Romy

Sees_all, your agenda borders on individual dictatorship. No one should have a say on women's (or people in general's) freedom to decide what to do with their own body. You think it's wrong, that's your opinion, but if someone doesn't want to have a child, they should not. Because they're likely to hate their child, not care for him, not be able to provide for him, the list for problems with having an unwanted child goes on endlessly. No one should be able to force a woman into having a child. If she thinks she couldn't provide for him/her doesn't want him/her, knows he/she'll be born ill (and not want an ill child), or whatever other [bleep]ing reason. A child born to that reality is going to have a terrible life. Whether your appriciate every life, or you don't, you shouldn't have a say in what each individual wants to do with it's own body. Period.

Oh, that's great! Pretty much exactly what I had in mind :)! Just 2 things if you don't mind- a more fitting quote to that picture would be "Let it rain, let it pour", and adding my name ;). Thanks a lot, I'm pretty much shocked my request was answered so soon and so well :D. EDIT: Question- How long does it take to just put a quote in the picture? Is it a 1 minutes procedure, or something that takes time? That looks real nice, I appriciate the effort ;). I hope you don't mind if I use Steve's instead :/?

Guys, look up... you messed the count. If you count Justin's double posting, 4513 ON THIS POST. If you don't, 4514.

I honestly wish you best of luck in coming out of the closet infront of your parents! It's going to be tough, so be prepated. I just hope their reactions wouldn't be too bad.

I don't think it should be that cut and dry. I'm not trying to educate you or anything, but some of the smartest people in the world are actually religous. I'm an atheist, and as a former religous, find it extremely hard to understand where belief in God comes from other than comfort, but blankly disqualifying them based on that, that's pointlessly cruel. Just yesterday I've had one of THE most important conversations in my life, with a very much believing Christian. I'd hate to see anyone miss on one of those just because they disqualified somebody based on their beliefs.

Winter kind, really no idea how to describe it better. Just, you know, melancolic perhaps, but not heavily melancolic. It's rain :D.

I'm afraid I don't trust my creativity there :/...

Why does it matter so much?

Having such a vague border of "what should be legal", that is also based purely on morality, is not feasible. I'm afraid you're not going to ever see it happening the way you want it for that very reason.

1. But risking of life does not equal certain death. When the mother is at risk, she's at risk, she's not going to definitely die. So, once again, is murdering a child okay if it removes the risk of the mother's life? 2. I said, hypothetically speaking. "say there was a "life-saving surgery" that would kill a living child". If it existed, would it be okay?

Abortion: A surgery where the only intent and purpose is to cause the death of an unborn child. Life-saving surgery: A surgery to save the life of a mother unable to have a child which unfortunately results in the termination of a pregnancy. Here, murdering a child is not the intent, rather an unfortunate side effect. One life is ended, another is saved. It sucks, but is sometimes necessary. The reason this doesn't translate to a born baby is because there is no situation where the only way to save the life of another human is to murder an innocent child. But the life-saving surgery gurantees the child's death. Any action taken, that the one taking it knows and is certain that will result in someone's death, shouldn't be considered murder? Also, hypothetically speaking, say there was a "life-saving surgery" that would kill a living child- If I know you well enough, you'd firmly oppose that (and for a good reason). Why not oppose a life-saving surgery that kills the fetus?

A little off topic here then. Since you see it as murdering a person then how would things like driver licences, legal age for sex, legal age to drink alcohol be done? Since atm you only do/have it when you are like 18/21 etc years old. How do you know when a person is really 18/21 years old? (Or am I talking out of my [wagon] now?) Birth has always been the "legal" start of life, but in the long run, its 9 months. There's no point to changing it, but if the legal definition were to change, people could vote at 17 years 3 months, drive at 15 years 3 months, etc. Not a big difference. You didn't answer my question. Why is it okay to have an abortion when the mother's life is at risk, if abortion is murder, and isn't okay to murder a born baby if doing so eliminates such a case? Well, you said abortion should only be allowed in case the mother's life is at risk. Let me ask you this- would you say it's okay to murder a born baby to save their mother's life? Here, it's not even save her life, it's practically remove a life threat. Murdering just for that seems immoral, wouldn't you say? Why agree to that then? It's absolutely not ok, because there is no way that murdering a born baby can save a mother's life. In the event that the mother will die from carrying a baby, an operation is performed to save the life of the mother. An unfortunate side effect is that the child will die.

A little off topic here then. Since you see it as murdering a person then how would things like driver licences, legal age for sex, legal age to drink alcohol be done? Since atm you only do/have it when you are like 18/21 etc years old. How do you know when a person is really 18/21 years old? (Or am I talking out of my [wagon] now?) Birth has always been the "legal" start of life, but in the long run, its 9 months. There's no point to changing it, but if the legal definition were to change, people could vote at 17 years 3 months, drive at 15 years 3 months, etc. Not a big difference. Well, you said abortion should only be allowed in case the mother's life is at risk. Let me ask you this- would you say it's okay to murder a born baby to save their mother's life? Here, it's not even save her life, it's practically remove a life threat. Murdering just for that seems immoral, wouldn't you say? Why agree to that then?

