The composition on the first Mr. Bungle album was not done by John Zorn. He produced the album, and if you're lucky enough to have the studio outtakes from the recording sessions for that album you can hear him take a sax solo on Love Is A Fist. All composition was done by the band themselves. I do agree that Clinton might like them though. He seems to like extreme stuff with good musicianship, and this is the about the best. Also, check out Dog Fashion Disco. Similar stuff from the D.C. area (perhaps a bit of a cross between them, Faith No More, and Clutch), and their first CD on Spitfire records should be out this spring.
Oh, and if you don't have the studio outtakes from Mr. Bungle, try to find it - the version of Platypus that appears on it is worth it alone, and there are some true gems on there (picture them doing Tom Jones' Thunderball =)
Are you just to lazy to go through and choose what software you need? That's really the only way you'll ever get a tailored system like you're asking for. Even if a lot of "bloat" is cut out, different people have different needs (or even one person with mutiple machines). There will always be more than just what you need on a given distribution unless you go through the trouble to make your own distro just for yourself. Hell, you half make this argument yourself when you say "What the hell am I going to do with programs for faxing and ISDN?" There are a lot of people who do want those capabilities, so they should be included in a distro.
And though I've never installed Mandrake myself, I'm sure it can be done in less than 2.5 GB!
You wont get it like A&E doesn't get my business, because they think interupting my viewing every 10 minutes is ok. You wont get it like NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox rarely get my business, because you don't let me watch TV for reasonable periods of time without interruptions.
Don't you know what those interruptions are for? They're there so you can skip to another station and see if anything better is on - or in some cases even watch two shows at once!
I don't think of myself as a Perl Programmer. I program in maybe half a dozen languages regularly, whatever's convenient. I've been a programmer since about 1978. When folks call me a Perl Programmer, it never seems to occur to them that ten years ago they would have thought I was ``C Programmer'' and twenty years ago I would have been a ``Fortran Programmer''.
I wish employers would pay attention to that quote from the article... After graduating from college I took a job programming in Informix 4GL, and now it's nearly impossible to get anyone to look at my resume and think I can do anything else. Hell, I've only been doing that for under two years, and prior to that I used mostly C and PERL.
It sure is good to see that ever single poster so far has seen through Katz's BS...
Gaming is far from the "most revolutionary cultural force in the world right now," and it was not a major point in the presidential election. Yeah, it got mentioned a few times, but I don't think any candidate made it a platform point. And you know, I'll bet that most of the people in the world haven't even noticed that there's been a lot of press about video games and their effects. You want to know why? Because when it does get mentioned it's usually a small point in a story, and non-slashbots don't get it shoved in their face for a week after the story comes out!
Hey everybody... The Internet is not the be all end all of existance. If they don't want to sell rights to internet companies they don't have to, and if someone will pay them for exclusive rights it is their perogative to accept or deny.
As for everyone crowing about money being chosen over amaturism and all, take a look from another perspective... Maybe (noteice I said MAYBE) they want to get this out to as many people as possible while still pulling in enough money to cover the event. Since most of the people in the world still don't have internet access, but a great deal more people do have television, it would make sense to give the TV stations as a priority over the internet sites. If the TV people give them the ultimatum of "us or them", they'll chose TV. Nothing wrong with that WRT the IOC... Get mad at the TV execs if you want, but even they are only trying to protect their business investments.
Regulation: A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.
I'd say that applies to Alex fairly well.
Yeah, but that's a huge generalization. Alex was hit with torturous drug therapy - physically and mentally abused to force him into submission. Regulation also means laws saying that if you murder someone or steal, you will be punished for it, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> If you use your "freedom to commit a crime," don't be suprised if you lose that freedom and many more.
Thank you. That was exactly my point.
Nice half-quote. There's a good reason for losing that freedom if you abuse it - you took away the freedoms of others.
Work for a few days of their lives? Have you ever known anyone in a band? Most bands never get paid anywhere near as much as the average worker, and those that do (with exceptions of people who are extremely popular and have been for a long time) are out there playing concerts (a very draining experience for those of you who have never done it) and traveling around the world on a nearly daily basis when they aren't recording their next album. Yeah, they might get a little more vacation time than the rest of us, but they also work 6 or 7 nights a week when on tour, and don't get to go home between those nights.
Without royalties most mid-sized bands wouldn't be able to earn a living. Smaller bands will have to work a day job anyways, but to be a mid-sized band you don't have time for a day job. That covers all but the superstars. Dont over-generalize.
I think you missed something in A Clockwork Orange... It's more about mind control techniques being used to turn criminals than regulation. Regulation is a rather necessary thing - otherwise you have anarchy.
BTW... If you use your "freedom to commit a crime," don't be suprised if you lose that freedom and many more. Every time you use such a freedom you take away some freedom of someone else's, and should be punished accordingly.
Oh, and for those of us in the US - make sure you get the full book before you read it (the 21st chapter was cut out when it originally went to press here in the US). The last chapter is where the most powerful statements are made. And since Hollywood is in the US, the movie is also missing that last chapter.
Yes, but supporting the interests of the people of those states will give them unfair advantage over the people of the other states, and will be bad overall for the country. Human nature is to egocentric for people to vote against someone who will give them something even when it isn't in the best interest of those a state away.
well, sorta. it is true that with the electoral college, a candidate needs to take more states than if it were a straight popular vote. but remember, the argument that "a candidate would only need to take 4 or 5 states" to get enough popular votes assumes that he/she take every vote in those states.
A better way of putting it is that if one of the two major candidates wants to win the popular vote, they can campaign heavilly in 4 or 5 states and just a little elsewhere. It's pretty likely that just on name recognition and party afilliation they'll get say 20% of the vote from each state. If they can pull 75% or so from the major 5 and do better than 20% in a few others, they'll have the popular vote while effectively ignoring most of the country.
-
Re:voting from the comfort of your own home -bad
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Ballots are secret. No one can legally pressure you to vote in front of them. If your boss tries this, call a lawyer. If your marriage can't survive an argument over a political difference, maybe you should think about why you got married. My wife and I don't exactly agree on everything, but we can always agree to disagree.
I just read a little further down on cnn.com and found this quote on the page "Overlooked Florida ballot box filled with supplies, not votes" Unfortunately, the link only contains the original story of the lost and found box... It doesn't mention the supplies again.
The recount numbers won't be in until tonight (I've heard around 8:00 EST is when they're expected) and even then they won't hold the absentee ballots.
Supposedly anyone in this country of over 300 million people can become president (Age, Citizenship, and Criminal matters aside). Yet out of all those millions of people it comes down to the Vice President, and a man who's dad was president two terms ago.
Anyone can... As long as they win the popularity contest. Sure it's somewhat closed at that level. You have to put in the gruntwork at the bottom (start off in a schoolboard election or town counsel, move up into the state house and senate, go on the the national level, etc...) Once you get past that, all that's between you and the Presidency is getting your ideas across to the people and having them agree with you.
Stop being a little lamb and start thinking for yourself. If you need to be associated with a party to feel like a legitimate person, be associated with a party that actually wants to make real changes, and isn't afraid to say what they think and stick to it. Yes, if you want to actually make a difference: VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
I do think for myself, and I voted for Bush. I don't agree with everything he stands for, but he's a hell of a lot closer to where I am than the other candidates. As far as libertarians go, I think their ideas sound great, but try implimenting them. The people of this country (and I believe the world for that matter) are not ready for that type of freedom. Sure, some are, but the majority are not. If you give them that freedom you'll soon see the consequences.
Yeah, they do signal that apathy you talk about, but to the candidates that just means, "if we go with the status quo, we'll keep winning. If we change the message up, people will com out to vote and then who knows who'll be in power." Personally, I feel that the major candidates have their heads on straiter than the 3rd party candiates (not that the status quo is great, but a lot of the ideas put out by the 3rd party guys are great on paper but just won't work), but if you don't like them, go vote for someone else. Even if it's a write-in.... That's how you really make a statement.
First, consider that about $10K is gone to taxes. Plus you'll probably lose more of your income to taxes too by being in a higher bracket, say $2K
What? You don't lose 40% of your salary in taxes at $25,000/year. You need to be in a much higher bracket to lose that much. I'd say it'd be more about $5,000 to $7,000. And $3,000 a year for an older car is a lot... Until just recently I was driving a 1993 Escort that I bought used. My payments were $1,200 per year, and maintenance (oil, tires, repairs, whatever) NEVER topped $600/year. Add in insurance and you get to $2400/year for a car that will still be running 5 years from now if there are no accidents. The guy that bought it from me pays even less per year because he paid cash for it. All he has is gas, insurance, and repairs for a great car. Notice that in my previous post I had gas separate.
