sees_all1

Trust me, those would be problems I'd love to have, because it means that millions of children aren't being killed in the womb. Who took care of those children before the 1970s? Their parents. Who took care of teen pregnancies? The teens, and their parents. My argument is very simple: 1-Abortion is always the undesired outcome. 2-Abortion ends an innocent human life. 3-People that procure abortions are either misinformed, or do it for (in my opinion selfish) convenience reasons - "Its inconvenient for me to carry a baby to term right now".

seems like another cryptic clue fest? I wish they would stop mixing the forums with the game. I don't think I want to participate.

sorry, that's directly wrong. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html That isn't our problem now. It may be a problem in the future, but that isn't our problem now. There are many many more things that you haven't accounted for, such as parents that would give birth and decide to keep their children, or people that wouldn't have sex if they knew there'd be consequences. But even if everyone that would have had an abortion put their child up for adoption, I'd much prefer to have a bunch of parent-less babies than a bunch of dead babies. I wish you could understand how stupid your logic is. Their child will die if they don't abort... so instead of letting something natural happen, they intervene and kill it quicker? Wha? Have you read half of anything that I've said? Do you understand it? I'm not going to spend my time arguing with a brick wall. If you refuse to read and attempt to understand what I've said and instead attack my character, I refuse to spend another second on you.

I don't want to pay taxes. But if I don't, I'll be jailed. That's just absurd! The African American population in the United States makes for 12.3% of the TOTAL population, but accounts for 37% of all abortions. Care to explain away that one for me? Data was collected from the 2000 U.S. census. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race From the CDC - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_027.pdf (page 30) 33.1% of women aged 18-44 in the United States have considered adoption. 14.3% of those women took steps to adopt. 23.2% of those women adopted. Which means that ~1.09% of women in the United States, aged 18-44, have adopted. Frankly, I'm surprised the number is that high, considering how complicated and expensive it is (legally) to adopt. The numbers that you've posted include ALL children. Typically when parents adopt, they want to adopt babies. There is more demand than supply for babies to adopt. Another interesting statistic is that of those that took steps to adopt, "poor" people were 2.5-3.9x less likely to adopt. People are willing to adopt babies. That isn't our problem now.

Better dead than *possibly* miserable? Your logic is messed up. Why is it that pro-choice people fight against laws that require the mother to see an ultrasound of their child before they kill it? Isn't knowing your baby is a bit more than tissue, or a ball of cells critical in making an informed decision? The sad fact is that pro-"choice" people deliberately use language to muddy the waters. Its not a baby; its a ball of cells. Its not a child; its a bit of tissue. Why is it so shocking for some people to learn that abortion stops a beating heart?

As a world, we need to work tirelessly to stop it. Abortion is always the undesired outcome. How do you prevent it? For one, you don't pretend that contraceptives and abortifacients are golden tickets to worry-free sex. Most unwanted pregnancies occur because of a failure in birth-control. Teach responsibility, and common sense. If you don't want to have a kid, or are not ready, don't have sex. Simple as that. Also know that love isn't sex, and staying chaste shows more love to your significant other than sex does. Help remove the stereotypes from teenage pregnancies. Instead of looking down on a girl for being pregnant, offer as much help and support as you can. Be a friend; approach the subject delicately. Find your local crisis pregnancy center, and for cabbage sake avoid Planned Parenthood. Don't gossip about it, and don't encourage others either. If you get your girlfriend pregnant, grow a pair and man up. Be the father you are. If you become pregnant, know that your child will be forever thankful for their life. If you can't afford to keep the child, or don't want to deal with raising a kid just yet, give them enough love to put them up for adoption. Never let someone pressure you into a decision you may later regret. If you have regrets, find healing. Learn as much as you can about this subject, become an apologetic. Be able to explain the stages of baby growth and development. Pictures are a must. Tldr; make it easier to give birth than to procure an abortion.

