[crazyoldcatlady]

this just in, some health insurance plans cover cialis and not birth control

[aliertyantarf]

Things You miss To recognize around Cialis

There are commlone two types of psychedelics to determine from. The sooner is branded psychedelics which are sold at prominent pharmacies for heinous prices.
Your double selection is Cialis which are offered for low prices. There are some individuals who opt for the latter when their account is not reasonably for branded medicaments.
fifty-fifty if generic numbs fathom altogether other from the supreme brands, the formulation of the last is comparqualified with the latter.
While you can buy generic medicaments at pharmacies located within your quarter, you can also buy generic medicament online.
There are certain websites which deal in remedys and one of these is.

Cialis trust in which caters predominantly to clients who required to obtain affordproficient recipes. Whether you are looking for a medicament for your
steep blood bring to bear on or for your viral infection, you devise be proficient to avail of a numb which does not amount to more than $2.
Buy lousy generic Cialis online, and you devise greatly promote from the low prices of its numbs. The costs of the medications at this psychedelic shop sphere from 0.49 cents to 1.99 cents.
This implies that you devise not drink to fritter away much in correct for you to discover a medication for your sickness. If you allocate Alzheimer's infirmity,
steep cholesterol on, feven, or a upright difficulty, you can get your numb from .You can quits buy generic Cialis medicaments for sadness and erectile dysfunction
here at this online dispensary. You can buy Cialis, Viagra, Levitra, online to helple the signs of erectile dysfunction.

When you buy Cialis and it has been shipped to you, you are not allocatequalified to interest it as soon as you learn it. putting, there is an lockout
to this proffer policy. You resolution lone be qualified to deliver the remaining psychedelic when the shipped medication is not the one you sooner a be wearing corrected.
If this is the if it happens, you resolution be accordd with a utmost refund. Shipping charges are also included with this refund. On the other help,
you are allocateed to rub out your procedure without blot outlation fees. This is workable as yearn as you apprise the rub outlation on account of e-send twelve hours after you procure corrected.
When you blot out within this aeon, desire try to approve this. regardless how, there is no confidence that your correct resolution be rub outled.

When you craving to buy ly Cialis, you required a remedy. The medication that you confer on to this online numbstore should be valid and accordd by a licensed doctor.
The medication also be in want ofs to sooner a be wearing a signed impersonate which you are flourishing to back away from to the physicians of , in pecking for you to get your correct.
You can send your doctor's remedy including the prop e-send take in of this psychedelic trust in. If you are water eighteen years old, your medication desire not be accepted.
They desire lone forearm you with the psychedelics when the remedy has been co-signed by your right guardian. If continuously you do not sooner a be wearing a remedy for the medications
that you lack, you obligation see to it that you get one from your doctor.

Author : Abel Davis http://www.onlinepharmacy.vg/catalog/-c-32_469.html

[auralpoison]

For reals, isn't it!

I have a weird AIDs story. Since I was wee bitch, my best friend was a friend of my folks. He lived in SF & we exchanged a furious amount of letters/cards. Then he got sick. I wasn't realy smart enough to understand HIV when I was ten, but I knew he was sick & nobody would tell me why. They didn't want to say, "Well he's got the queer disease" when that's what they thought it was. Thankfully. But I knew something was wrong. We had lunch. Our LAST lunch because after that he got hella ill & died.

He was SOOOOO special to me. He was sooooo much a part of who I am as a person. The first time I ever spoke at a eulogy was him when I was eleven. He inspired me so much. He made me confident in my weird, fucked up self. He made me feel OKAY.

I just hope that this can help other people. Could I have given it to Vaguhn, I would have. My heart still goes out to him.

[erinjane]

I'm going to ignore nohope too, because if someone can't see the problem with restricting children to parents, etc, then I can't see anyone to rationally carry on a discussion with him.

Moving on, AP, that's such a cool story. I can't wait to hear more on that.

[culturehandy]

Nohope DUDE, I can't even believe you are asking a question about how restricting the number of children is an invasion of personal provacy! Holy crap man, democracy now democracy now, but then you say shit like that. Oh fuck, it's the fucking morality police! I can't think about this, my brain hurts.

AP, that is super interesting! And I agree, the doc is sessi!

[auralpoison]

Okay, so I'm switching topics because Nohope is a douche & I wish he'd take his ball & go home.

This is pretty damned cool. And the doc is kinda hawt in that weird, German way.

[nohope]

i don't know how much more of this i can argue. it's an inalieable right to stake claim to YOUR OWN BODY, make decisions for YOUR OWN BODY.

if society takes your body away from YOU, then we're all doomed. and THAT, ultimately, is not going to be good for society.

Society has already taken your body away form you. That is why we have the highest per capita prison population in the world. There are lots of things you can not control about your body. The only question is should we be able to ask bad parents to not have anymore children.

Just for the recored there is this thing called abstinence by which people can not have any more children. Forcing people to take birth control is not the only means. Just like bank robbery, we don't tell people how to keep themselves from robbing banks, we just set up a systems of social consequences for doing so and let each individual find their own way to comply.

I do not see how restricting the number of children is any more of an invasion of personal privacy.

[crazyoldcatlady]

(stifling a snicker )

[pollystyrene]

All I know is that peeing on the flour is a waste of good flour.

[crazyoldcatlady]

Why shouldn't people who pee on the flour not be fined at the very least. My Partner cleaned toilets at a university in order to get an education. What people think is exceptionable behavior is simply amazing. Some form of consequence for their action to me would be welcome.

the point is, every guy i've ever known has at one time or another, misdirected his stream, or gotten a dribble outside the confines of the urinal.

it's a metaphor. parenting (like a stream), can be misdirected by the mere fact that everyone is human, and missed the mark (urinal) of society's acceptable parenting standards (no matter how benign or egregious).

i don't know how much more of this i can argue. it's an inalieable right to stake claim to YOUR OWN BODY, make decisions for YOUR OWN BODY.

if society takes your body away from YOU, then we're all doomed. and THAT, ultimately, is not going to be good for society.

[nohope]

I don't think I understand. There are laws in the books about parenting, especially with regrads to neglect, abuse and molestion. I don't know that it has improved the parenting of people who have bad intentions towards their children so much as it has increased punishments towards those people.

I don't think there is much debate that our society has moved dramatically away from punishments and towards rewards.

Just a generation or two ago, teachers beating school children was considered completely acceptable. Today there are discussions about whether "time out," is a form of child abuse.

And whether we are talking about children, womens rights, or those of various minority groups, Laws giving people rights have almost always preceded shifts in social norms.

Without affirmative action, Obama would almost certainlt not be president today. It was laws which outlawed discrimination based on race in the work place which have shifted the social norms.

[kittenb]

The fact is this. Laws both reflect and project moral value. Therefor just having laws on the books will improve parenting.

I don't think I understand. There are laws in the books about parenting, especially with regrads to neglect, abuse and molestion. I don't know that it has improved the parenting of people who have bad intentions towards their children so much as it has increased punishments towards those people.

[nohope]

Nohope, do you really think having more laws on the books will improve parenting?

I am not a big fan of legalizing morality, but the evidence seems to indicate that laws change social norms and so there for I have to admit that laws would.

Honestly, did you just say that?

I go were the evidence leads. Not were I wish it lead.

Who exactly is going to enforce this? does part of your plan also include having big brother watch every parents move?

How are smoking bans enforced?

I work front line with people who would be accused of being "bad" parents. Everyone has their own style of parenting. I personally think people who teach absitence only are morons, however, if their children are being treated kindly, not being abused, not being neglected, etc. This one issue of sex education doesn't make them a bad parent, nor does it make everything else about their parenting moronic.

I think we all know that we are talking about abuse and neglect. And yes that could mean that parents need to stop beating their children. How is it that we believe that the law should protect the rights of the biggest, strongest and most independent members of society doing what ever they want to the smallest and weakest and most dependent in society.

That is a morally bankrupt position.

I find it very ironic, nohope, that you pass yourself off as this extremely liberal, open minded person, when you really aren't. your ideologies about law fall into the same category as those who are very right wing. We need better laws for parenting, ergo will need people to police parents, and who's a big fan of things like that? More laws to dictate morality? ahh yes, that's something which falls in with righ wing dogma's. Your ignorance also falls in with a religious dogma.

ad hominem

[nohope]

-peeing on the floor is, as decided by socital consensus, not a good thing, as it affects society as a whole in terms of sanitation(2)

Why shouldn't people who pee on the flour not be fined at the very least. My Partner cleaned toilets at a university in order to get an education. What people think is exceptionable behavior is simply amazing. Some form of consequence for their action to me would be welcome.

[culturehandy]

Nohope, do you really think having more laws on the books will improve parenting? Honestly, did you just say that? Who exactly is going to enforce this? does part of your plan also include having big brother watch every parents move?

I work front line with people who would be accused of being "bad" parents. Everyone has their own style of parenting. I personally think people who teach absitence only are morons, however, if their children are being treated kindly, not being abused, not being neglected, etc. This one issue of sex education doesn't make them a bad parent, nor does it make everything else about their parenting moronic.

I find it very ironic, nohope, that you pass yourself off as this extremely liberal, open minded person, when you really aren't. your ideologies about law fall into the same category as those who are very right wing. We need better laws for parenting, ergo will need people to police parents, and who's a big fan of things like that? More laws to dictate morality? ahh yes, that's something which falls in with righ wing dogma's. Your ignorance also falls in with a religious dogma.

