-abortion forces use today. What needs to be understood is that most law is based on morality of some sort. Why not legalize murder or robbery or rape or animal abuse? Because the society has determined that these are immoral acts. Most Americans today, when polled in non-biased language, oppose abortion on demand. A fetus is NOT a blob of tissue. It is not the property of a woman. It is a living person albeit dependent on another person. BTW the early leaders of the women's suffarage/women's rights movement considered abortion to be horrendous. Medical science today continues to provide overwhelming evidence that these fetuses are capable of much feeling, movement, have heartbeats, etc...at an earlier stage than previously thought. There ARE alternatives to abortion. There are people waiting in line to adopt babies in this country. There are church and pro-life groups willing to give financial, emotional, and other support to women who find themselves in this very difficult position. Abortion often scars women emotionally and yes, even physically (even legal abortions). We need to help women prevent the need for abortion in the first place; failing that we as a society and as individuals need to look to take some responsibility and not look for the "easy" way out. Yes, there are inconviences involved in bringing a child to term, there is no disputing that, however much of life is inconvienent. OK, I put in my 2 cents worth since no one stopped me. I hope I haven't made too many enemies here. I know many of you will disagree with me and I respect your right to do so. I don't come to SB to be political. I enjoy ALL of you peeps here and feel really close to you. I just have very strong feelings on this subject and could not let it pass without saying something that I hope was of some value. Now let's share some group HIGS! "Them people had to be pretty dumb to make their camp in a riverbed." - Rudy Boesch   Top

LadyT 5567 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 00:36 AM (EST) 8. "RE: What a week this is" Thank you for your opinion but as I stated in my previous post, that regardless of what you believe, it is about women's rights. Without this case and however way it was ruled, it did a lot for women's rights. Women making fair wages, Female athletes getting the same consideration as male athletes, etc can all be tied back to this case. And the anniversary of this with MLK day and it is a hell of a great week for the rights and freedoms of all of us. I don't want this to turn into an abortion debate. I intended this thread to be a celebration of our rights and freedoms. Lets not let it turn ugly. Thanks   Top

SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 02:15 PM (EST) 10. "RE: What a week this is" Thank you for your opinion but as I stated in my previous post, that regardless of what you believe, it is about women's rights. I definitely don't want to get heavily into this. But for all the talk about women's rights, the abortion issue really is about more than women's rights. (First, note that I am pro-abortion.) I personally believe that the father's (or potential father's) rights are trampled upon in the abortion issue. I also think there is a double standard here: A woman can choose to have an abortion. The potential father has NO say-so, and his rights are completely disregarded. If he says "Have the baby, give it to me, I'll raise it.", the woman can say "Fvck you!" and go have the abortion. HOWEVER, what happens when the potential father says "Have an abortion" but the woman says "I'm having the baby." Not only does she have the baby, but she drags the man into court to pay child support for the baby HE wanted aborted but she didn't. Again, my issue in this is the DOUBLE STANDARD involved. SIDE NOTE: It has always been a source of wonderment how the Republican Party is anti-abortion and the Democrat Party is pro-choice. (And I am not just pro-choice, I am pro-abortion if the fetus cannot survive outside the womb with the best medical help). Logically, their positions should be reversed and **SLAP** DAWG! STOP TYPING!! NOW!!! Oops, sorry. Have a nice day. Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged   Top

samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 02:50 PM (EST) 11. "RE: What a week this is" A woman can choose to have an abortion. The potential father has NO say-so, and his rights are completely disregarded. If he says "Have the baby, give it to me, I'll raise it.", the woman can say "Fvck you!" and go have the abortion. I don't look at this as a double standard. If women had the ability to physically hand over the fetus to the man, and HE could carry it for nine months and give birth, then I would completely agree. But their positions are not equal in this matter, and possession is 9/10 of the law. AND, if it were men who actually carried the child, then I'd be fully supportive that he would have the final say on the matter. HOWEVER, what happens when the potential father says "Have an abortion" but the woman says "I'm having the baby." Not only does she have the baby, but she drags the man into court to pay child support for the baby HE wanted aborted but she didn't. And that's called BOTH parties taking responsibility for the potential outcome of their actions. If two people are going to have sex, then they need to realize that it could, in fact, produce a baby, and they need to be prepared to deal with that, whatever that decision looks like. For a woman, she better be prepared to go through the physical, mental, and emotional changes that come with either pregnancy or abortion. For a man, he better be prepared to shell out some dough for the kid he helped to create or to go through the pain of having a child he wanted to keep aborted. In either case, you've got one vote no and one vote yes. So how would you propose adjudicating that stalemate? "Any idiot can face a crisis; it is this day-to-day living that wears you out." -- Chekhov   Top

Bucky Katt 3146 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity" 01-23-03, 03:13 PM (EST) 13. "RE: What a week this is" If a woman chooses not to support her child she can have an abortion which is a completely legal medical procedure. If a man chooses not to support his child he is a deadbeat dad and often forced by law to support the child. No double standard? C'mon. The problem is that the remedies for getting rid of this double standard would only make things worse. Outlawing abortion isn't the answer and not forcing men to support their children would harm children the most. So it is a double standard that is the lesser of two evils. So what do we do? Simple - here is Bucky's plan: 1) Store and freeze the sperm or eggs of everyone in the population (once they reach physical maturity of course). 2) Sterilize eveyone. 3) If you want to have a child you go make one in the lab. So there - all our problems are solved. Vote Bucky for Supreme Ruler of Earth. "I resolve to constantly assert my honest opinion on anything and everything - whether it's requested or not."   Top

samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 03:54 PM (EST) 16. "RE: What a week this is" If a woman chooses not to support her child she can have an abortion which is a completely legal medical procedure. If a man chooses not to support his child he is a deadbeat dad and often forced by law to support the child. No double standard? C'mon. I'm not saying I think it's fair. I'm just saying that I think it's comparing apples to oranges. The problem is that the remedies for getting rid of this double standard would only make things worse. Outlawing abortion isn't the answer and not forcing men to support their children would harm children the most. So it is a double standard that is the lesser of two evils. True enough. But again, as I asked, when it's one vote to one vote, how do you break the stalemate? I mean, in an ideal world, this wouldn't be an issue, because everyone who created a child would do so in love and, as Dave said, would be able to respectfully and openly communicate with each other and arrive at a mutual decision. But it's not an ideal world. I mean, at least not until Bucky is voted Supreme Ruler of Earth. "Any idiot can face a crisis; it is this day-to-day living that wears you out." -- Chekhov   Top

SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 04:08 PM (EST) 17. "RE: What a week this is" I don't think it's apples and oranges, just a double standard as to women's vs. men's rights. A similar argument can be discussed in divorce cases, where a man is often financially destroyed after his wife leaves him, then sues for alimony and child support. I can cite examples and one (actually humorous) anectdotal (sp?) story, but I've already made my points in my post above. As to the "stalemate", once again: if the potential father says "Have the baby, give it to me, I'll take care of it", the judge could take that into consideration and deny the woman the abortion, then give the man custody when the child is born. (Obviously, the answer is that the Court, the judge, breaks the stalemate.) As to solutions, I heard this one, and the more I thought of it, it made sense: Tell girls, from high school age or whenever, that if they get pregnant, the man will NOT be held financially responsible. Tell them that the entire burden of that baby will be on the woman alone. Now before you smash the reply button, think of this... the girl (and this was really more for h.s. girls, not older women) would have to think about the consequences a little morebefore spreading her legs for her boyfriend... and just maybe she'll "just say no" and stop the potential abortion before it even happens. No, it's not a perfect solution (I'd rather the potential father have some say-so on whether HIS child could be aborted by the mother carrying it), but it's just one thing to think about. ...nuff said... Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged   Top