You're worried about what *might* occur, I'm worried about what *has* occurred. 51 million surgical abortions since Roe v. Wade, in the U.S. alone. 51 million people that have been murdered. I've researched this for many hours, and have formed an opinion. You seem to think that I'm dangerous because I want women to become slaves. My position is very simple: If you don't want a kid, keep your legs closed and your pants zipped up. Wake up everyone: your actions have consequences. There are steps you can take to mitigate the risk of pregnancy, but once you've become pregnant, there is a child in your womb that depends on you. To be completely fair, the only thing that child ever did was depend on you; that child is innocent. Killing the innocent is always morally wrong. If you have a position counter to that, I seriously question your judgment and your morals. Saying that the woman's convenience trumps a baby's right to life is scandalous, but its a position I understand (and vehemently disagree with). Calling it anything other than that is just being intellectually dishonest with yourself. edit: Mentally, humans aren't fully developed until the age of 25. 22 days, a heartbeat. Not 5-7 weeks, because there was already a heartbeat. But arguing about "when a heart is formed" is stupid, because it was a human from conception.

I'll get into a chicken and egg argument. How can there be a heartbeat without a heart? 3 weeks. Anyhow, a heartbeat isn't what defines a human. Its the genetic makeup, and the fact that a child is forming. There are two points in early development which are huge: 1. When fertilization occurs (immediately afterward cell division occurs) 2. When implantation occurs (the cells start to "grow" because they begin receiving nutrition from the womb) Other than those two events, its near impossible to differentiate between trimesters, months, weeks, days, hours or seconds; this is why its pointless to define when a baby is "human", in terms of a day or week after conception (heck, its still using conception as the reference point).

Looks like you'll agree with my position that abortion is always undesirable, in every circumstance. And in the act of abortion, a human dies. If you believe that, there's not much we can debate, because we're on the same page.

http://www.secondlookproject.org/tslp_fetal.html This source is a heck of a lot more specific than yours, and isn't a forum. It also cites everything. 3 weeks. Not 5-7.

Define what a human being is then. You attack our definitions, but fail to substitute your own. And I haven't used anything religious in my arguments, its all scientific. Your arguments are based on opinions, not mine. It is a life. It isn't potential life. If left alone (and not cut out of the mother and flushed down the sink), that child will be born. And the heart starts beating around the third week, not the sixth. Please, get your facts straight. The baby only resembles a "ball of cells" until the first week. You'll find it has a distinctive human shape after that. Missed this: Here's one for you - It is a crime to disturb sea turtle nests. Society values seas turtles more than humans. Same with bald eagles. I'll have you know that I've volunteered for a crisis pregnancy center. You'll also be surprised to learn that there are more adoptive parents in the United States than there are children to adopt: its why people have started adopting internationally.

That's stupid. More poor, in the long-term, are an issue. Refugees, death, sickness and starvation are everyone's problem. If you are that selfish, then get the hell off of our planet. 0.02% of the GNI. We spend many times that on buying over-priced over-marketed food for our pets. I donate to causes that I agree with. Before the earthquake in Haiti, I donated money to my church's mission for a sister parish in Duval, Haiti. I don't want the government making those decisions for me. How is that selfish? When government "donates", things like this happen: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/08/haiti-ruins-relief-workers-live-large-love-boat/

So did Theodore Roosevelt and Winston Churchill believe in eugenics. Was there any need to make Hitler an example? To my knowledge, neither Roosevelt nor Churchill started an illegal birth control clinic in Harlem. Margaret Sanger did.

So, lets then call abortion for what it is: murder. You'll agree with me that stopping a beating heart is murder? So before she became pregnant who was in control if she was never in control of her own body? It is not right to tell someone they're not in control of their own body anyway, as long as the child is still in the woman's body it is part of her, and she should have the right to choose what to do. You're not in control of your body. Try to hold your breathe indefinitely. Eventually you'll pass out and start breathing again anyway. Am I in the wrong for telling you this? You'll have a heard time finding a doctor that would amputate your thumbs, with no pretense. You're not in control of your body. If you had complete control, you could just think, "I don't want my thumbs anymore," and they'd fall off. This idea that it's "my body my choice" is a very shortsighted one. That child in the womb has its own body, its separate and complete from the mother's. But if you still want women to have the "right" to chose to what happens to their children, give them all the information. Show them exactly how big and what distinguishable features their baby has. Give them a 4d ultrasound and let them see their baby's face, it move its arms and legs. Refuse to muddy the terminology or dehumanize their baby, because its incorrect scientifically, as well as morally. The pro-"choice" side fights adamantly against these, because it "inconveniences" women from abortion on demand. They'd rather the mother think just once in her 36 weeks of gestation that "maybe I don't want this child", then she'll go to their facility, they'll dehumanize her child, and she'll consent with a tenth of the information she should've had. How will the human race survive after this point? If no one wants their children, and everyone grows old and dies, there will be no one left. It's already happening in Europe: the death rate is higher than the birth rate. It would be happening in the United States too if it wasn't for all the Catholic immigrants from Mexico.

it's not like FoG is far out of the way. Var tele and run... FoG might not be too far out, but you also need to consider the distance to your previous training spot. Plus, 25 hours of training versus an hour at best (FoG items have a nasty habit of degrading regardless of combat style), you'll be interrupted far less frequently. The gain is minimal, and short term.

Sperm don't undergo mitosis: once they're sperm (or eggs), they no longer grow, divide, and grow. Sperm also don't carry enough genetic material to be a full human being. A unique human being comes into existence at fertilization; an egg and sperm are joined, completing the 23 pairs of chromosomes. Shortly after fertilization, mitosis begins and the human being grows. Destroying this life is murder - a completely unique individual dies. Life doesn't begin before that, or after that (ACOG would define it as "implantation" to avoid calling the pill, plan b, etc. an abortifacient, this was a purely political move and is technically incorrect). She became pregnant, she was never "in control" of her own body anyways. Planned Parenthood (and other abortion providers) profits from abortion. How do you get people pregnant? You convince them to have sex. Only way for someone to "accidentally" get pregnant is by having sex. If you don't want a kid, keep your pants zipped up. And as a society we need to change our mentality: a baby is a blessing and not a problem. This whole "people are going to do it anyway, so lets [help them... legalize it... etc]" argument is trash. Murder is wrong, but people are going to do it anyway. Why should we help them do it?

Question for any of you pro-choicers: When does a human life begin? Define that, and then we'll debate. Everyone that is pro-"choice" that I've talked to has yet to answer that simple question - they refuse to, because then they can no longer talk in their circular logic. Abortion, in its very nature, proves that the unborn child is alive. Think about it: if the mother didn't abort her child, she would give birth. Also, abortionists like to wait until 12 weeks gestation before aborting the baby. Why? Because its bigger, and harder to miss with their vacuums. They let it grow and develop so that its easier to kill. Quit playing games with language and face the cold hard truth: nobody wants abortion. Abortion is always the undesirable outcome. Abortion proponents usually have hidden agendas, whether its overpopulation, money, or racism. (Hell, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, pushed birth control on the African American population because she believed, like Hitler, in eugenics). As a society we should spend our time, money and effort making it easier for women to carry their children to term and give birth. Whether they keep their child or give it up for adoption is their decision. Most women that go to procure an abortion think its their "only option". How is that the result of being pro-choice? Also, because this discussion about sexuality is all in the same vein: What message are we sending teenagers by giving them contraceptives in middle school / high school? After sex ed: Everyone take some rubber. Girls, get on the pill. Don't you think its a little suspicious that the place giving away condoms is the same one scheduling abortions? (I'm talking of course about Planned Parenthood. Consumer reports indicated that their condom brands failed many times over more than other brands.) Anyhow, I'm a bit of an apologetic when it comes to this debate. If you need me to cite any of the above, let me know. I'll happily argue with any of you.

Its not the tokens, its the time it takes to get to FoG. The ring conveniently teleports you right to the rewards. There is no easy way to get to the FoG cave on the other hand.