Your wardrobe estimate would be for a whole new wardrobe every year. That's just wasteful. Sure, get a few new dresses every year, and a few pairs of shoes, but do you need a whole new wardrobe? My wife certainly doesn't.
I'll agree on the cost of daycare... That's about what I figured.
You can't count going out to eat more because that's really an unrelated choice. If you're going to net zero, eat in. Dinner isn't that hard to prepare. It typically takes me or my wife about 30 minutes, and we can do other things while we're at it. You know what? It tastes better and is healthier than restaraunt food too.
Haven't you seen the films of monkeys raised on wire cages with a bottle as a mom?
Now, was it the bottle as a mom, or was it the wire cages which caused them to be sociopaths? To have a truly effective experiment on this, you'd have to eliminate the wire cage and put them in their natural environment without a mom.
However, interaction with other childern is VERY important to a child's development. I'm planning on play dates for mine rather than daycare, but for some people daycare is the only choice they have.
(OT)
Also, $25,000 a year should be able to more than cover a car (you don't have to buy new), wardrobe (if you have to have a new outfit for every day, get over yourself - my wardrobe costs me under $200 a year, and my wife's is probably about $500) and daycare. After taxes and things like gas to get back and forth and stuff, you should still have about $10,000 from that job. Not a whole lot, but you're definately not losing money. I just figured out that I'd have $8,000 from a $25,000 a year job if I had my more expensive car ($20,000), my wife's wardrobe (granted, this isn't stuff I'd wear =), and one child in daycare. You could go a LOT cheaper on that car, and a bit cheaper on the wardrobe too.
Thank god there are still responsible people like you around. Personally, when my first child is born, my wife is planning on reducing her hours and switching to an evening shift so one of us can be with the children at all times. If there turns out to be any overlap, we're fortunate that a good friend of ours who lives two houses down the road runs a daycare and we can leave the children with her for a while.
Unfortunately, many people are not so lucky. I'm thinking particularly of single parents who live too far away from family to have them take care of the children while they work. This is a case where on-the-job daycare seems to be the best option. For these parents it gives them a chance to maintain some contact with their children throughout the day while still knowing that they are safe and being looked after.
of course he didn't actually address the REAL minority religions, the ones that aren't considered mainstream minority. But that's not necessary, because we already knows how he feels on that.
Do we? I must have missed something, because I haven't heard him mention REAL minority religions one way or the other. However, if you read the first sentance of "his" answer, "I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity," I think it's pretty clear that he supports freedom of religion.
And when did he say that Wicca isn't a religion? Do you expect him to name off all possible religions? We'd be reading his answer all day!
Maybe what I said confused some people, but it was not a lie. I came up with this definition of pro-choice when I was called anti-choice (as you have just done) to show that I'm not trying to take someone's right to choose not to have a child away, I jsut believe that the choice comes at a different time. For the record, the person I was talking with at the time saw my point, and while she is still an abortion-rights supporter, she no longer uses the term "anti-choice."
Also, if the debate was over in 1973, then why is it such a hot topic 27 years later? Just because it was legalized then doesn't mean that the debate is over. By your logic, laws should stand as they always have, and in that case abortion would be illegal as it was before 1973.
I don't understand why pro-life proponents who justify their arguments with reasoning like "the baby is a live, a person, (possibly sacred) and therefore must be saved" can at the same time hold that abortions in the case of rape or incest are OK.
Did you not read where I said "but I'd also hate to condone murder." What I'm saying is that abortion is wrong, whether rape was the cause of the pregnancy or not, but as a human I have feelings for the woman who was raped, and can only imagine how horrible that would be.
As for loading ther terms, that's a term I've used in the past to counter claims that I'm anti-choice. Fact is, I do support a person's choice not to have children, but I don't support the choice to murder children.
To counter that, if adoption didn't cost thousands of dollars, we'd have more people who are already willing to adopt being able to adopt (trust me, I've looked into adopting myself, and I just can't afford it at this point, though I'm saving).
Slashdot Mirror
The composition on the first Mr. Bungle album was not done by John Zorn. He produced the album, and if you're lucky enough to have the studio outtakes from the recording sessions for that album you can hear him take a sax solo on Love Is A Fist. All composition was done by the band themselves. I do agree that Clinton might like them though. He seems to like extreme stuff with good musicianship, and this is the about the best. Also, check out Dog Fashion Disco. Similar stuff from the D.C. area (perhaps a bit of a cross between them, Faith No More, and Clutch), and their first CD on Spitfire records should be out this spring.
Oh, and if you don't have the studio outtakes from Mr. Bungle, try to find it - the version of Platypus that appears on it is worth it alone, and there are some true gems on there (picture them doing Tom Jones' Thunderball =)
-
Of course! It's a virtual community of people who enjoy laughing at Jon Katz!
-
Are you just to lazy to go through and choose what software you need? That's really the only way you'll ever get a tailored system like you're asking for. Even if a lot of "bloat" is cut out, different people have different needs (or even one person with mutiple machines). There will always be more than just what you need on a given distribution unless you go through the trouble to make your own distro just for yourself. Hell, you half make this argument yourself when you say "What the hell am I going to do with programs for faxing and ISDN?" There are a lot of people who do want those capabilities, so they should be included in a distro.
And though I've never installed Mandrake myself, I'm sure it can be done in less than 2.5 GB!
-
You wont get it like A&E doesn't get my business, because they think interupting my viewing every 10 minutes is ok. You wont get it like NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox rarely get my business, because you don't let me watch TV for reasonable periods of time without interruptions.
Don't you know what those interruptions are for? They're there so you can skip to another station and see if anything better is on - or in some cases even watch two shows at once!
-
I don't think of myself as a Perl Programmer. I program in maybe half a dozen languages regularly, whatever's convenient. I've been a programmer since about 1978. When folks call me a Perl Programmer, it never seems to occur to them that ten years ago they would have thought I was ``C Programmer'' and twenty years ago I would have been a ``Fortran Programmer''.
I wish employers would pay attention to that quote from the article... After graduating from college I took a job programming in Informix 4GL, and now it's nearly impossible to get anyone to look at my resume and think I can do anything else. Hell, I've only been doing that for under two years, and prior to that I used mostly C and PERL.
-
It sure is good to see that ever single poster so far has seen through Katz's BS...
Gaming is far from the "most revolutionary cultural force in the world right now," and it was not a major point in the presidential election. Yeah, it got mentioned a few times, but I don't think any candidate made it a platform point. And you know, I'll bet that most of the people in the world haven't even noticed that there's been a lot of press about video games and their effects. You want to know why? Because when it does get mentioned it's usually a small point in a story, and non-slashbots don't get it shoved in their face for a week after the story comes out!
-
Hey everybody... The Internet is not the be all end all of existance. If they don't want to sell rights to internet companies they don't have to, and if someone will pay them for exclusive rights it is their perogative to accept or deny.
As for everyone crowing about money being chosen over amaturism and all, take a look from another perspective... Maybe (noteice I said MAYBE) they want to get this out to as many people as possible while still pulling in enough money to cover the event. Since most of the people in the world still don't have internet access, but a great deal more people do have television, it would make sense to give the TV stations as a priority over the internet sites. If the TV people give them the ultimatum of "us or them", they'll chose TV. Nothing wrong with that WRT the IOC... Get mad at the TV execs if you want, but even they are only trying to protect their business investments.
-
Regulation: A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.
I'd say that applies to Alex fairly well.
Yeah, but that's a huge generalization. Alex was hit with torturous drug therapy - physically and mentally abused to force him into submission. Regulation also means laws saying that if you murder someone or steal, you will be punished for it, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> If you use your "freedom to commit a crime," don't be suprised if you lose that freedom and many more.
Thank you. That was exactly my point.
Nice half-quote. There's a good reason for losing that freedom if you abuse it - you took away the freedoms of others.
-
Work for a few days of their lives? Have you ever known anyone in a band? Most bands never get paid anywhere near as much as the average worker, and those that do (with exceptions of people who are extremely popular and have been for a long time) are out there playing concerts (a very draining experience for those of you who have never done it) and traveling around the world on a nearly daily basis when they aren't recording their next album. Yeah, they might get a little more vacation time than the rest of us, but they also work 6 or 7 nights a week when on tour, and don't get to go home between those nights.
