Anonymous wrote:Prison is the worst place for a pregnant woman to be inAnonymous wrote:I heard someone on the news this week saying it would be so horrible if Bridget Kelly (Gov. Christie's ex-deputy chief of staff who sent the "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" email) went to jail, because she has four children. I have NEVER heard that mentioned about any man facing possible prison time.
Men are just not affected the same way. They do not have to give birth shackled
Anonymous wrote:eh-hem . . sex
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It would not be allowed at our Catholic school. Just one of the many reasons I am so grateful that we are able to choose Catholic school for our children.
![]()
Anonymous wrote:You've been saying on Facebook that you will 'beat the beast' and live to be 200, and everyone is screaming that you are a fighter, and an inspiration, and my head hurts just reading that crap.The median survival rate of stage IV pancreatic cancer is 14 months, and you're already pushing it. You will be dead soon, and I will be very sorry about that because I think you are a great person..it's just that the proverbial 'positive attitude' BS has never cured anyone of cancer.
Anonymous wrote:OP, you absolutely SUCK. YOU SUCK. There is NO WARNING that you were going to post a Breaking Bad spoiler in the FIRST SENTENCE of your stupid fucking post and yet now, after I've specifically avoided any articles or social media that would spoil it until I can watch it, you have ruined the finale for me. You are the absolute worst.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:your house smells like cat pee.
Honestly, it is gross and no one likes coming to your disgusting home.
When a 5000 sq ft house in Silver Spring ends smells like cat pee and feces, then something has gone horribly wrong especially if you only have 1 cat.
Where is there a 5000 sf house in silver spring?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP here.
MY DD is 4. I know that the Disney version of Pocahontas is not the "true" story. But honestly, she just wants to dress up as the girl she sees on tv. Why do we have to make it so hard. Political Correctness seems to be running amuck
It's "amok." And we don't have to make it hard. You asked. Some of us agree that the PC police are a pain in the ass. Ignore it and let your kid dress as a historical figure, or whomever she wants. Happy Halloween!
Talk about a pain in the ass.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Eh, the vast majority of the world's growth/birth rate is coming from the developing world. I'm not saying its a good idea for every family here to have six kids, but to act like a family who wants 4+ kids is draining the world of its resources is so incorrect it's funny.
In what way? Are families with 4+ kids not somehow subject to basic mathematics? If each of those four kids has four of their own, and each of those decides to have four.... That's a lot more kids than if two each had two and so on. To say that the problem of overpopulation is solely that of the developing world is incredibly ignorant. For one thing your average American uses far more resources, on just about every level than does someone in the developing world - even if you live on a totally self-sufficient farm (you dig your own well, septic field, and build your own roads, phone and cable lines? You grow your own flax and spin it into yarn and weave your own cloth?....) , there's zero guarantee that your children will choose the same, low impact lifestyle.
To pretend that the reproductive choices and health care available to women in the US at all relates to those available to women in developing nations is offensive. They're frequently denied the ability to use birth control, when it's even available, and due to a lack of available medical care, they're far more likely to lose children to all sorts of diseases. Your decision large family has every bit as much impact as does large families elsewhere.
But by your logic this isnt a bad thing.
I'm not the PP you are responding to. but the problem is that the only reason it doesn't make a difference when some American woman has 6 kids is because MOST American women DON'T have that many kids. Because, if most American women did have that many kids, our resources would be strained and we'd have to bully other places into giving us theirs. And we wouldn't have the leveling of numbers that disease contributes to. It's not that disease is a "good" thing, but it does follow that it counters the large numbers of children women have in those regions. But usually, when sanitation improves, quality of life improves, availability of medical resources (which simultaneously means reduced fatalities to disease but ALSO increased access to birth control), then women do actually start having fewer children.
It is a bad thing when young children suffer and die in large numbers. The far better thing is to improve the conditions and reduce the birthrate. Access to medical services usually achieves both because it improves conditions but also gives women choices.