How do I want my tax dollars spent? There's a problem with this to begin with: Tax and spend, tax and spend. Hands off my money, uncle sam. First of all, I'd like to see the current tax code scrapped. So I'd spend my money on revising it. Make it very simple: Every dollar over the poverty line, you have to pay a flat tax on it. None of this "rich pay more, but give them loopholes". The less you tax the rich, the more they spend on goods and services, the more jobs they create. OR, the more they give to charities. Enough about my flat-tax rant. Assume that is implemented, and I get to chose what to spend my money on. 1. Pay up all obligations. That means deficit, outstanding social security, and fix veterans affairs. Begin to rollback social security for current generations, as its bankrupt. 2. Work on infrastructure. Everyone benefits from roads, sidewalks, bridges. 3. Schools, Hospitals, Libraries, Fire Stations, Jails, Police Stations... public services that everyone benefits from. 4. Military. Carry a bigger stick than everyone else. However, cut out all the unnecessary pork spending on pet projects. Things that I would NOT spend my tax money on: 1. Bailouts. FFS, let the market take care of whats "too big to fail" 2. States deficits. California, New York, Michigan: you spent your way into oblivion, I'm not going to drag your [wagon] back from the brink. They need to be responsible like everyone else. 3. Pet projects. No more pork money for "bows and arrows for kids" or the like. Let each district tax themselves and spend their money how they see fit. 4. Stadiums, Arts Centers, Community Centers. These subsidized beasts don't need public money to happen. If there's a need, an entrepreneur will make it happen. Not everyone uses these, they don't benefit everyone. 5. Foreign aid. Distributing contraceptives to earthquake victims in Haiti is a waste of money. Same with the "love boat" from the U.N.

All types of 3d cause eyestrain, some more than others. The best system is a passive one in which two projectors project right and left images to the screen in vertical / horizontal polarizations. Universal Studios and Disney are known for using this for years. This is impractical for home use though. The active 3d shutter glasses are horrible for your eyes, almost as bad as the red/blue filtered. Not to mention that staring at a computer screen is already bad for your eyes, using these 3d glasses makes it about 10x worse. Its cool to see that it *can* be done... but I wouldn't recommend doing it for more than 10 minutes at a time. If you're under the age of ~25, you may screw up your eyes for the rest of your life. Make sure you keep the aspirin handy, you'll definitely get headaches from your eye strain. To be completely honest, the only reason TV manufacturers are pushing 3d "technology" is because they've run out of things to sell. Until OLED technology becomes widely manufactured, I'd stay away from all this fuss.

Could we bind the runes to the staff? Sort of like the nature / law staffs, except an entire spell? Also, utilizing runecrafting to do this would be good, just like "imbue-staff" in dungeoneering. Need an equivalent rc level to the magic level it takes to cast the spell. Or 2/3s.

Uh, no. No I wouldn't. I don't need a skill cape because I have quick chat. Is it too much to ask for them to fix their own damn game?

But can a ranger beat them? Seems the mage can just farcast ftw. What magic lacks in its KOability it makes up for in the "screw them to the spot". Implementing a no-pjer system has fixed 98% of PJs... it still happens in rare circumstances (both players eatting). Once jagex adds enough patches, it'll be the same as a complete overhaul in the fact that no one in their right mind would use the traditional weapons.

Kill hobgoblins in a Bounty Hunter world. They're located in level ~35 wilderness, northwest of the volcano. Only grab the limpwurt roots they drop. Make sure you have about 10-12 lobsters, or enough to get to a safe spot. Use the banker south of the volcano. They're aggressive to everyone, so you don't have to worry too much about another PKer. When you get a target, kill them (easier said then done, I know). No arm them if you have to, make sure you don't die (anchovy pizzas and swordfish). If they die in full rune, your drop will be ~200-300k. If you kill your target, or die, and your EP is greater than 50%, skip killing hobgoblins and kill people until your EP is under 50%. The idea is that you never let your EP reach 10% or 100%. If you're good enough to kill your targets, and don't die, you should get on the order of 400k-500k / hour.

I used it about 5 years ago. So I put rarely. Least I know what it is :rolleyes: