Jump to content

Kathlen Onyx

Resident
  • Posts

    3,219
  • Joined

Posts posted by Kathlen Onyx

  1. 3 hours ago, Maitimo said:

    I don't get these themed names. They're fine for the season but not the kind of names you'd want to have all year round. I guess they're expecting people to pay another 40 bucks to change back in November?

    Well I don't know. Sugar Pumpkins could be an all year type of name. :)

  2. 6 minutes ago, avaxasher said:

    Yea none respond

    Again, it could be that you have no picture in your profile and nothing is in it. Work on the profile and you might get some responses. How do they even know that you would be presentable enough to dance for their venue?

    • Like 4
  3. 16 minutes ago, Jules Catlyn said:

    At the end they mention that the new owners of that digital world shut down that world for 2 days a week.On Tuesday and Thursday. So people dont forget their RL life. This might be an unpopular opinion but i would not be opposed to Second Life being down one day a week. I am curious what others think.

    I would be opposed to that because what if the only day you have free is the day they shut down? You wouldn't expect someone to change their RL to work around SL would you?

    • Like 8
  4. 1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

    Yes, it is a difference of opinion. For you there is nothing different between the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd trimester, but for me there is a major difference due to autonomous survival outside the mother's body in the 3rd trimester.

    Also, if a woman has a chance to have a healthier family at a later time after she's received an education and/or matured, I think she has that right.

    In many cases her choice is not just for herself, but for her future family, and that benefits society as a whole.

    If you look at the stats for children raising children it's not good.

    Then please, for god's sake, stop trying to change someone's opinion. 

    • Like 1
  5. 17 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

    I'm saying, in my opinion, this 'line' we are trying to decide on should not be based on genetic material joining. Nor should this 'line' be based on how far along a fetus has progressed toward what it has the potential to be (as long as it has not reached the point where it is viable outside the mother's womb -- I do not believe 3rd trimester abortions should occur in most cases).

    It's simply a difference of opinion on when life begins. There is nothing inherently different than having an abortion at fertilization, 1st trimester, 2nd or 3rd.  Abortion at any of these stages results in the death of a potential human being.  

    You can't pick and choose. If women decided to march for 3rd trimester abortions would you march along with them?

    • Like 1
  6. 33 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

     

    neither you or I have proof of the exact point that a human being begins

    Actually I do have proof. It's the exact moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg. It isn't really rocket science Luna. If the egg needs to be fertilized by the sperm in order to become a human being then that is the exact point it begins.  Without it you don't have a human being. Just because some lawmakers have justified it by determining for us when life begins doesn't make it so.

    • Like 3
  7. 34 minutes ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

    This the dictionary example of a false equivalence. Abortion is the removal of tissue. Just like having a cyst or a fibroid removed. It is a safe outpatient procedure.

    A cyst or fibroid doesn't grow and call you mama or daddy and give you hugs and develop brains and may have contributed to the improvement of our society though do they? A Cyst or fibroid is indeed just tissue. Abortion is the removal of a human being but now I realize why you have the attitude you do.

    Someone said further up that even if there were negative emotional consequences from some women wouldn't that be ok for the better of the majority?  I will turn that around and say that carrying a child to term is a mere inconvenience and the child can be given up immediately after birth. Wouldn't the emotional toll on a woman be more justified then since you aren't killing babies?

    • Like 4
  8. 31 minutes ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

    It's a medical procedure, administered by a physician. Why shouldn't it be covered by health insurance or Medicaid or any potential universal health care option that might become available in the United States in the future? Just like any other outpatient procedure. Just like contraception should be covered, with no intrusion from the employer or outside forces.

    The same reason why assisted suicide is not covered by insurance. 

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 2
  9. 22 minutes ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

     

    Abortion is a needed medical procedure. Making it illegal or prohibitive to obtain just drives people with uteruses into the hands of unlicensed butchers who will leave them septic or dead.

    The same result of abortion.

    • Like 1
  10. 44 minutes ago, roseelvira said:

    I have another question.  It seems that the burden of making sure protection from pregnancy is mostly on the woman. A woman has to decide to take the pill /or get iud/ or some cases tubes blocked.  And these forms of protection do come for some with health risks

    Would it make more sense for men to just get the snip and get the reversal when /if the men/couple want children instead of putting most of the preventive responsibility on the woman? 

    If insurance pays for their Viagra, it should cover the snip.   

     

     

    First, a vasectomy doesn't come without health risks. Secondly, if you get a vasectomy it isn't just a quick little procedure to get it reversed. It is a major medical procedure.  It's also only 30-70% successful.  One form of birth control that is completely without health risks and 100% guaranteed to work is abstinence. If you don't want to be pregnant then don't have sex..Pretty simple actually..

    • Like 2
    • Haha 2
×
×
  • Create New...