I don't see why, regardless of reason, a woman should have a right to murder another person. And yes, pro-lifers (such as myself) will continue to protest until all abortion is illegal, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened. It's not a person, it's a fetus. A shell of what will become a person. It's just preventing a life from happening not ending one. If you want to illegalize preventing life then why should masturbation, condoms, and birth control be legal? I definitely agree with you, but the whole is-abortion-murder debate is as old as the concept of abortions itself. I don't think it's murder, but can see why others do. It's a charged issue, no one answer is correct.

I know I've only recently asked for a signature, but that's because I knew I wanted a change, but had no idea what kind of change I wanted. My request was very vague, and even though 2 signatures had caught my attention, I now know what I want. I want a rain-themed signature :D! Any (one!) of the following should appear in it: *Aww... the sky is crying *Let it rain, let it pour *You're MY kind of rain :) (not the actual Tip.It smiley, the : and then ) ) *Here comes the rain again, falling from the stars (Yeah...Green Day...) *Into each life some rain must fall Any other quote about rain that is nice :D. My name should be there too, just like my last request :P. A nice design will, once again, be absolutely blessed. Thanks a lot ;). P.S. It should follow the Tip.It Forum signature rules :). EDIT: The signature should definitely show actual rain, whether in the form of a cartoon, a drawing, a painting, real rain, or whatever, rain should be there <3: ...

Amen. The world should learn from Canada :P.

I'm pro-choice. I also hold a not-very-popular opinion about life. It's not as holy and critical as most like to think. There's a famous quote of ... I don't remember who and neither remember the exact wording, but they said they've been dead for billions and billions of years, and have been comfortable with it, so they aren't afraid of death. I just think having a terrible life is worse than not having lived at all. And I also think having a child you do not wish to have / having a child you don't think you could support / having a child that could not handle the reality it's sent into = not a good idea. The 2 thoughts combined equal being very pro-choice about it all. Not to mention the basic freedom we're taking away from women by not allowing them to have abortions.

I agree that today, more than ever, "Invention is the mother of necessity". I just don't think cellphones are a good example of this, or an example at all.

If the if the quality and quantity of the benefits were better than the disadvantages, I might. Right now, I don't see myself doing anything like that, because I'd lose the parts of my life I find vital. That's not the case with phones. They're just useful and helpful, why shouldn't I use them?

People would look the same at a 30 year old without a car. It's just odd today, after that specific piece of technology is so natural to us. A car is used to go from point A, to point B. If we could use cars properly and have them at the size of a cellphone, I assure you people would take their cars everywhere. And again, cellphones are not the ones to cause that 'problem', but rather the way society had developed thus far.

Which is why I put my mobile in my car and usually keep it there. I don't really mean to say if cell phones are definitely "good" or "bad", but there is no doubt that they are no longer an invention of luxury but rather a necessity to be part of today's culture. But I encourage you to reconsider the definition of "important" or "urgent" and also evaluate the context of our emotional response. If an "urgent" piece of information needs to be conveyed today, people take "urgent" to mean NOW. They NEED to get ahold of you NOW and it causes a panic if they don't hear from you in a day. Before, something different was just expected. If you were trying to get ahold of someone, and even went to their house and saw they weren't there, you wouldn't go into a panic and say "Ahhh!! Why isn't there a way for this to happen INSTANTLY?!" You just knew that people weren't going to be available 24/7, and they knew it too. I don't think that handling an "urgent" issue is a necessity, and I don't think instant grantifaction is any "better" than interaction with people on an uncertain timeframe. Especially if the former means that every human needs to carry a radiation-emitting device with them 24/7. Well, there isn't much difference between a car (you even claim to own one) and a cellphone by that definition. Both are considered a necessity nowdays, cars perhaps only after a certain age. We're dependant on cars today, it's almost as if we'd be lost without cars. As for wanting things instantly, I don't think the reason is the invention of cellphones, but rather what we were taught from young age. Today, a 3 year old with access to the internet, can just click something and millions of virtual fireworks will just fill his screen and try their best at catching his attention. What do you think that 3 year old will do in the "real" world? He'd expect it to be amazing and joyful, and instantly at that. Why shouldn't he? Just a click, and the world is set by categories infront of your eyes, why shouldn't ice cream and toys be the same? Why shouldn't communication be the same? Why shouldn't phones become a necessity?

It was already there anyway.

Well, personally, I'd go for a documentary. I fell inlove with making those after my first one. All you need is a camera (preferably of good quality), some tapes, and an editing program of some sort. If you're going hardcore, a tripod, a boom, and some other accesories would make things easier. EDIT: Actually... with 200$ that's almost impossible.....nevermind.

...? As far as I've seen, being asexual is a myth. I mean, my girlfriend was considered asexual before she started dating me. 'Asexual' people are just people who ignore their natural attractions. Whatever the reason for your mental distaste, you must be physically attracted to someone/something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality Doesn't seem like a myth to me :).

I'd definitely use it. However, I don't think it's feasible. As far as my knowledge with these things goes (not so far :P), quoting is just a change of appearance as Yguy said. If I'm wrong, I'd love to see it happen, but I don't think I am :/.