[crazyoldcatlady]

in the simplist terms possible:

In the US House*, there's a bill that's waiting to be passed that will prohibit men from pissing on the floor around the urinals. those who cannot control their stream will be forced to be catheterized, a relatively uncomfortable, invasive act that involves shoving a tube up your penis so that it may pee into a bag. the potential for complications are there (infections, local trauma), but minimal.

this law meets all your argued criteria:
-peeing on the floor is, as decided by socital consensus, not a good thing, as it affects society as a whole in terms of sanitation(2)
-shitting on the floor is not addressed in this bill, even though the sanitation concerns trump that of peeing(1)
-the duration of this imposed sanction is arbitrary (case-by-case review), but repeat offenders will not be allowed to continue peeing in public bathrooms, or will be subject to fines (for which they may/may not be able to afford)(3)

now, with the imminent threat of a tube being shoved up your junk for that one infractionary droplet that escaped the urinal, are you more or less likely to pee on the floor?

*completely theoretical
(1)

I think the key is not to use arbitrary metrics. Molestation is not for instance necessarily more harmful to society than neglect.

(2)

parenting is a behavior, bad parenting is a behavior which has anti social consequences.

(3)

Remove the extra children at birth if the parent won't use birth control. And use fines as a last resort.
The fact is this. Laws both reflect and project moral value. Therefor just having laws on the books will improve parenting.

[nohope]

once again, what makes a "bad" parent, and who decides?

That is always an impotent question. Ultimately, like all moral question, the answer is reached threw a social consensus, by evaluating affect of behaviors on society, which hopefully is reflected threw democratic means in state law.

parenting is a behavior, bad parenting is a behavior which has anti social consequences.

maybe the welfare mom has kid 6, but she's working her ass off to make a good life. on the outside, it looks like she "failed". meanwhile, suburbia mom/dad/2.5 kids looks all shiny on the outside, but little jenny's getting molested.

I think the key is not to use arbitrary metrics. Molestation is not for instance necessarily more harmful to society than neglect. In any case these are empirical question. They are not outside of our ability to measure.

In case one, six kids might be too many. We all would be better off if she had had only two say. In the second case, one may be too many and we would all be better off if she had not had any..... of course in both cases, two people brought about those children.... the father of the six and the father of the two should also not be aloud to have more children as long as these conditions persist and he is unable, incapable, or actively involved in the parental abuse, neglect.

you know what affects me? children raised to be psycho-christian republicans, homophobes, misogynists, and the general miasma of bigots and hypocrites.
shall we outlaw them as well? because i don't want their "cancer" affecting MY offspring or society.
/sarcasm.

I think that is an empirical question. We shouldn't discount that some ideologies are socially harmful and that brainwashing people to believe them is harmful to society.

Germany has outlawed Nazism. It is unlawfully to sell Mein Kampf. That is social decision which they made and which makes a lot more sense in Germany than the US, clearly write and wrong are not always absolute and are conditional on a lot of circumstances.

By the way I was helped a lot in my thinking on morality by a book called, The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer.

on a fiscal level, putting bad parents in jail is going to crowd the prisons and tax the system even more. then they get out, saltier than what they went in. jail is not rehabilitation.

the point is, educate educate educate. give the tools to help those that need them. what they do with those tools is up to them. some will take it and fly, some won't. you can't police human nature, and this law is a scary slippery slope.

I oppose jail, though in your hypothetical molestation case I support removal form society. Some people are too mentally ill to handle social interactions without harming other people. that is a sad reality of the human condition.

I think external over sight, probations, education, with the threat of removing the children being harmed is enough to get most parents to not have children. Remove the extra children at birth if the parent won't use birth control. And use fines as a last resort.

The fact is this. Laws both reflect and project moral value. Therefor just having laws on the books will improve parenting.

[erinjane]

Someone else raised another good point concerning mothers who have disabilities here:

http://www.disaboom.com/Blogs/disabled_pol...traception.aspx

[culturehandy]

While I also work with single mother and see women get pregnant on purpose (under the illusion they get more money, but really it's another mouth to feed) I don't agree with this. It is a slippery slope, and it is so dangerously close to eugenics it hurts.

In all reality, if someone wants a child, they are going to get one.

further, as COCL said, it is all about education. I can't tell you how many women I've talked to and dealt with just have no fucking clue. It's because they have such a limited education and no support. Shouldn't the focus be on helping so called "bad" mothers (and what about fathers?) improve their parenting and coping skills rather than forced contraception and hoping for the best?

[tommynomad]

COCL, your wisdom belies your moniker: thatnk you for injecting sanity into a discussion whose huxlian tilt stuns me.

Hands off women's bodies--not just when you're 'comfortable' with it.