Without royalties most mid-sized bands wouldn't be able to earn a living. Smaller bands will have to work a day job anyways, but to be a mid-sized band you don't have time for a day job. That covers all but the superstars. Dont over-generalize.
-
I think you missed something in A Clockwork Orange... It's more about mind control techniques being used to turn criminals than regulation. Regulation is a rather necessary thing - otherwise you have anarchy.
BTW... If you use your "freedom to commit a crime," don't be suprised if you lose that freedom and many more. Every time you use such a freedom you take away some freedom of someone else's, and should be punished accordingly.
Oh, and for those of us in the US - make sure you get the full book before you read it (the 21st chapter was cut out when it originally went to press here in the US). The last chapter is where the most powerful statements are made. And since Hollywood is in the US, the movie is also missing that last chapter.
-
Yes, but supporting the interests of the people of those states will give them unfair advantage over the people of the other states, and will be bad overall for the country. Human nature is to egocentric for people to vote against someone who will give them something even when it isn't in the best interest of those a state away.
-
well, sorta. it is true that with the electoral college, a candidate needs to take more states than if it were a straight popular vote. but remember, the argument that "a candidate would only need to take 4 or 5 states" to get enough popular votes assumes that he/she take every vote in those states.
A better way of putting it is that if one of the two major candidates wants to win the popular vote, they can campaign heavilly in 4 or 5 states and just a little elsewhere. It's pretty likely that just on name recognition and party afilliation they'll get say 20% of the vote from each state. If they can pull 75% or so from the major 5 and do better than 20% in a few others, they'll have the popular vote while effectively ignoring most of the country.
-
Ballots are secret. No one can legally pressure you to vote in front of them. If your boss tries this, call a lawyer. If your marriage can't survive an argument over a political difference, maybe you should think about why you got married. My wife and I don't exactly agree on everything, but we can always agree to disagree.
-
I just read a little further down on cnn.com and found this quote on the page "Overlooked Florida ballot box filled with supplies, not votes" Unfortunately, the link only contains the original story of the lost and found box... It doesn't mention the supplies again.
-
The recount numbers won't be in until tonight (I've heard around 8:00 EST is when they're expected) and even then they won't hold the absentee ballots.
-
Supposedly anyone in this country of over 300 million people can become president (Age, Citizenship, and Criminal matters aside). Yet out of all those millions of people it comes down to the Vice President, and a man who's dad was president two terms ago.
Anyone can... As long as they win the popularity contest. Sure it's somewhat closed at that level. You have to put in the gruntwork at the bottom (start off in a schoolboard election or town counsel, move up into the state house and senate, go on the the national level, etc...) Once you get past that, all that's between you and the Presidency is getting your ideas across to the people and having them agree with you.
Stop being a little lamb and start thinking for yourself. If you need to be associated with a party to feel like a legitimate person, be associated with a party that actually wants to make real changes, and isn't afraid to say what they think and stick to it. Yes, if you want to actually make a difference: VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
I do think for myself, and I voted for Bush. I don't agree with everything he stands for, but he's a hell of a lot closer to where I am than the other candidates. As far as libertarians go, I think their ideas sound great, but try implimenting them. The people of this country (and I believe the world for that matter) are not ready for that type of freedom. Sure, some are, but the majority are not. If you give them that freedom you'll soon see the consequences.
-
Yeah, they do signal that apathy you talk about, but to the candidates that just means, "if we go with the status quo, we'll keep winning. If we change the message up, people will com out to vote and then who knows who'll be in power." Personally, I feel that the major candidates have their heads on straiter than the 3rd party candiates (not that the status quo is great, but a lot of the ideas put out by the 3rd party guys are great on paper but just won't work), but if you don't like them, go vote for someone else. Even if it's a write-in.... That's how you really make a statement.
-
First, consider that about $10K is gone to taxes. Plus you'll probably lose more of your income to taxes too by being in a higher bracket, say $2K
What? You don't lose 40% of your salary in taxes at $25,000/year. You need to be in a much higher bracket to lose that much. I'd say it'd be more about $5,000 to $7,000. And $3,000 a year for an older car is a lot... Until just recently I was driving a 1993 Escort that I bought used. My payments were $1,200 per year, and maintenance (oil, tires, repairs, whatever) NEVER topped $600/year. Add in insurance and you get to $2400/year for a car that will still be running 5 years from now if there are no accidents. The guy that bought it from me pays even less per year because he paid cash for it. All he has is gas, insurance, and repairs for a great car. Notice that in my previous post I had gas separate.
