Sunta

We cannot have it both ways; we cannot claim the right to opt out of having children and then demand that other women be denied the right to have children. Just to clarify my position; I do not deny anyone the right to have children, nor would I advocate for that. I only wish (not demand) that people would become educated about the environment before making childbearing decisions. It's just a wish for more in-depth education, that's all. Nothing else. As I said if someone truly knows the impact of having many children and they choose to have many anyway, that is their right and their choice. It's a wish that more people would gain more knowledge, not a wish to take away anyone's rights.

So a woman should have complete control of her reproductive decisions as long as her "choice" isn't to have more kids than you deem appropriate? An incongruity exists there. No, all I said was that I wished people would take time to be better educated, and then make their decision from there. It's just because people don't want to ever hear that their choices might be harmful or bad for the environment, or detrimental to society that everyone gets so offended at the suggestion of being educated. If someone truly learns about the ecological footprint that each child leaves, and reads about the environment and overpopulation's effect on it, and still chooses to have many children, then at least they made the effort to learn something and they made an educated decision. But I highly doubt that the majority of people who have more than, say, four children really have taken the time to learn about the effects of that, long term. I think most people breed without ever thinking about it the environmental impact at all. I think most people just whatever the heck they feel like, and then get highly offended at anyone who even questions their decisions.

Since this thread popped back up to the top, I will jump in and say "hi". I still wish that everyone would learn more about the ecological footprint each child makes before deciding how many children to have. It seems that many don't think about it, or maybe they simply choose to ignore the burden that each child places on our resources. Populating the earth should be done responsibly. It shouldn't be taken lightly. I'm not saying I would ever dictate how many children someone can have, but I do wish people would take the time to learn a little bit about overpopulation and plan their lives accordingly. All this talk of global warming and dwindling seafood, honeybees disappearing, upcoming Water shortages... All of these issues are related to too many people on the earth placing too big of a burden on it. For example, when I have children I would have no more than two biologically. If I want more I will adopt the rest. This is a conscious decision based on knowing the burden each individual places on the planet. I believe that if more people truly knew about their ecological footprint, they might come to the same conclusion.

I am so depressed. I've been watching the news all morning about the deadliest shooting rampage in US history. Then my co-worker pointed out that 600,000 civilians have died in Iraq and 500 die every day. I was like "Oh thanks I feel alot better now." Then I started thinking about Darfur. Maybe I should call my doctor and go on anti-depressants.

Hi! I am freaking out! I have what I think is a case of bronchitis and have been coughing like mad. I can't stop thinking I'm going to slip my band! I've taken cough medicine to no avail. My doctor is not available over the weekend! Please anyone who has had a bad cough for days... tell me your band didn't slip!

It has nothing to do with Christianity. Oooohhh, I see! So... majority of pro-lifers aren't Christian, eh? Thanks for letting me know.

If I were pregnant and in that situation, and I cannot fathom how agonizing that situation would be, it should be my choice to save my on life or give it up for a child - not the supreme court's. Perhaps all of the right wing people who Celebrate this decision would be very happy to take care of your severely deformed and retarded baby, since most women who have this procedure do so because the baby has major physical problems, or because the baby may not even live very long at all after being born. And also take care of you should your health be ruined by delivering such a baby, or should you fall into severe depression after the baby dies on it's own in a few weeks, after you've bonded with it, since many of these procedures happen because the baby would not live long on its own after it's delivered. Funny how none of the people jumping up and down about this ban ever seem to rush in for either of these jobs...

HOORAY! Just another step closer to denying women control over their bodies! YAY!!! It's THRILLING to see Christianity informing our laws! I'm SO glad that religious fundamentalists are taking over our government! I'm sooooo happy today!

I'd known all my life that I was Gay Ok, we got the Gay part down. Now if you're also liberal and an atheist, that would make you the first one on this thread, which initially stated that "a good portion" of people posing on this forum were homosexual liberal atheists. I only have two out of the three requirements...

I just viewed the most fascinating news clip ever. It said that people who study killer's brains after death are finding a very high percentage of them have brain damage in the part of the brain that governs impulse control and rage. I think they said 20 out of 30 killers in the stud they did exhibited the same kind of frontal lobe damage. I find this absolutely compelling and would like to learn more about it. I wonder if an autopsy would/will reveal any brain damage in this case.

Has anyone peeked into the thread that was recently started for the Christians? Yes, I read it but I stay off of it, because they bossily asked us not to post there. They love to strong-arm people all the time in my opinion. I laugh so hard when I read some of those posts though. So for me, it's good for a laugh. I don't know why but it just makes me laugh so much when they're like "all things are possible through the LORD!!!" I'm sorry, I know it's really really mean and judgmental of me. But I can't help it. And I don't feel so bad laughing at that when the next post states that people like myself WILL burn in hell. I was at the Cloisters in New York over the weekend, and it struck me how all of the religious art there was from the 1,200-1,500's. And I was thinking about how superstitious people from the middle ages were, and then it hit me: but these are the same images and stories people believe in today! Ancient, archaic nonsense.

Number one, it's sooooo not anyone else's business what you eat. Number two, any and all foods are acceptable and allowed on the band as long as your body can tolerate them (aka: keep them down) My one comment would be that if I eat something like a breadstick or a bagel or another carb, I will be starving, famished really, within a hour. My experience is that for the band to work, I have to center all of my meals on heavy doses of Protein in order to feel full. If I want a breadstick I will eat maybe half of it along with a larger portion of meat, tofu, chicken, or fish. This way, I get my protein in and am 100% more satisfied than with the carb alone. I did an experiment one morning where I ate half a bagel for Breakfast. I was so hungry within an hour I felt faint. The next morning I had a half cup of cottage cheese. I was satisfied until lunch, about four hours. Same thing with Pasta, potatoes, and other carbs. When I do eat them I always pair them with protein in order to feel satisfied. On one slice of pizza, there's maybe what, one ouce to 1.5 ounces of cheese? That's like 8 grams of protein max. I aim for 15-20 grams per meal and I am much much more full than when I have carb-rich meals. But in any case, food choices are totally up to you, not anyone else.

I went to Temple University, and we had armed security guards at every door. No one could just walk in and out. We also had metal detectors in most buildings. I think it's because it's in a horrible area of Philly. But sometimes I think that all these mass shootings happen mostly not in big cities. It's always rural areas where people seem craziest. It's always the "sleepy small town rocked by violence" scenario. Of course, in cities there's much more crime of a different type, mostly muggings and robbery. This issue is tough for me, because as a small child I was defended by my mom flashing her gun to a guy who came to our door threatening us and trying to get in. He was a parolee of my father, and decided to come to the house and break in to harm my mom and me when my dad wasn't home. My mom flashed her gun through the door, pointing it at him but while keeping her body away from the door so he could not see her. He ran away mighty darn fast! So, this is a tough and not clear cut issue for me in terms of no one being allowed to have a gun. But I do agree that it's much too easy for people like Cho to purchase a gun. But then I think, but what if my mom had had to be in a mental facility (she wasn't) when she was younger for an unrelated reason but then still wanted a gun in the house for protection? And she couldn't buy one because she was in the database? What would have happened to us? So I guess when one has a personal experience it definitely changes perspective. I've also seen tv shows where women used their own guns to fend off all kinds of attacks in the home. So, I don't know, I am really torn on what the best solution would be.

In light of the rash of school shootings, my dad was telling me last night he thinks teachers should be armed and trained. Kind of like air marshalls on US flights. What do you all think of that?

Ridiculous. Archaic nonsense. People need to get real and stop letting ancient religious beliefs interfere with other's rights. People can go on and on all they want about "religious freedom" and whatever, but the bottom line is that alot of religious beliefs do infringe on other's rights, in this case the right to receive a taxi ride. No, no one should be allowed to deny anyone anything based on a religious belief.

Sunta: I'm still trying to find myself. If I learn that I'm a homosexual liberal atheist I'll let you know. ROFL!!!

And I'm still waiting for ANY homosexual liberal atheists to make themselves known...

She gets really pissed off by their messy grammar, their bossiness, and the over all lack of intellectual rigor with which they take care of business. ROFL!!! I couldn't agree more.

Sigh. I attribute the slowdown in my weight loss to my daily 2-3 glasses of wine! I have GOT to stop doing that! I'm trying to limit it to one a night. I figure I've been taking in about 300-400 calories in wine a day. Not good! I'm still losing, but very very slooooowly. I am strengthening my resolve right now!!!

I believe that Jesus existed, but I don't believe in God. I think that Jesus was a regular man with great charisma, much like modern cult leaders are today. I definitely don't discount this possibility, and it's an interesting theory. The reason I'm not 100% convinced he existed is because the only written proof is the bible and/or ancient historians who refer to the bible or to Christianity. Since there is no written proof by any non-Christian historians of the day (I believe there are four exceptions to this, two of which were proven to be forged, and two which are disputed.), I can't say he definitely existed. Why are the majority of ancient historians silent about Jesus? It's clear to me that the bible is a book, like any other fictional book. It would be like citing Star Wars as proof of the existance of Luke Skywalker. And whenever anyone questions it, believers would say "we know it's true because it says it in the Star Wars Trilogy!" Now, perhaps the bible could have been based on a real person, but I would like to see some written proof of this besides Josephus' passage which is widely believed to be forged. I would like an explanation of the long list of historians of that time who do not mention Jesus.

Carlene, thanks for posting this. I can't wait to read it when I have a chance to really pay attention to the article. One thing that makes me crazy about the "God debate" is that somehow, it always has to be about Jesus. What about a higher power that exists but that did not send a human counterpart to earth? Christians always think because I don't believe in Jesus that I don't believe in "God", but in fact I do believe in some form of higher energy than ourselves (but that also resides within us.) I was at a Catholic funeral last week and it struck me that I totally understand that organized religion is a way to humanize and explain that which we don't understand. I understand that need and drive, but I wish that every discussion about "God" didn't have to be "Jesus or nothing".

but if I was it would have been because of your assuming that I'm not educated. As I said I was not implying you are uneducated "in general", but simply on this one particular issue of race in society (as taught from a sociology perspective) that we are discussing. Similarly, if someone said to me "you can get on the road to be educated about microbiology by reading this list of attributes of a cell" I would not be offended because I do not know much about microbiology. So that is what I meant.

Sunta, are you an educator? No, but I vividly remember Temple University and my classes on race and also women's studies, and I remember I had this "Ah ha!" moment during one class, and it was (crazy as this sounds) the point about band-aids. Band aids are called "flesh colored" but actually they are caucasian flesh colored. And something as petty-seeming as that, it really, really made me think about white privilege and to start questioning "what is the Black experience like in the United States"? And in talking to Black friends, I was amazed to learn (of course I was much younger then) that they do deal extensively with issues like being followed in a store, being pulled over by cops for no reason, hostility from neighbors, and many of the other things listed on the list I posted, because of their race. I really delved into my studies and the thing I found most fascinating was that the majority of white people never think about any of these things. It's taken for granted that band-aids will be our skin color and so many other things on that list. Little privileges like that add up into something big. An underlying societal feeling of belonging, acceptance, and community of the majority group just goes without saying for white people. It's interesting to think about what kind of impact that fact has on white people's psychology and development. So, with regard to the basketball team, I do get kind of mad when whites (men especially) say things like "they should just get over it" without even being willing to open themselves up to the possiblity that they can never understand the depth of the women's hurt. Just by virtue of being white, they can never understand those girls' experience. And then to shoot down any suggestion of "white privilege" as rediculous really proves a vast lack of education on the issue. If you have any further resources for learning about this, please do post them.

I'm curious......who was offended by your suggestion to learn something new? I missed that. Well.... when I suggested that the list of white privilege would start you on the path to being educated about race and society, you said I was assuming you were "uneducated", leading me to believe you were offended by my suggestion to learn something new. It really seemed that perhaps you hadn't had a chance to familiarize yourself with issues such as invisible white privilege and race in American culture such as you could in a class on the subject. Sorry if I was mistaken.

Just an FYI everyone. I ammended the list to include a giant list of male privileges as well.