FesterFan1 5947 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 04:28 PM (EST) 19. "RE: What a week this is" It's really too impractical to put the burden of such a decision on the courts. For one thing, you're dealing with a defined and relatively narrow window in order to process such a case. Considering how overbooked courts are, there aren't any guarantees as to "due process" (please pardon the pun). Additionally, although it is bothersome to my sense of fairness, some things just aren't equitable. If children were created in Bucky's lab, they might be, but the truth is that they are housed within a human being until birth. That human being has certain unalienable rights, chief among them is sovereignty over her own body. It's one thing for the state to forbid a certain procedure, it's quite another to keep someone from exercising their rights because of a third party's interests. As to releasing men from all financial responsibility, do we really want that? First, it puts an undue amount of pressure on the girls/women who already bear most of it to begin with. Second, it won't cause boys/men to stop pushing for sex (unprotected, at that), it will only increase it. Third, it will put more and more girls/women in dire financial situations with absolutely ZERO recourse. The system is bad enough as it is. Why make it worse? The point of all of this is that the whole thing is unfair. I'm sure there are lots of single moms out there, who have been abandoned, who don't have a lot of time for men and their "needs". Fester   Top

Lisapooh 12664 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 05:23 PM (EST) 26. "RE: What a week this is" I'd like to meet one divorced mom who's standard of living didn't plummet in the immediate aftermath of a divorce. I wish I could have had her as a mentor. The noncustodial parent's (mostly men) standard of living generally increase after divorce - women's decrease. And in a typical working family, alimony doesn't happen - i don't know anyone who received it. Child support varies from state to state - here in Texas it's put at 17-20% of a man's income at the time of the arrangement. So, say a man impregnates a woman at 20 and is making 20k a year - that's the salary that determines his monthly child support obligation until the child is 18 and his burden is lifted - unless the woman incurs the cost of taking him back to court to modify the decree. I know what I received in child support for my toddler didn't come close to covering day care - let alone the other expenses. And that was when I received my court-mandated child support (which wasn't very often). Don't even get me started on how difficult it is to enforce child support orders. And I just don't follow the logic of this remedy for unplanned pregnancies. The solution is to encourage the girls/women to not "spread their legs" and absolve men/boys of any financial responsibility for their actions? First of all, no one should underestimate the importance of a father figure in a child's life. This kind of risk-free reproduction for men almost certainly would decrease the number of young men who play a role in their children's lives. How can this do anything but encourage young men to put more pressure on girls to have sex before they are ready? They are equal partners in the act, but not equal partners in the consequence? How can young, unwed girls who decide to have and raise a child of an unplanned pregnancy ever hope to educate themselves enough to make a decent living? Why condemn the children and the mother to a life of poverty and let the boy go on his merry way? Because the girl should know better than to "spread her legs"? Shouldn't the boy know better than to "whip it out"? I have an acquaintance who fathered a child out of wedlock with a girl he barely knew. He didn't even know she had had a child until she applied for state assistance when the baby was 2 or 3. The state is compelled - and rightly so - to go after the father. The state went after him - the mother didn't. This guy had no interest in knowing or seeing the child - and the mother didn't want him in the baby's life either. His child support goes back retroactively - he was also granted visitation which he has absolutely no interest in. He would go on and on all the time about how unfair it was. How he made one mistake. I guess the pregnancy was the mistake - he certainly had unprotected, casual sex with women before without any guilt. No "one mistake" about it. I just don't feel much sympathy for him. He had unprotected sex with someone he barely knew and did not care about with no regard for the consequences. As far as I'm concerned both the mother and the father are idiots. As I told him, I hope the sex was good - it cost you $90,000. The only sympathetic one in this is the child - and if you absolve men of responsibility for their own actions, you further punish those children.   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 05:29 PM (EST) 29. "RE: What a week this is" Om mane padme pooh.   Top

desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 05:33 PM (EST) 30. "RE: What a week this is" LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 05:37 PM (EST) >I'd like to meet one divorced >mom who's standard of living >didn't plummet in the immediate >aftermath of a divorce. I >wish I could have had >her as a mentor. {raises hand} You can have my ex-wife as a mentor... Dog save you, but you can sure have her. >The noncustodial parent's (mostly men) >standard of living generally increase >after divorce - women's decrease. if you replace the word "women's," above, with "custodial parent's," I'll agree wholeheartedly. >And in a typical working >family, alimony doesn't happen >- i don't know anyone >who received it. Agreed. (whups, forgot that I do know of one case of at least temporary spousal support) > Child support >varies from state to state >- here in Texas it's >put at 17-20% of a >man's income at the time >of the arrangement. Here, it's revisited every few years, and is based on a table of "expected expenses" which is indexed by combined income. Each party is then responsible for (their income/combined income) fraction of the amount listed in the chart. My ex-wife pays about $135 per week for 2 children, and is making about $40k. sooo... 17.5% But don't get me started... I have my own set of gripes about the current system... -- jv   Top

Lisapooh 12664 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:17 PM (EST) 37. "RE: What a week this is" LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 07:04 PM (EST) I thought it was implied that I meant custodial vs. noncustodial all the way through, but I see it wasn't. I jsut get all "writerly" and dont' want to repeat things. You and Supa Dupa are living proof that custodial fathers have as much of a beef as custodial mothers. And Sherps said it again too below. It is the custodial parent that gets royally screwed by the system. edited because man I'm being way to open today!   Top

L82LIFE 5333 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:36 PM (EST) 43. "RE: What a week this is" This is interesting considering the fact that my brother just called me to tell me about his court appearance today against his EX. He's the custodial parent, she has 5 other kids, all but one who live with their fathers(4 different fathers!). His X will get a job, and as soon as they attach her wages, she quits and goes back on welfare with the one child she has at home. She took him to court today to ask the courts to wipe out all her back pay and reduce her current debt to $150.00 a month. My brother agreed to the $150.00, but refused to wipe the back pay he was owed. The judge told her that if she fails to pay him this time, she'll go to jail. My brother is hoping that the reduced amount will keep her in a job and paying. It sucks for anybody to have to go through this. Man or woman. The custodial parent has so much to deal with as it is with schoolwork, emotional problems, etc., that to make them have to worry about financial problems too is NOT beneficial to the child. Hopefully, we will find some sort of a solution to the problem, but I'm not overly optomistic.   Top

Lisapooh 12664 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:59 PM (EST) 47. "RE: What a week this is" LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 07:02 PM (EST) L8 - what a nightmare! It is such an imperfect system. The irresponsible parent is rewarded for their actions - it is so hard to get anything done. And you are right - it's not just the financial issues - it's joint parenting when the parents have different values, rules and lifestyles. It's so many things and it takes such a huge toll on a parent emotionally, which adversely affects the children too. I can't offer any solutions - but man, can I articulate the problems! From what I've heard, they can't deduct the money from an unemploymeent check for child support unless the custodial parent receives welfare. I'm kind of hazy on this because it doesn't apply to me, but that's the reason I was told my ex's unemployment check wouldn't be automatically garnished. The only reason my ex is paying me from unemployment is because he is already on probation for nonpayment and his probation officer has been leaning on him. edited for overshare - y'all know too much about me already!   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 07:13 PM (EST) 54. "Agree" To be serious for a moment... Having him put in jail doesn't get my daughter her child support. But, man - I would like to. NOT having him put in jail sends your daughter the message that people don't have to live up to their responsibilities. This isn't personal -- it's strictly business. I don't want another check from an outside source - he should face the consequences of his actions. Part of this feels selfish to me too - like it shouldn't matter where the money came from as long as it benefits my daughter. Maybe I'm just gonna have to live with feeling selfish. Lawyers always tell clients not to worry about the source of funds -- when you're getting paid, you're ahead. There was a scene in a Paul Newman movie (he was playing a lawyer) where the party that he was suing offered him a somewhat insufficient settlement, and he turns it down with the words, "No, I'm going to win this case." I was watching the movie with another lawyer, and we independently broke up laughing at this line. When you get paid, you win. It would be nice to get the other side to suffer, too, but getting paid is enough. It's not the least bit selfish to demand what you're entitled to receive.   Top

