sees_all1

[hide=other obvious answer is obvious] BEING PREGNANT IS A PRETTY RELIABLE INDICATOR THAT SEX OCCURRED This might not be as obvious as the first, so I'll elaborate. Abortion covers up the "accident". It allows for long term abuse to continue. At the very least, when a woman gives birth, its a pretty big event. One that most people would go to the hospital for. In an abusive situation, abortion covers up rape allowing it to go on indefinitely. Having a baby should at the very least disrupt it enough for contact with the outside world. [/hide]

[hide=obvious answer is obvious] A PREGNANT 13 YEAR OLD GIRL WHERE THE LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT IS 14 IS A BIG RED FLAG duh. [/hide]

So the soccer coach threatens to kill her if she tells anyone. Does that make it her fault? The whole premise of an age of consent is that children mentally cannot make an informed decision about their relationships. She cannot be expected to tell her parents about this, especially if she felt threatened. Here's another - abortion covered up child abuse http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/planned_parenthood_sued_for_covering_up_rape_of_a_minor/ Tell me that's the girls fault for not reporting it. Its worse than bullying, because its her own father who she cannot get away from. If abortion was illegal, a pregnant girl at the age of 13 would be an obvious sign that something is wrong.

You're not going to get a different answer from me. Let me point out, however, that abortion can be the worst thing for rape or incest. There are stories like this one in Cincinnati - http://www.protectcincinnati.org/ProtectLawsuits.html Underage girl, impregnated by her soccer coach. Abortion covers it up and the abuse continues.

How about you go read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? That way, you won't sound as ignorant as you do now. Biologically speaking, two separated sex cells are nothing. When they combine they form a completely new, living entity. Its not potential life, that person is alive. The entire abortion debate boils down to a single question; when are humans given their rights? Arguing about anything else is just being intellectually dishonest. Abortion proponents absolutely hate that question, because to argue that question they must first acknowledge that a person exists the entire time, and what they're doing is killing that person.

Last night got 97 strength and 85 Dung from the same dungeon. Also created a twit account to post my runescape activities. Same as my RSN...

If my family was murdered, and I faced the murderer in a one on one situation (as unlikely the scenario), I'd probably want to pound him to a pulp. That said, I pray to God that never occurs, and if it does, that He'll give me the strength to get through that. But that's about as personal as I'll get with you, because it isn't relevant to the debate at hand. What do you say to a woman that carries her child to term, then flushes it down the toilet? Sorry, you're two weeks too late to legally kill your baby? Anyhow, there are more than 2000 crisis pregnancy centers in the United States, most of which do not receive federal funding. If she doesn't have the money or want to pay for the bill, they will help her. They will help her all the way until she puts her child up for adoption or until she no longer needs assistance. In a perfect pro-life world, every child conceived would have a chance at life. In a perfect pro-life world, there would be no want or need for abortion. There would be no stigma attached to being pregnant, no stress or pressures from society. Put a skin cell in a uterus and tell me if it forms a human being in 9 months. Also, there is a huge difference between a person tanning themselves and a person taking the life of another individual. And your counter-protest point is flat out wrong. Of course, people without strong convictions would never know that, because they'd never see it first hand. About a month ago I was praying in front of a local abortion facility, and in an hour I'd been called a dozen names I'm not allowed to post here. Or you could look video posted a couple pages back.

I liked october... classic. My favorite book was Rainbow Six though. Haven't read a Clancy novel in forever. :sad:

hahaha, write another article about it, just like what you did with this week Tip.It Times. I can't get that many words on a simple bug...

The reason of the abortion isn't really to "make the pain go away". It's because the mother doesn't want to give birth to a rapist's child and raise them on her own, she is not financially/mentally ready yet or simply does not want a child - even though the pregnancy has already been imposed on her against her will, and to cut any ties to that miserable memory she can (in that case I guess it is a matter of making the pain go away). No one is forcing her to raise the child. I understand the concerns, especially in this rare and terrible situation. The child is not at fault though, so it should not be punished. Why should there not be exceptions to that rule? What if it's a question of a sick demented serial killer's life or three innocent children? Is it wrong to take his life, even though it would directly be securing three innocent ones? It's not as black and white as killing = bad, not killing = good. I believe that killing is inherently wrong, however, under certain circumstances, it is definitely the lesser of two evils. In the case of abortion, it sounds much worse to force her to endure more trauma than she's just been through than for her to make the choice to abort her own rape baby because of the reasons I listed above. Its a question of intent. I believe that the death penalty is wrong, because the intent isn't to save people, its to end a life. The intent of your hypothetical situation is to save three innocent ones, instead of taking the demented serial killer's life. Say the demented serial killer were holding a gun at their heads, and you had a gun. If you shoot him in the head, they'll be safe. If you shoot him in the chest, they'll be in harms way. If you shoot at his hand, you might miss. What do you do? You keep them safe, you go for the head shot. If they die, its an unfortunate consequence, but its not the intent. This is a core issue. When do humans get their rights? I believe that a person's inalienable rights from God are granted once a person is formed in the womb - at conception. Yes, the convenience of the woman and the rights of her child may be diametrically opposed, but one "right" supersedes the other.