Your wardrobe estimate would be for a whole new wardrobe every year. That's just wasteful. Sure, get a few new dresses every year, and a few pairs of shoes, but do you need a whole new wardrobe? My wife certainly doesn't.
I'll agree on the cost of daycare... That's about what I figured.
You can't count going out to eat more because that's really an unrelated choice. If you're going to net zero, eat in. Dinner isn't that hard to prepare. It typically takes me or my wife about 30 minutes, and we can do other things while we're at it. You know what? It tastes better and is healthier than restaraunt food too.
-
Haven't you seen the films of monkeys raised on wire cages with a bottle as a mom?
Now, was it the bottle as a mom, or was it the wire cages which caused them to be sociopaths? To have a truly effective experiment on this, you'd have to eliminate the wire cage and put them in their natural environment without a mom.
However, interaction with other childern is VERY important to a child's development. I'm planning on play dates for mine rather than daycare, but for some people daycare is the only choice they have.
(OT)
Also, $25,000 a year should be able to more than cover a car (you don't have to buy new), wardrobe (if you have to have a new outfit for every day, get over yourself - my wardrobe costs me under $200 a year, and my wife's is probably about $500) and daycare. After taxes and things like gas to get back and forth and stuff, you should still have about $10,000 from that job. Not a whole lot, but you're definately not losing money. I just figured out that I'd have $8,000 from a $25,000 a year job if I had my more expensive car ($20,000), my wife's wardrobe (granted, this isn't stuff I'd wear =), and one child in daycare. You could go a LOT cheaper on that car, and a bit cheaper on the wardrobe too.
-
Thank god there are still responsible people like you around. Personally, when my first child is born, my wife is planning on reducing her hours and switching to an evening shift so one of us can be with the children at all times. If there turns out to be any overlap, we're fortunate that a good friend of ours who lives two houses down the road runs a daycare and we can leave the children with her for a while.
Unfortunately, many people are not so lucky. I'm thinking particularly of single parents who live too far away from family to have them take care of the children while they work. This is a case where on-the-job daycare seems to be the best option. For these parents it gives them a chance to maintain some contact with their children throughout the day while still knowing that they are safe and being looked after.
-
Thanks for the info. This is something I hadn't seen before. I now have to wonder what he considers to make a religion...
-
of course he didn't actually address the REAL minority religions, the ones that aren't considered mainstream minority. But that's not necessary, because we already knows how he feels on that.
Do we? I must have missed something, because I haven't heard him mention REAL minority religions one way or the other. However, if you read the first sentance of "his" answer, "I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity," I think it's pretty clear that he supports freedom of religion.
And when did he say that Wicca isn't a religion? Do you expect him to name off all possible religions? We'd be reading his answer all day!
-
Maybe what I said confused some people, but it was not a lie. I came up with this definition of pro-choice when I was called anti-choice (as you have just done) to show that I'm not trying to take someone's right to choose not to have a child away, I jsut believe that the choice comes at a different time. For the record, the person I was talking with at the time saw my point, and while she is still an abortion-rights supporter, she no longer uses the term "anti-choice."
Also, if the debate was over in 1973, then why is it such a hot topic 27 years later? Just because it was legalized then doesn't mean that the debate is over. By your logic, laws should stand as they always have, and in that case abortion would be illegal as it was before 1973.
-
I don't understand why pro-life proponents who justify their arguments with reasoning like "the baby is a live, a person, (possibly sacred) and therefore must be saved" can at the same time hold that abortions in the case of rape or incest are OK.
Did you not read where I said "but I'd also hate to condone murder." What I'm saying is that abortion is wrong, whether rape was the cause of the pregnancy or not, but as a human I have feelings for the woman who was raped, and can only imagine how horrible that would be.
As for loading ther terms, that's a term I've used in the past to counter claims that I'm anti-choice. Fact is, I do support a person's choice not to have children, but I don't support the choice to murder children.
-
To counter that, if adoption didn't cost thousands of dollars, we'd have more people who are already willing to adopt being able to adopt (trust me, I've looked into adopting myself, and I just can't afford it at this point, though I'm saving).
-