Lisapooh 12664 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 10:13 PM (EST) 62. "RE: Agree" Thanks AK - my pride does tend to get the best of me at times - it would be stupid of me not to accept a lump sum from his family - the money is owed to us and I shouldn't care where it comes from. If they hadn't cleaned up his messes in the past, we probably wouldn't be here though. And my daughter has no idea that he doesn't pay child support - she won't hear it from me. She knows he doesn't work but makes no correlation between the two. She's way too young to understand it. And I really think it's better that she doesn't know. When she is older and when she asks me about things that happened, I won't lie to her. But, for now, I'm not gonna burden her with that. She's got her whole life to decide for herself what kind of a person her father is, and I'm not gonna complicate it by coloring her perceptions with mine. I am gonna go forward with the court date though - I have nothing to lose. Thanks!   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:35 PM (EST) 42. "Clinical" say a man impregnates a woman at 20 What a clinical description! It's technically accurate, of course, but it leaves out all the emotion, hormones, etc. that both parties bring to the situation. Ahh, if life were this clinical, we'd all have the families that we wanted on the timetables that we anticipated. But it's not. And an aside to Dawg ... Abstinence may have been Nancy Reagan's solution to the "pregnancy problem" ... but it's widely known that Nancy and Ronnie didn't "abstain" during Ronnie's divorce. I think that's one of those "easier said than done" solutions.   Top

SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 08:23 PM (EST) 58. "RE: Clinical" LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 08:25 PM (EST) but it's widely known that Nancy and Ronnie didn't "abstain" during Ronnie's divorce. An aside to AyaK: Ya know, thinking of Nancy and Ronnie having sex is kinda like... thinking of your parents having sex. Anyways, I was just making one singular point, and I think I've made it. Luv those singular points... Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged   Top

samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 04:39 PM (EST) 20. "RE: What a week this is" LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 04:52 PM (EST) Tell them that the entire burden of that baby will be on the woman alone. Now before you smash the reply button, think of this... the girl (and this was really more for h.s. girls, not older women) would have to think about the consequences a little morebefore spreading her legs for her boyfriend... and just maybe she'll "just say no" and stop the potential abortion before it even happens. Last time I checked, it takes two to make a baby. That's like saying the entire burden for birth control in any situation falls on the woman. And then it follows that if, in fact, the man is willing to abdicate all responsibility for birth control and place it entirely in her control, why should the woman then be expected to give up that control because he didn't like the outcome of the decision-making he left up to her? Why not do it the other way? Why not tell all the boys that the entire burden of the baby will be on them -- the girl will carry it, but then the guy will be responsible for raising the baby all alone. Wouldn't that help HS boys to keep their wankers in their pants? Or is it completely incomprehensible that the BOYS be taught "no" as well? Edited to add: A similar argument can be discussed in divorce cases, where a man is often financially destroyed after his wife leaves him, then sues for alimony and child support. I can cite numerous studies that will tell you that in an overwhelming majority of cases, it's the woman who is left financially worse off after a divorce, especially when there are children involved (I will amend this to say that whoever ends up with physical custody of the children bears the highest financial burden, whether that be the father or the mother; but it's usually the mother). And alimony is actually pretty rarely given out these days, except in certain circumstances. Child support is determined according to state-instituted guidelines based on the relative incomes of both parties. In a situation where the gentleman in question has oodles of money, and the woman wants 1.2 million dollars a month...well, that's ridiculous, but maybe they shoulda signed a prenup. "Any idiot can face a crisis; it is this day-to-day living that wears you out." -- Chekhov   Top

mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 04:48 PM (EST) 21. "RE: What a week this is" THANK YOU Sami!! Exactly what I was typing out this very moment. I justed deleted it all and I'll let your words stand. --   Top

Bucky Katt 3146 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity" 01-23-03, 05:43 PM (EST) 32. "RE: What a week this is" I agree with you too on these points. Well stated. "I resolve to constantly assert my honest opinion on anything and everything - whether it's requested or not."   Top

SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 05:45 PM (EST) 34. "RE: What a week this is" Last time I checked, it takes two to make a baby. You make my double-standard point exactly. It takes TWO to make that baby. When it comes to responsibility, it's remembered and acknowledged that the man is definitely involved, and it's brought up that it took his sperm to create the baby;, HOWEVER, when it comes to questions of "rights" or "choices", then suddenly the man's involvement in making that baby is conveniently and totally forgotten. When it comes to the question of abortion/having the baby, the man has no say AT ALL. But when it comes to paying... ah, different story. That is a clear double-standard, and that is my point here. Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:06 PM (EST) 36. "RE: What a week this is" So... just to clarify... the baby comes to term. The woman raises the baby. The man is forced to pay child support. We agree on this so far, right? And the woman who is raising the child pays no child support at all? If I'm not mistaken, I think that's where you believe the double standard lies. If you honestly believe that the woman puts no money into the raising of the child, then I guess I see your point. Unfortunately, your belief that the woman incurs no expenses in raising the child alone is... well... really, really, really wrong. If that's not your belief, then you're also absolutely correct. There's a massive double standard regarding which parent pays more money into the raising of a child by a single parent. The parent with custody pays considerably more (thanks, JV, for being a living illustration that this cuts across gender lines, and for being an outstanding father). Dawg, you're right about there being a double standard, but it's not 100% gender-based. The custodial parent is royally screwed financially. The fact that in most cases, it's the woman who has custody just means that typically, it's the woman who carries the higher financial burden. Seriously, I know I've been more than a bit sarcastic above, but please show me where the man (again, assuming he's not granted custody, because I think that's another of your beefs--that generally, the man doesn't receive custody) is financially penalized worse than the woman. Criminals From the Neck Up   Top

SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:22 PM (EST) 39. "RE: What a week this is" LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 06:25 PM (EST) Your message (No. 36) bears NO relation to what I am saying in Message 34. What I am saying is this: 1. If a woman wants an abortion, but the father wants her to carry the baby to term (he'll pay all medical costs), and he'll take custody of the child upon birth and raise it (all at his expense), she can tell him where to go and have the abortion. He has NO say in the matter. 2. It took two to tango, and she got pregnant. Maybe she told him she was on the pill. Maybe the condom leaked. Doesn't matter: she's pregnant. He doesn't want to pay any child support, so he wants her to have an abortion. She, however, wants to have the baby. When she has it, she can and will drag the father into court to pay child support. His opinion at the time of consideration of an abortion is ignored. In cases 1 and 2 above, the woman has all the say-so, the man none. When we were talking child support above, Sami was quick to remind us that it took both the man and the woman to have a child. True enough (well, there was this one case about 2000 years ago, but I digress...). HOWEVER, when it comes to the woman wanting the abortion and the man wanting to have the baby, everyone quickly and conveniently forgets that it took two to tango and it took both parents to make that baby. ONLY the woman's wishes are considered. And that is a double standard. And that is what I was saying in Message 34. (the other portions you bring up about who is penalized worse financially was NOT AT ALL the point of my Message 34; it is a separate issue and we can have another discussion of that at another time...) ...is finished making his point. Good night. Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:45 PM (EST) 44. "Ham and eggs" LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 07:53 PM (EST) Dawg, your point is right, but it's a logical aftermath of the biology of the situation. The man's involvement is fleeting (sometimes too fleeting, but I digress ) -- and yet biology dictates that this level of involvement is all that's required. The woman's involvement is not fleeting -- she's the one that biology turns into a breeding factory for nine months. In other words, the man is involved, but the woman is committed. Do you know the best example of the difference between those words? It's ham and eggs. The chicken is involved. The pig is committed. Biology dictates these different levels, and to ignore the biology makes no sense at all to me. Therefore, the party with the longest biological commitment should also have the longest window to make a decision about whether to become a parent. Biology: love it or leave it!   Top

samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:19 PM (EST) 38. "RE: What a week this is" Well, then perhaps that man needs to be a little more keenly aware of how the woman feels about the pregnancy/abortion issue, and have discussed it with her. And if he disagrees with the choice that she would make, then maybe he should take his sperm elsewhere. And if they're not comfortable having that discussion, what are they doing having sex in the first place? I will say this again: If one is going to have sex, one should be aware of all possible consequences and be prepared to accept them. And that means, if you're male, that you do not have the final say over what happens to the baby. If you can't accept that, don't have sex. But you bring me back to my original question. If he votes yes and she votes no, who decides? You're going to give up your personal freedom and put the decision in the hands of the Government or the flawed legal system? The Court is going to rule that she has to have an abortion or she has to bear the child because that's what the father wants? People seek asylum in the United States for exactly that reason, and we give it to them. As far as I'm concerned, it's the woman who would have to physically go through the abortion or the pregnancy/birth, so she gets the final say. Is it totally fair and equal? Nope. Sorry. But I think the double-standard is the lesser of evils. "Any idiot can face a crisis; it is this day-to-day living that wears you out." -- Chekhov   Top

SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:34 PM (EST) 41. "RE: What a week this is" I'm debating this far more than I intended. First, a double standard is wrong, period. If it's a matter of a man paid more than a woman for doing the same work, we'd all be quick to point out that this double standard is wrong. So why should we accept a double standard in other areas? I don't think we should. Second, as you (Sami) reminded us above, it took TWO to make that baby. Just because the woman carries it should not be cause to conveniently forget that it took the man's sperm (and sexual effort, not to mention paying for dinner ) to create the baby. So I don't accept that the woman carries the child as enough to negate what should be the man's rights. Blame God and Nature for the way babies are created. Last, I don't see anyplace but a Court as the place to resolve such a dispute. In my Objectivist philosophy, Courts Of Law *are* legitimate functions of government, and are there to resolve disputes like this. Yes, they are presently flawed (and I'm pointing out one such flaw in all this argument). As to "giving up personal freedom", it's not doing so to bring a dispute before said Court. Last, my point is that the woman's right to an abortion should NOT be absolute BECAUSE I believe the father should have some say-so and rights, as well. Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:48 PM (EST) 45. "Difference" Blame God and Nature for the way babies are created. As I say above, I don't want to blame anyone. I like the way babies are created. But I also don't think it makes any sense to try to legislate away the biological differences. Do you?   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:51 PM (EST) 46. "RE: What a week this is" Okay. So each individual case where there is dispute regarding the fate of the unborn child should go before the courts. Check. On a case by case basis, both the would-be father and mother present their cases and the court decides the fate of the unborn child. Check. It seems to me that this would take the decision-making capabilities away from BOTH parents even moreso than the current system, wouldn't it? Too much would depend on any given judge who, if it's a fair and impartial hearing, would have no emotional ties to either parent (nor, one would assume, to a position regarding the entire abortion debate, an interesting figure to try to find). I'm sorry, but for me, there are some things that I don't want to be made quite so impersonal, and this one of them. I actually do understand your point here, but I disagree with it and find it just a little too Orwellian for my personal tastes. Criminals From the Neck Up   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 07:00 PM (EST) 49. "More power (and money) for lawyers!" You know, anything that gives lawyers more power and money sounds like a pretty good idea to me ... Lawyers rule!   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 07:04 PM (EST) 52. "RE: More power (and money) for lawyers!" LOL. I actually refrained from mentioning that, but it wasn't easy. Criminals From the Neck Up   Top

mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 12:14 PM (EST) 85. "RE: More power (and money) for lawyers!" Lawyers rule! As Erin Brocovich said: "Me a lawyer? Hell no, I hate lawyers, I just work for them." --bound to the wheel of justice since 1996   Top

Esbea 7377 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:59 PM (EST) 48. "RE: What a week this is" When the stigma attached to being pregnant(or having impregnated someone) and unwed, and then "abandoning" your baby is the same for men as it is for women, then perhaps there will be an answer to your "double standard" issue. Esbea   Top

samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 07:01 PM (EST) 50. "RE: What a week this is" And as I said above, when it comes to pass that a woman is able to transfer a fetus to a man, and he is able to carry and deliver a child, or go through an abortion himself, then I will be more than willing to give him equal say. But as it is, the woman bears the larger total burden in cases of both abortion and pregnancy, so she gets a proportionate share of the power in decision-making. It is, in fact, unequal. I don't consider sexual effort and minor wallet-opening to be in any way equal work to carrying, bearing, and actually raising a child. So I don't accept that the woman carries the child as enough to negate what should be the man's rights. And I don't accept that a man's indiscriminate placing of his DNA (and/or the contents of his wallet) should negate what should be the woman's rights. (Okay, ideally, as I said, this should be a decision arrived at between two people mutually supporting one another. I support people making JOINT decisions...but when there is disagreement, I think that the final choice should come down to the woman.) "Any idiot can face a crisis; it is this day-to-day living that wears you out." -- Chekhov   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 08:02 PM (EST) 55. "Indiscriminate?" >And I don't accept that a man's indiscriminate placing of his >DNA (and/or the contents of his wallet) should negate what >should be the woman's rights. Actually, I think most men are pretty discriminating about where they place their DNA, and most women are pretty discriminating about what DNA is placed there.... Isn't that the appeal of 'The Bachelor', 'The Bachelorette' and 'Joe Millionaire' -- to watch the discrimination and second-guess it?   Top

samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 08:15 PM (EST) 56. "RE: Indiscriminate?" Ah. By "indiscriminate" I meant those who did not choose to have the responsible, adult discussion about birth control/pregnancy/abortion before they had sex and instead stuck to "I bought you dinner, now you owe me sex...what's your last name again?" My point was that if one is discriminating *enough* one would hopefully not come up against the dilemmas we've been discussing. And those three shows hold absolutely no appeal for me, actually. I find them morally bankrupt and ethically unsound. Plus, none of the guys are hot.   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 08:18 PM (EST) 57. "Next on the Bachelor" Watch as Sami vies for the affections of this guy.   Top

samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 08:27 PM (EST) 60. "RE: Next on the Bachelor" *swoon* Back off, girls! He's MINE! Next time, on "the Geeky Bachelor"...   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 08:26 PM (EST) 59. "OK" I also haven't watched any of the dating shows. I watch enough matchmaking going on around here.   Top

SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 08:31 PM (EST) 61. "RE: Indiscriminate?" Actually, I think most men are pretty discriminating about where they place their DNA, Speaking strictly in biological terms, I must disagree with the above statement. Why am I reminded of that commercial where Daisy Fuentes says "Like men CARE...!" ...like men CARE... Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged   Top

TechNoir 9741 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 11:38 PM (EST) 70. "RE: Indiscriminate?" sigh ... and I've done such a good job of staying out of this, too I think most men are pretty discriminating about where they place their DNA, and most women are pretty discriminating about what DNA is placed there I know you think this. Most of this thread-jacking is about what folks think of a recreational sex and accidental pregnancy. And it may be true that men are discriminating, even though I haven't noticed that particular trend. However women aren't always fortunate enough to have that luxury. We seem to have totally forgotten, or chosen to ignore, that among those seeking abortions are more than a few women (yes WOMEN ... not men, just women ... this isn't an equal deal) who were raped, incest victims, women who find out they have cancer during a pregnancy, and all manner of other people who might be making an abortion decision for very serious reasons. And who couldn't have solved the problem with abstinance, the current mantra, or even Nancy's "just say no" philosophy. (Yeah I know it was drugs, but she meant sex too.) If you just turn your thinking slightly sideways and consider a rape victim or a 10 year old incest victim, you might come to different conclusions.   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 02:23 AM (EST) 77. "Huh?" My comment had nothing to do with the discussion on abortion and everything to do with threadjacking. Threadjacking is an underutilized skill. However, I find myself mystified by this comment of yours: If you just turn your thinking slightly sideways and consider a rape victim or a 10 year old incest victim, you might come to different conclusions. Since I'm pro-choice, as I think is clear from my posts on this thread when I'm not trying to threadjack it, I don't see how considering "turning my thinking slightly sideways" in the manner you suggest would make me pro-life.   Top

mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 10:30 AM (EST) 82. "RE: Huh?" Threadjacking is an underutilized skill. Heh!! --hijacking since Feb. 2001   Top

LadyT 5567 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 00:45 AM (EST) 74. "RE: What a week this is" >Tell girls, from high school age >or whenever, that if they >get pregnant, the man will >NOT be held financially responsible. > Tell them that the >entire burden of that baby >will be on the woman >alone. Now before you >smash the reply button, think >of this... the girl (and >this was really more for >h.s. girls, not older women) >would have to think about >the consequences a little morebefore >spreading her legs for her >boyfriend... and just maybe she'll >"just say no" and stop >the potential abortion before it >even happens. > Ok Trish Breathe Deep How about for the men to keep their fly shut? And if your scenario were to ever happen, wouldn't you expect to see these girls, who would be scared shitless to have back alley abortions? Ok Trish Exhale...   Top

Spidey 6259 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 01:58 PM (EST) 9. "RE: What a week this is" >They >simply "found" a right to >abortion where clearly none exists >in the constitution. In truth, that is how most of our constitutional rights have come about. And it is a constitutional right to privacy in intimate matters and self-determination, not abortion per se. Further, some constitutional scholars have speculated that to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will (regardless of the outcome, i.e. adoption) amounts to an involuntary servitude, abolished by the 13th amendment. >What needs to be understood is >that most law is based >on morality of some sort. > Why not legalize murder >or robbery or rape or >animal abuse? Because the >society has determined that these >are immoral acts. Because the same is NOT true as far as abortion is concerned. Most >Americans today, when polled in >non-biased language, oppose abortion on >demand. Technically, this is true, but few (if any) states provide "abortion on demand" Actually, the majority of Americans polled (almost the same percentange as when Roe was decided) believe abortion should be legal, with some restrictions (no partial birth, late abortions only for health/life of mother, etc.) Most of these restrictions are in place in many states. >There are people waiting in >line to adopt babies in >this country. Healthy white babies, yes. Not so much for the other ones, especially once they are no longer babies. Ever checked out an inner city foster care docket? >We need to >help women prevent the need >for abortion in the first >place; Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Which is why I am so boggled that there isn't more support for contraceptive education from those who are anit-choice. Also, it astounds me that many insurance plans cover abortions (yes, they do!) but don't cover the pill. How does this make any sense? >OK, I put in my 2 >cents worth since no one >stopped me. I hope >I haven't made too many >enemies here. Not me, anyway. Always love a good discussion and I respect everyone's views. An IceCat Original, 2002 Eagles sigpic stays up til after the Super Bowl. Devastation does not equal humiliation.   Top

RudyRules 8360 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 10:44 PM (EST) 65. "RE: What a week this is" LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 10:46 PM (EST) First of all, with regard to some of the other discussion: A non-custodial parent who doesn't pay child support as ordered is a skunk! (No offense meant Pepe!) Regarding the above comments made by Spidey: In truth, that is how most of our constitutional rights have come about. And it is a constitutional right to privacy in intimate matters and self-determination, not abortion per se. That doesn't make it right. The founders said what they meant and meant what they said. Technically, this is true, but few (if any) states provide "abortion on demand" Actually, the majority of Americans polled (almost the same percentange as when Roe was decided) believe abortion should be legal, with some restrictions (no partial birth, late abortions only for health/life of mother, etc.) Most of these restrictions are in place in many states. Most Americans polled in atraightforward questioning oppose abortion being legal as indicated in the following poll taken in May of 1999: A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows what Gallup polls have been showing since 1975: Most Americans take a pro-life position even if they do not call themselves "pro-life." The poll reveals that only one in four Americans, 27%, say abortions should be legal under any circumstances. The rest all take one of two pro-life positions: 16% say abortions should be illegal in all circumstances; and 55% say abortion should be legal only under certain rare circumstances, such as rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Overall, 71% of Americans oppose 97% or more of all abortions in the United States. More than six in 10, 61%, say they favor making partial-birth abortions illegal, up from 55% two years ago. Support for keeping partial-birth abortions legal has dropped from 40% to 34% in the same period. Other polls have shown as many as 80% support making partial-birth abortions illegal. >What needs to be understood is >that most law is based >on morality of some sort. > Why not legalize murder >or robbery or rape or >animal abuse? Because the >society has determined that these >are immoral acts. Because the same is NOT true as far as abortion is concerned. No, the majority has deemed abortion to be immoral, reference the polling data referred to above. And, even if it weren't true, does that mean when abolitionists were in the minority they shouldn't have spoken out? When civil rights and women's suffarge supporters were in the minority that they shouldn't have worked for justice? When an individual has a clear conviction that something is morally reprehensible, that individual has the right, perhaps even the duty to work to change the situation. Further, some constitutional scholars have speculated that to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will (regardless of the outcome, i.e. adoption) amounts to an involuntary servitude, abolished by the 13th amendment. Some "scholars" have WAY too much time on their hands! >OK, I put in my 2 >cents worth since no one >stopped me. I hope >I haven't made too many >enemies here. Not me, anyway. Always love a good discussion and I respect everyone's views Thanks Spidey, as do I. "Them people had to be pretty dumb to make their camp in a riverbed." - Rudy Boesch   Top

desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 10:57 PM (EST) 66. "RE: What a week this is" LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 11:00 PM (EST) The whole POINT of making this lovely place we call "the homeland" a REPUBLIC and not a DEMOCRACY is that a REPUBLIC protects the rights of the unpopular minority. I'm shocked that you'd be saying that the Founding Fathers meant what they said and said what they meant, and then turn around and imply that the majority is always right. Just my tiny little observation in this vast ethical slough. -- JV oops. damn typos   Top

RudyRules 8360 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 11:11 PM (EST) 67. "RE: What a week this is" LAST EDITED ON 01-24-03 AT 08:37 PM (EST) LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 11:38 PM (EST) In NO way do I beilieve that the majority is always right. I was trying to show that the majority of Americans favor outlawing most abortion in response to another poster. I was also trying to express that the majority is NOT always right when I referred to the abolitionists, women's rights supporters, civil rights marchers, and so on.. in the early days of those movements. Our system is not perfect but it is the best one around that I know of. Unfortunately the courts have sometimes "Made" law rather than interpreting the constition as stated. Thank God we have a Republic and not a true Democracy where the whim of popular opinion could take away one's rights in a heartbeat! (Edited 'cause I need to learn to type!) "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Elizabeth Cady Stanton - 1873   Top

samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 11:12 PM (EST) 68. "RE: What a week this is" When civil rights and women's suffarge supporters were in the minority that they shouldn't have worked for justice? When an individual has a clear conviction that something is morally reprehensible, that individual has the right, perhaps even the duty to work to change the situation. I feel the need to point out that if you take the stand that the Founders "meant what they said and said what they meant," that you then have to take into account that they never intended women's suffrage or civil rights to be a part of society. Times change. Society changes. The Constitution, the wonderful, fluid document that it is, reflects these changes. (See Prohibition, and repeal of same). And I totally agree with you that "when an individual has a clear conviction that something is morally reprehensible, that individual has the right, perhaps even the duty to work to change the situtation." It's just that there are some of us who feel that justice includes a woman's right to decide what becomes of her body, and we will continue to work for that. Although Hamilton kicks Jefferson's ass   Top

RudyRules 8360 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 11:33 PM (EST) 69. "RE: What a week this is" LAST EDITED ON 01-24-03 AT 08:33 PM (EST) LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 11:43 PM (EST) LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 11:34 PM (EST) "When civil rights and women's suffarge supporters were in the minority that they shouldn't have worked for justice? When an individual has a clear conviction that something is morally reprehensible, that individual has the right, perhaps even the duty to work to change the situation." I feel the need to point out that if you take the stand that the Founders "meant what they said and said what they meant," that you then have to take into account that they never intended women's suffrage or civil rights to be a part of society. Times change. Society changes. The Constitution, the wonderful, fluid document that it is, reflects these changes. (See Prohibition, and repeal of same). I believe the founders DID mean for there to be changes when needed, they did not want the Constitution to be completely static, nor do I. The Constitution DOES reflect those changes because there are built in mechanisms for changing that wonderful document! The founders put the ability to amend it in place and thank God for that! I am merely saying that reading into the Constitution things that are not there is intellectually dishonest. If you don't like the law or the wording of the Constitution there are ways to change it. (e.g. the repeal of Prohibition as well as the 19th amendment) And I totally agree with you that "when an individual has a clear conviction that something is morally reprehensible, that individual has the right, perhaps even the duty to work to change the situtation." It's just that there are some of us who feel that justice includes a woman's right to decide what becomes of her body, and we will continue to work for that. And I wholeheartedly support your right to do so, even if I disagree! edited for typo. "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Elizabeth Cady Stanton - 1873   Top

TechNoir 9741 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 00:08 AM (EST) 71. "RE: What a week this is" You said the majority has deemed abortion to be immoral, reference the polling data referred to above Nope, the data don't say that. You inferred that the majority deem it immoral. The polls did not say that at all. Here's some more data: POLL 1 According to a year 2000 Gallup Poll: Most American adults (51%) currently believe that abortions should be legal under some circumstances. 28% believe that abortions should be legal under all circumstances. 19% believe that they should be always illegal -- apparently even to save the life of the woman. The same poll reveals that 50% of adults identify themselves as pro-choice; 40% as pro-life. POLL 2 A Reuters News report for 2003-JAN-23 summarized what it called a "new" ABC News - Washington Post poll of American adults which showed: A majority -- 57% -- favor abortion rights in all or most cases; this compares to 59% in 2001.   Top

RudyRules 8360 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 01:20 PM (EST) 86. "RE: What a week this is" LAST EDITED ON 01-24-03 AT 07:46 PM (EST) You inferred that the majority deem it immoral. The polls did not say that at all. Yes, I made that inference. I think it is a fair inference, especially since so many people claim that they are morally opposed to abortion but don'e want to make it illegal for others. OK, In a Jan 15-16 2003 Harris poll the majority, 57%, believe that abortion should be illegal in most cases broken down as follows: 15%: should be illegal under ANY circumstance. 42%: Should be illegal except when a woman's life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. As to the polling, a LOT depends on the wording of the questions. I believe it is fair to say the majority of Americans beileve abortion to be wrong in MOST situations. Once again, whether the majority believes it to be wrong or right is NOT the main issue, the main issue is the truth and the willingness to fight for one's beliefs to ensure that the civil rights of all people, including the defenseless, are upheld. "Them people had to be pretty dumb to make their camp in a riverbed." - Rudy Boesch   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 03:26 PM (EST) 14. "Roe v. Wade" As Dan Quayle might have said, "Roe versus Wade? That's a choice of ways to cross a river, isn't it?" Someday, we'll have to discuss the right of privacy, which traces its origins to an early-1900s law review article by Harvard Law professor (and later Supreme Court justice) Louis Brandeis, who was very rich and very socially prominent. He imagined the right as a means of preventing the newspapers of the day from reporting on his private life. (Bill Clinton would've loved it.)   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 03:34 PM (EST) 15. "Personal opinion and why I didn't weigh in before..." LAST EDITED ON 01-23-03 AT 03:37 PM (EST) Personally, I'd like every person not specifically involved in a given case to stay the hell out of it. I used to extend the invitation to shut up only to men (and to myself, by extension), but since women on either side can be equally screechy without being involved in a case-by-case basis, I'd invite them to do the same. If it's not my creation on the line, I'd feel like one hell of a pompous ass telling the mother or the father what they should or should not do. Do I have personal feelings about abortion? You bet your sweet ass I do. And I'd like to think that any relationship that I'd ever enter to the extent that conception happened had enough love in it that a) we'd want the child, and b) even if we didn't, we'd be able to lovingly communicate to one another exactly what is the best option for all parties involved. But for all the relationships in the world that resulted in conception in which I had no part, I'm keeping my nose out of it. That's between the parents and whichever God they might worship. Edit: sorry for the rant, T. I know that's not what you wanted in this thread. Hallelujah for American freedoms! Especially, perhaps, for the freedom of speech that allows us to discuss issues like this. Yay! Criminals From the Neck Up   Top

TechNoir 9741 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 00:10 AM (EST) 72. "RE: Personal opinion and why I didn't weigh in before..." Thank you, thank you, thank you. I've always had a little trouble imagining how Clarence Thomas might get the right to say what I can do with my body. Damn right it is about choice.   Top

LadyT 5567 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 00:40 AM (EST) 73. "RE: Personal opinion and why I didn't weigh in before..." >Edit: sorry for the rant, T. >I know that's not what >you wanted in this thread. >Hallelujah for American freedoms! Especially, >perhaps, for the freedom of >speech that allows us to >discuss issues like this. Yay! > > Thats ok. In a way, it strengthened my point about the freedoms that we do have. Like Speech. I am kinda shocked that I sparked so much discussions. I just didn't want to get into a big thing. Now I know better.   Top

Naked 887 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Fitness Correspondent" 01-24-03, 01:59 AM (EST) 75. "RE: Personal opinion and why I didn't weigh in before..." Dave, I have been in so many arguments about this subject, that I usually stay out of it. It is a very heated argument on both sides, and people feel very passionate about it. I had decided to not respond to this thread so as not to bring up any animosity with anyone, but I do want to respond to this statement. Personally, I'd like every person not specifically involved in a given case to stay the hell out of it. This is a common saying for those who believe that abortion is just about a right of a woman to decide what she will and won't do with her own body. If that was all that it was, the I would agree with you wholeheartedly. My personal belief is that there is another human being involved with the decision. I believe that abortion is killing an inocent living person. That belief pretty much sums up the pro-life movement. If a person feels that lives are being taken by the process of abortion, then they have every right to stand up and declare that the practice is wrong. Not only do they have the right to speak out aginst it, but I beleive that they have a moral responsibility to speak against it. To not do so would equate to particapating in the wrongdoing. Personally, I do not equate those who have had abortions as murderers. I am not a lunatic that wants to kill abortion Doctors and blow up clinics. I am just a guy with the belief that we, as a society have lost far too many lives because killing our unborn has become far too easy. In the 30 year history of Roe vs Wade, there have been over 50,000,000 abortions preformed in the United States acording to reports of Planned Parenthood. If you belive that a fetus is a living being, then that is 50,000,000 brothers and sisters that we will never meet. I can not be silent.   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 02:21 AM (EST) 76. "RE: Personal opinion and why I didn't weigh in before..." I actually agree with you regarding the sanctity of human life, and the myriad number of ways (abortion being just one of them) in which it has been devalued. That said, let me quote one line of yours: "My personal belief is that there is another human being involved with the decision." There's a very important word in that statement: belief. Viability at different stages of development can be scientifically evaluated. Realistically, though, I think this issue for many people is more about the moment at which what they believe to be the person's soul comes into being. And that is a belief. Pure and simple. I have my own beliefs about people and souls as I'm sure virtually every other person on this thread does. And I suspect that we'd hear dozens of differening opinions on the soul and when (or if) it first exists. Beliefs. Religions are based on beliefs, and the constitution also defends freedom of religion. And, in most cases, I think people's pro-life (I find the term anti-choice as offensive as anti-life, and dislike when either side uses it to label the other) stances come from their beliefs, without regard to the beliefs of the people actually involved on a case by case basis. Personally, I find the thought of any of my loved ones having an abortion to be horrific and wrong. But I'm not about to make people I don't know conform to my set of beliefs. Criminals From the Neck Up   Top

TechNoir 9741 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 03:38 PM (EST) 88. "RE: Personal opinion and why I didn't weigh in before..." I think people's pro-life (I find the term anti-choice as offensive as anti-life, and dislike when either side uses it to label the other) You may think it is a trivial point, but I think pro-life should mean pro-all-life. If one is a pacifist who is opposed to abortion, capital punishment, and an anti-vivisectionist, they are entitled to use the label. Otherwise it is just another way to add an emotion-laden layer to the argument, like always wedding the word "innocent" to "unborn". I have never heard a member of the anti-choice/pro-life community refer to an "innocent" pregnant woman, even if the pregnancy was the result of a violent gang rape. You may dislike the term anti-choice, but in my view it more accurately reflects the views of those who seek to make abortion illegal while supporting killing in other forms.   Top

Bucky Katt 3146 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity" 01-24-03, 04:07 PM (EST) 90. "RE: Personal opinion and why I didn't weigh in before..." I see your point Tech, but is it really fair to give someone an absolute title when we are only talking about one issue? What would you call someone who believes that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at risk but oppose it in other instances? They aren't exclusively pro-life, anti-choice, pro-choice or anti-life. The other thing I don't like about the term anti-choice (or conversely anti-life/pro-death) is that I find it is often used to imflame the other side of the debate and when that occurs all hope for rational debate is gone. Personally, I think that the real problem with abortion is that there is so much time, money and energy spent by both sides on arguing over rights when it should be spent on preventing the NEED for abortions. In a perfect world, wouldn't an abortion be legal yet none ever needed? Why don't groups on both side of the issue strive to that instead of name-calling, blaming the other side and doing studies to prove each other wrong? "I resolve to constantly assert my honest opinion on anything and everything - whether it's requested or not."   Top

samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 04:30 PM (EST) 92. "RE: Personal opinion and why I didn't weigh in before..." In a perfect world, wouldn't an abortion be legal yet none ever needed? Why don't groups on both side of the issue strive to that instead of name-calling, blaming the other side and doing studies to prove each other wrong? Because one side only wants to teach abstinence, and alleges that sex education and free birth control encourages people to have sex, and the other side wants to teach sex ed and birth control because they allege that a more informed public is a more responsible public. There really isn't much agreement there, either! And it's not applicable in the rape/incest/mother's life instances, anyway   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 04:46 PM (EST) 96. "True enough" sami, I completely agree. The one thing about the Republican platform that drives me crazy is its curiously naive belief that we can drive sex out of the world by mandating "sexual purity" and "sexual ignorance." I thought that belief went out of fashion when Queen Victoria died back in 1901, but, like a bad check, it keeps bouncing back. Hey, even Queen Vicky's own sons were famous for their strings of mistresses and out-of-wedlock children.   Top

Bucky Katt 3146 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity" 01-24-03, 05:41 PM (EST) 98. "RE: Personal opinion and why I didn't weigh in before..." I agree with your comments about the pro-life (or partial anti-choice if you like) side and that is what I dislike about them. On the pro-choice side, I feel that there are some who believe that abortion is just another form of birth control and don't spend enough time, money and energy into reducing the number of times it is required. IMHO, abortion should be legal, safe and rare and I believe that the pro-choice movement needs to emphasize the last one more. "I resolve to constantly assert my honest opinion on anything and everything - whether it's requested or not."   Top

TechNoir 9741 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 04:32 PM (EST) 93. "RE: Personal opinion and why I didn't weigh in before..." First of all, for me it is about choice. If the state can force me to carry a fetus to term, I am just an agent of the state, a vessel doing their bidding. I am deprived of the liberty to make decisions about my own body. Women in this situation not infrequently commit suicide. That seems like a very reasonable response to me.) If one believes that the state EVER gets to make that decision it seems to me that they are anti-choice. If you prefer the term partial anti-choice, I could live with that. In a perfect world, wouldn't an abortion be legal yet none ever needed? This gets me back to the point I keep trying to make here. Most of the discussion on this board as well as most of the discussion in the public sphere assumes that the pregnancy was the accidental result of a consentual union. Ignoring the notion that pregnancies result from rape and incest trivializes the whole issue. Ignoring the notion that pregnancies sometimes kill the host also trivializes the issue. As long as these are possibilities, I can't conceive of that perfect world. And the notion of 10 a ten year old incest victim, perhaps poor and in a rural area, having to appear before a judge for permission sets up such a profoundly ridiculous barrier as to simply outlaw abortion.   Top

Bucky Katt 3146 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity" 01-24-03, 05:33 PM (EST) 97. "RE: Personal opinion and why I didn't weigh in before..." If you prefer the term partial anti-choice, I could live with that. Me too. Ignoring the notion that pregnancies result from rape and incest trivializes the whole issue. Ignoring the notion that pregnancies sometimes kill the host also trivializes the issue. I totally agree - those are circumstances that occur in a minority of pregnancies but they should always be noted and never trivialized. "I resolve to constantly assert my honest opinion on anything and everything - whether it's requested or not."   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 04:38 PM (EST) 94. "Agree" >The other thing I don't like about the term anti-choice (or >conversely anti-life/pro-death) is that I find it is often used >to imflame the other side of the debate and when >that occurs all hope for rational debate is gone. I completely agree, Bucky. I also appreciate all of the people who have put in so much time sharing their views in this thread ... even if they happen to be on the opposite side of this issue from me.   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 04:42 PM (EST) 95. "RE: Agree" I also appreciate all of the people who have put in so much time sharing their views in this thread ... even if they happen to be on the opposite side of this issue from me. Amen to that. This thread has actually been my favorite read for the few days it's been up. While discussing an amazingly volatile and emotional subject, people on opposing sides have kept the vitriol to a bare minimum. It's definitely been a most interesting read. Thanks, y'all! Criminals From the Neck Up   Top

RudyRules 8360 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 08:32 PM (EST) 104. "RE: Agree" I've enjoyed this discussion as well. I really didn't mean to get started on this, knowing how inflammatory it can be. I agree that most of us have been calm and rational in our posts. Despite everything, It has been an opportunity to engage in honest discussion about a difficult but highly important topic. Perhaps no minds were changed (or maybe some were), but at least we've had the opportunity to present our perspectives and illuminate the discussion with a few facts. "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Elizabeth Cady Stanton - 1873   Top

Spidey 6259 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 11:26 PM (EST) 106. "Awwww!!" (((Group Hug!))) An IceCat Original, 2002 Eagles sigpic stays up til after the Super Bowl. Devastation does not equal humiliation.   Top

dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 10:24 AM (EST) 81. "History Lesson" First of all, Naked, let me say that I totally respect your position. My position on abortion itself is this: It's a horrible thing; but making it illegal is not the way to stop abortions from happening, we should instead focus our attentions on diminishing the reasons why women seek abortions. Here is why I say this: History Lesson Abortion was a legal and accepted practice for centuries. The first campaign to criminalize abortion was led by physicians in the late 1700s/early 1800s. The doctors themselves didn't want to get out of the abortion business, they instead wanted to eliminate the competition (midwives) and corner the market. Physicians were restricted by the Hypocratic Oath, they could not offer the same abortion services which midwives excelled at (aborticides: noxious concoctions technically poisonous which promoted spontaneous misscarriage, a very wretched thing for a woman to endure but actually much safer than any sort of surgery at the time). Physicians were successful in their campaign, they cornered the market. Then, in the mid 1800s, moral crusaders decided to get physicians out of the abortion business, and by around 1880 had managed to make any form of abortion illegal throughout the United States. Abortions continued to happen at pretty much the same rate as before (as best as we can tell), and in fact the laws against abortion were almost never enforced except when the woman died as a result of the abortion. If the history of this tells us anything, it is simply this: The Law doesn't work. Oh, the law is perfectly fine for making something illegal, but it don't do diddley about stopping people from doing what they decide to do anyway. SMILES ARE FREE   Top

samiam 5976 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 10:47 AM (EST) 84. "RE: History Lesson" Your history is correct. In early colonial America, getting an abortion was not at all uncommon, and was referred to as "taking the cure." There was a small level of stigma to it, but it was looked at as a considerably preferable option to having a child out of wedlock. "Any idiot can face a crisis; it is this day-to-day living that wears you out." -- Chekhov   Top

Strider 580 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 01-23-03, 04:11 PM (EST) 18. "RE: What a week this is" I'm happy to celebrate our rights and freedoms with you this week. At the same time, I will lament over a few particular freedoms I do not have, and be scared as hell that more will be taken away. Hey Bucky, want to sponsor me and my SOSO for Canadian citizenship? I am called Strider. I came out of the North. I am hunting Orcs.   Top

desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 04:57 PM (EST) 22. "RE: What a week this is" I'm with Strider. Except that the Canucks have already lost most of the few I have left that I care about. "Never Mind" -- JV (hey, Strider, wanna make a pact? I do everything I can to help you secure YOUR rights, and you help me secure mine?)   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 05:06 PM (EST) 23. "Hey, everyone!" Road trip to Strhinopia! Woohoo! Criminals From the Neck Up   Top

desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 05:17 PM (EST) 24. "RE: Hey, everyone!" Oh, come now, Dave... Typographical errors in such a critical post? "Strhinotopia" -- jv   Top

mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 05:21 PM (EST) 25. "RE: Hey, everyone!" Sorry JV but I'm with Dave...I think I'd much rather move to "Strhinopia" than "Strhinotopia". The latter takes too manym moves with the tongue. --lets that one settle in   Top

desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 05:24 PM (EST) 27. "RE: Hey, everyone!" Baby, there's not such THING as "too many moves with the tongue." "Just saying, is all."   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 05:26 PM (EST) 28. "RE: Hey, everyone!" Upon further consideration, I believe the correct spelling is Strhinosupercalifragilisticexpalidociousopia. Because frankly, where misto's tongue is concenred, I have to agree with JV: the more moves, the better. Criminals From the Neck Up   Top

mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 05:40 PM (EST) 31. "RE: Hey, everyone!" You guys made me blush! And I knew I could count on your for help in a mini-hijack of this thread! You're both gonna get something special in your stockings this year *huggles* --can go home now that she's hijacked several theads today   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 05:45 PM (EST) 33. "RE: Hey, everyone!" Remember when, immediately after 9/11, we worried about whether we should coin a term in place of hijacking for this activity? Man, I am sooooo glad that didn't last. Misto just wouldn't be quite the same. Criminals From the Neck Up   Top

mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 10:32 AM (EST) 83. "RE: Hey, everyone!" *smooch* Slurpee have I mentioned that I love you? --is taking applications for hijack buddy   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 01:43 PM (EST) 87. "RE: Hey, everyone!" I'll apply, but only if it doesn't require me to start using double capital letters in all of my posts, cuz this: I'LL aPPly, but only if it doesn't require me to start using double capital leTTers in aLL of my posts... just lOOks siLLy. Criminals From the Neck Up   Top

mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 03:49 PM (EST) 89. "RE: Hey, everyone!" Stop it Slurps!! You're cracking me up! --sEEs nothing wrong with double capZZ   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 04:21 PM (EST) 91. "RE: Hey, everyone!" LAST EDITED ON 01-24-03 AT 04:47 PM (EST) So, Misto... do I have the job? I thought a lot more people than this would apply! Criminals From the Neck Up   Top

mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 05:54 PM (EST) 99. "RE: Hey, everyone!" Slurpee darling, let's put it this way: you're at the top of a very short list. *wink* --will still have to negotiate with Dave about the double capZZ thing   Top

Bucky Katt 3146 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity" 01-23-03, 05:47 PM (EST) 35. "RE: What a week this is" Hey Bucky, want to sponsor me and my SOSO for Canadian citizenship? Sure! C'mon up the weather is great! And perhaps then we can change your sig pic to: I am called Strider. I came out of am going to the North. I am hunting Orcs. "I resolve to constantly assert my honest opinion on anything and everything - whether it's requested or not."   Top

I_AM_HE 6123 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 06:23 PM (EST) 40. "I weep" and that is all I will say on the subject   Top

sittem 4186 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest" 01-23-03, 10:18 PM (EST) 63. "RE: I weep" I'm with you He 2002 IceCat Originals, Inc. All rights reserved.   Top

Esbea 7377 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 07:02 PM (EST) 51. "RE: What a week this is" Tishy, our "non discussion" threads seem to have taken on lives of their own.....wanna go get a beer or something? Esbea   Top

Bucky Katt 3146 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity" 01-23-03, 07:07 PM (EST) 53. "RE: What a week this is" Rule #1 of OT threads: Whatever you ask people not to do they will do. First round is on me. "I resolve to constantly assert my honest opinion on anything and everything - whether it's requested or not."   Top

desert_rhino 10087 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-23-03, 10:20 PM (EST) 64. "RE: What a dry, dry week this is" >Tishy, our "non discussion" threads seem >to have taken on lives >of their own.....wanna go get >a beer or something? Hey! *I* want a beer!   Top

smiley 2009 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Roller Coaster Inaugurator" 01-24-03, 08:20 AM (EST) 78. "RE: What a dry, dry week this is" Damn, just reading all of this has made me tired LOL   Top

dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 09:21 AM (EST) 79. "RE: What a dry, dry week this is" Have you seen the Miller Lite commercial every is talking about? SMILES ARE FREE   Top

AMAI 1254 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson" 01-24-03, 09:54 AM (EST) 80. "RE: What a dry, dry week this is" SherpaDave, what is this place? "I believe the correct spelling is Strhinosupercalifragilisticexpalidociousopia." Don't you mean "Toronto"? Looks like I'm way too late to get into this conversation. But it is SUCH a pleasure to read the following by DESERT RHINO: "The whole POINT of making this lovely place we call "the homeland" a REPUBLIC and not a DEMOCRACY is that a REPUBLIC protects the rights of the unpopular minority." CLAP CLAP CLAP - Well said. Totally agree.   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 05:55 PM (EST) 100. "It's NEVER too late" See, AMAI, you thought you were too late to get in at post #80 -- and yet here we go toward post #100! It's never too late to get your two cents in around here.   Top

mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 05:55 PM (EST) 101. "RE: What a dry, dry week this is" LAST EDITED ON 01-24-03 AT 05:55 PM (EST) n/m --says pffftttt   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 05:58 PM (EST) 102. "Don't tell me" Were you after post #100? Sorry, I didn't mean to threadjack it away from you... AyaK -- who knows most people would rather have misto post more often and AyaK post less often!   Top

SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 06:39 PM (EST) 103. "RE: Don't tell me" AyaK -- who knows most people would rather have misto post more often and AyaK post less often! *BUZZ* Wrong answer! I love reading both of your posts, albeit for wildly different reasons. Criminals From the Neck Up   Top

mistofleas 8043 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 10:36 PM (EST) 105. "RE: Don't tell me" Yes to the first part, you #100 post stealer you! I was all excited and everything. Now I must look for other things to entertain and amuse me And pish to the second part. IF that were true, it's only because I might look better in a bikini than you and the jury hasn't come back on that one yet. --thinks AK stole #100 to get back at her for the hating lawyers line   Top

TechNoir 9741 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-24-03, 11:34 PM (EST) 107. "RE: Don't tell me" Maybe it's just calling 'em lawyers. They seem to want to be attorneys instead, heavens knows why.   Top

Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Select another forum Lobby The Amazing Race Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--The Amazing Race Fanatics Forum (Protected)   |--The Amazing Race Basher Forum (Protected)   |--The Amazing Race Spoiler/Speculation Forum (Protected) American Idol Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--American Idol General Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--American Idol Individual Contestant and Judge Discussion Forum (Protected) Big Brother Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Big Brother Fanatic Forum (Protected)   |--Big Brother Bashers Forum (Protected)   |--Big Brother Live Feed Updates And Spoilers (Protected) Survivor Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Survivor Fanatic Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Basher Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Spoilers Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Games Forum (Protected) Other Reality TV Shows (Conference)   |--The Bachelor / The Bachelorette Forum (Protected)   |--Dancing with the Stars Forum (Protected)   |--Other Reality TV Shows Forum (Protected) Off Topic (Conference)   |--The Help Forum (Protected)   |--Off-Topic Forum (Protected)