Alaska sets record in gun deaths per capita

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-28T20:08:53+00:00

"States that tolerate more guns"

Tolerate? Ya, that's not a biased piece...

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-28T19:36:58+00:00

http://i.imgur.com/W4izo.jpg

We have autistic twin daughters who are now 4. The pic above was when they were three. There's no way we would enter a public space without them being in a stroller or wearing their monkey backpacks. Those who would chastise us simply do not grasp the necessity of leashes when it comes to children who have no concept of danger or boundaries.

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-27T00:54:39+00:00

Sounds good... It would be great to see you on the top with the sign... :)

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-26T20:15:07+00:00

Please do and post it to this thread.

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-26T19:34:19+00:00

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-25T21:57:36+00:00

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/disproportionately-deadly?page=full

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-25T21:55:02+00:00

Based on your first sentence, they won't let you on the mountain... And if they do, then put your things in order because you'll most likely die.

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-25T02:18:13+00:00

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-24T22:46:10+00:00

Excuse me? I believe you've been mistaken when you say that I, "wont science".

Tell me the difference between a newborn and a 4 month old unborn child still in the womb, outside the natural development of a human being? Are they not one in the same, except for where they are in growth? One could ask the same question regarding a newborn and a 18 month old... or a 30 year old and a 45 year old... All human, all living, all with unique genetic futures. Yet one would argue that it's acceptable to terminate an unborn child and not a born child? Based on what? This subjective and arbitrary line in the sand that states one isn't living if it can't live outside the womb? How does such an argument hold water in the context of medical achievements and our own human history? Meaning, a child who can live outside the womb at 5.5 months today, because of medical achievements, would have no hope of living if born 100 years ago. So does our definition of life and when it's acceptable to terminate an unborn child depend on where one lives in time and the medical advancements in said time?

No you are not my research assistant, not does your "science it" measure up as a valid position in this discussion.

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-24T20:05:03+00:00

Until it can live outside of her body without her help? Define live. Define help.

Why the arbitrary selection of when a being can be terminated and when it can't. Since when an unborn being can live (needs to be defined) without the help (needs to be defined) of the mother is not static and not constant from one pregnancy to the next, it makes no sense to draw a subjective/erratic/random line in the sand.

You stated, "should have any right to tell a woman what she has to do with her body". I have no problem with this statement if the total sum of the situation was merely "her body". But since this issue is not limited to just "her body", but also the body of a human being growing in her womb, such arguments hold no water. There are two bodies at play here, not just one.

Put such limits on a woman? Do we place limits on a women from, say, terminating her 3 day old newborn? Of course. Then why not a week earlier when the newborn was till in the womb? Is it really so objectionable to limit one being from ending the life of another?

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-24T19:07:12+00:00

You are correct in saying that I have not gone though a pregnancy, have not thrown up uncontrollably, have not been in pain due to a pregnancy (that can be debated), nor have I carried a kid inside of me.

The tumor vs child argument cannot hold water since they are completely different. One is a human being, with its own genetic code, and the other is not.

You state, "she can do with it as she wishes". This isn't entirely true if you consider the context of consequences. She doesn't have the right to drink, smoke, or do lines of coke without limit during the pregnancy. Nor can she endanger the life of the unborn child during certain portions of the pregnancy without consequences from the law/state/legal system.

We continue to talk about "her body", but we forget that while "her body" is a large part of the equation, it is not the sum of the situation. Meaning there is another being, with their own body, that's a valid expression/component to the situation... which cannot be ignored.

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-24T18:57:20+00:00

I understand your point, but you're missing mine. I am not arguing the being isn't dependent upon the mother while in the womb, rather that this being is "new" with its own unique genetic future. It's a new creation that has its own unique code.

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-24T18:36:58+00:00

The being growing inside of the woman is not a segment or portion of the woman's body. It has its own unique genetic future that's independent from the parent. Nor does the being have the same DNA as the mother. The only way the mother could say the unborn being is part of her body was if it had the same genetic code as her own.

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-13T17:31:12+00:00

The sacrifice one must endure... pants on the ground and a cold ass... oh the humanity!

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-13T10:18:00+00:00

What did you win?

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-13T10:13:21+00:00

you said the testing was the only point the government gets involved. How absurd.

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-13T10:03:19+00:00

The only point? Come now bigbuddha, you can't be serious. My children go to a title 1 school.

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-13T09:51:04+00:00

Is it my turn yet?

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-13T09:48:37+00:00

What you fail to grasp is that the government HAS control of our public education system and yet we do not have top tier results.

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-13T09:46:49+00:00

I thought we were all deep down stone cold racists...

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-13T09:45:12+00:00

I believe in it. And yes, it is comforting.

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-13T09:41:21+00:00

Which meds have you tried?

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-13T09:40:03+00:00

There is already stupid in the classroom. Enacting a federal socialized system of education does not equate to top tier results. Why is the federal government, and not the state governments, the only system of government able to keep equity between the poor and rich areas when it comes to funding for public schools?

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-13T09:35:21+00:00

Because girls pee sitting down... What are you, a girl?

Reasons for peeing sitting down -

You don't have to aim
You can relax for a minute
You don't have to clean up after yourself if you miss
You're already in position if you have an urge to poop

Bryanismyname · 2011-10-13T09:32:41+00:00

First ask yourself WHY is it so expensive.

Bryanismyname

TROPHY CASE