Simply put, two wrongs don't make a right. Killing a child in the womb won't make the pain of rape go away. Also, the belief that every person has a right to life doesn't leave any exceptions.

we should riot.

I'll have to look back through Jagex's archive, shameless might have been their word (or something similar). They were only apologetic about it when they removed it. I don't mind advertising P2P, or the manor they did it way back when. I do mind that they're inconsistent with their policies though. EDIT: The announcement of the removal of gnomecopters came in a forum post. In Q&A sessions, there was talk about "overtly advertising" for the membership section in runescape (from MMG). I'm still calling it like I see it. :shades:

http://nfl.cpa.delvenetworks.com/delve/player/aol/carousel/embed_code_no_ad.html?channelId=de89a8aeb3e422bac4eb48567f10ebd0&channelListId&mediaId=1f08e25e44434739b853112c2b8f300c scary.

Once upon a blue moon, dolphins ate a muppet that was quite scary to watch as they started they began to having filthy lousy hiccups. Their hiccups were very loud and thunderous as A thunder cloud. As rain started milk poured from the crevices of a big cow's bountiful pink teats and all townfolk emerged running with unsharpened iron knives and many torches made from weathered Nails and donkey hide. Those townfok pursued the poor but beautiful witches who had made delicious buttermilk biscuits for every kid in the village. The witch hunt then started and all the boys, even little john went out and spontaneously combusted, because their clothes were made of balls. The townsfolk realized

Here, I'll write your defense section. 1. Get 99 runecrafting 2. Spam click opponents orbs ... 4. Profit! Nice guide pointers.

17

Setup must be 2 maxed players then, and 3 leeches. Implementing a cap on all free players would harm their setup. Removing the cap/members doors for all free players would likely help them a minuscule amount (will hurt the leeches though, they might add another combat player), but it would help the vast majority of legitimate free players, and hurt the majority of leeches (we won't hurt ourselves if we kick you, no mutually assured destruction). Also, 120k dungeoneering XP / hour sounds a bit like a fabrication. Coming from a cheater, I'm skeptical at best. At the very least it doesn't sound sustainable, until I remember its coming from maxed free players that are known to play for 8+ hours a day... I'm glad I don't have that kind of motivation/devotion.

Key your own dungeons, or find a perm team to dg with. Doesn't even have to be larges. Nowadays I just get a few friends and rush meds on all floors. I've found that duoing a medium sized dungeon with a noob is the way to go. Experience cap is lifted, they're still helping to clear the room of monsters, and the likelihood that one member room will kill the dungeon becomes much less. Even if it does, it doesn't hurt *that* bad, because mediums are that much faster than larges. I don't think I'll 5:5 ever again - unless someone from that clan needs a 5th...

Enlighten me, where did you see those figures? Teach me to be that efficient, because In my personal experience the fastest anyone can finish a large dungeon is in 30 minutes. The highest experience I've ever received from a large dungeon is about 40k, but that dungeon had very few members doors (3 rooms that could not be unlocked). Usually my XP is between 30-36k for large, floor 35, with an average party combat level less than 90. Even if it was 40k xp for floor 35, every time, that still leaves the fact that there are only 6 large dungeons worth doing (f30-35), and the rest need to be cleared out (1-29). In my experience, it takes 1 minutes to rush each floor (average) from 1-29. Since the settings are 5:1 c1, you get virtually no experience. 240k xp for 3 hours large dungeoneering, plus a half-hour for rushing nets at best 68k experience per hour. That's best case scenario though - we're ignoring the time it takes to form a team, ignoring the fact that large dungeons are nearly impossible to clear with a combat average of less than 90 in 30 minutes, and ignoring the fact that most large dungeons usually have many more impossible rooms than I've accounted for here. Even if everything else was equal, its still faster for members to train past level 71 - they get higher prestige and higher floors. And that's where 99% of the skill's experience is, from levels 71 to 120. If you'll notice my suggestion at the end - I either want all limitations in F2P to be removed (no XP cap, and no monster cap), or all limitations in F2P to be applied to everyone (XP cap for everyone, monster cap for everyone). Either way, P2P gets faster experience. Woe is you if you ever lose membership. :wink:

I was hoping this would get published, if only for the fact that Jagex might reads it.

You're too kind.

If you never use it, you might as well not buy it. Losing dungeoneering equipment is hard for about 10 minutes, then you realize that now you have another goal to work for. :wink: