HeadCone

Just watched the video. Couldn't find the actual pictures but saw the one on the FOX news web site. Seems like a lame attempt to protest the war (not that there's anything wrong with protesting war). "Oh look. My kid used to be a sweet little princess, now she's mean ol' soldier." Whatever. What I find really weird are the comments. "Distrubing" "Made me cry" "that picture is gross" etc... Damn, people. Get a grip. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

And the mother let him do it. Unless she didn't know which would make this about a million times worse. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I wouldn't like it, but it's the DZO's DZ. And if this happens too often, I wouldn't have to worry about the DZ being around too long. Realistically, that wouldn't happen. Especially at a small dz, if a load only has 2 but the next one is a 4-way, the 4-way is going to go. The next full load flies. Of coarse, the DZO might get pissed if too many loads start flying out of order on the manifest sheet. Absolutely. Granted, the 10-rig example was extreme. People do need to be reasonable. I just don't think someone double manifesting is automatically an asshole. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Is there a virtual pieing for every 1,000 or 10,000 posts? hehe. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Ultimately, it's up to the DZO to set the policy and it looks like they have in your favor. Personally, I think if you've got 10 rigs packed and ready to go you should be able sign up for the next 10 loads. At a little 182 dz, signing-up early can help make more loads fly: "Hmm, Hobie wants to jump again, ok, i'll sign-up too." --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

So what am I if I simply don't believe in god? If I don't make any claims about the non-existence of a god and I don't make any claims about not being able to know if there is or isn't a god, I just plain old don't believe, what am I? I don't think that definition of agnostic is on the same level as theist/atheist. It would seem someone could be both theist and agnostic: "I believe there's a God but I can't prove it". Or someone could be both atheist and agnostic: "I don't believe any god exists but I can't prove it". It seems to me that agnostic most closely matches your views or perhaps there's another term --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Most people have faith. Either a faith that a god or gods exists or a faith that no god exists. Only those that don't believe either have no faith. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

This falls under there being no proof one way or the other so, with respect to the abortion she already had (because all she has to say is that she was raped and she gets it), the abortion was legal. I don't know how to make a rape trial go easier for a woman who was actually raped without taking away rights for an innocent defendant. What this shows is that each person considering the topic of abortion (and whether they would vote for or against any particular abortion related law) needs to weight the impact of the trial on the woman versus the abortion itself. Personally, I recognize there's difference between the initial stages of pregnancy where it's basically just a blob of cells versus the later stages where it's really no different than a birthed baby versus the transition in-between. While I don't like the decision to have an abortion at any stage, I would probably be in favor of a law that kept abortion legal during the early stages, but made it illegal (with exceptions) during the later stages with the cut-off point somewhere in the transition. As for the exceptions go, I'm actually on the fence on whether or not I'd really support allowing one for rape at the later stages but then again they are really rare and almost never done. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

A "not guilty" verdict could come from: 1 - not enough evidence to prove there was a rape or 2 - the defense actually proved beyond reasonable doubt (that may sound all lawyery, I'm not a lawyer) that there was no rape. If it's 1, she doesn't face any trouble. If it's 2, then she does. In this scheme, it's to the woman's advantage that it's difficult to prove a rape didn't happen. I can only suggest that we seek out ways to get women come forward and report it when they're raped. I'm not a psychologist either, but it's hard for me to imagine that keeping it bottled up to herself is better than speaking up and possibly getting justice (as hard as that may be to go through). --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I'd like to give the woman the benefit of the doubt and keep legal the abortion based on her word. Perhaps a hefty penalty for lying about it and the knowledge that she's making it more difficult for real rape victims to get justice will help reduce abuse of this exception. If she claims rape, there will be a police investigation. The investigation will yeild one of three things: 1 - there was a rape, 2 - it can't be determined if there was a rape, or 3 - there was, in fact, no rape. If it's 1, then she was proven to have told the truth and there's no punishment. If it's 2, you take her word for it and there's still no punishment. If it's 3, she gets in big trouble. This is the first I've thought about this aspect of the issue so you may find problems with this idea. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

During the very early stages of pregnancy, I agree that it's hard to think of it as a human being, however, during the late stages of pregnancy, it's not just a potential person, it *is* a person. I'll try to address when I find them. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I think it has been answered with these two replies. It's a situation where it's not liked, just not enough to make it illegal. It just seemed a bit odd to be in favor of allowing something but only at a minimal level. I wanted to explore why. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

What's to anguish over when deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy? Just the standard concerns (cost, risk, etc.) that you'd have over any medical procedure or something else? If it's just the standard concerns, what's the point of even mentioning that? I'd like to see all hospitals go away. Not because I want people to die if they get sick but because I'd rather see people not get sick (ok, some hospitals can stay for people who want elective medical procedures). So? --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Ok, but that doesn't satisfy my curiosity. If it's sort of wrong and none of your business what does it really matter how much of it occurs? --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Is it a matter of magnitude? Wrong, but not wrong enough to make illegal? --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

So no one should ever force their morals on others? --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Say what? No need to theorize; I just told you. Um, yeah, this just took a bizarre turn. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

What's so bad about it? Of coarse there's the standard things involved in any medical procedure like costs, risks, pain/discomfort, inconvenience, etc. Just that, nothing else? I still don't have a handle on why someone who's pro-choice would make comments along the lines of minimizing the number of abortions. It's as if they're hinting at there being something wrong with it (morally wrong) but they won't/can't come right out and admit it. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Ok, of coarse I'd like fewer skydiving injuries because I don't want to see people get hurt. Injuries are a bad thing. Are you suggesting that there's something bad about abortion? --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Pro-lifers aren't being very honest with us here. I am pro-choice because I want to give women control over the direction they want to take their lives. So please can at least one pro-lifer tell us why the fetus is more important than the woman? Only those who think that a pregnant woman should give birth even if it kills her are the ones that give total superiority to the fetus. I'll venture to guess that most people don't actually feel that way. Why should the fetus have any rights whatsoever? It's a basic human right just like those babies that actually do manage to get born have. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Why would a pro-choicer want their to be fewer abortions happening overall? If abortion is legal, then it's legal. What difference does it make how many occur? --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Sure there is. Drama. Name calling. Degredation of what could be a constructive debate by making false assertions about the other side. It's all about to what degree you assign rights to the unborn child. Generally, more-so-much, then pro-life; less-so-much, then pro-choice. In his second post, perhaps. In the first, no. That was a false assertion. The reason pro-lifers are pro-life isn't because it's an evil plan to take rights away from women. I never said they did. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

All the while taking away the rights of the woman. I can see where this is going: "WOMAN HATER!" "BABY KILLER!" I'm not getting into that. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

If guys could get pregnant there would be more "suck it up tough guy and quit being such a pussy." --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

That's entirely false. Pro-lifers aren't pro-life because they want to take freedom away from women. They are pro-life because they want to give rights to an unborn child. That's just as insulting (and incorrect) as saying pro-choicers want to kill unborn children. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/