If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#481
|
|||
|
|||
ceb wrote: "-L." wrote in news:1108624502.854744.95480 @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: That's one reason I kept my Toshie instead of taking her into the HS whenI found her. She's black (border collie/lab/chow mix, we think). Peectures??? Here's Zoe, my cockerchow: http://www.dogster.com/pet_page.php?i=46589&j=t --Catherine Cute!! Here's Tosh when she was younger: http://groups.msn.com/idontmindsComp...hoto&PhotoID=9 She's terminally ill with an inoperable tumor. :*( -L. |
#483
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Feb 2005 09:50:40 GMT, (Meghan
Noecker) wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:54:31 -0500, Orchid wrote: Don't forget chicken. It should be 'dead baby chicken', becausae chickens are slaughtered at 12 weeks old --chickens 'normally' live 7 years. And don't forget beef! Cows are slaughtered at 16-22 months of age, and they could live to be 25! So I guess it's 'dead baby cow with pale meat' and 'dead baby cow with red meat'. Lamb is, well, lambs, so 'dead baby sheep', and pigs go under the knife at one year and they could live to 25, so it's 'dead baby pig'. Where did you get those numbers? I used to have chickens for eggs, and I started with 25 baby chicks. They were not very big at 12 weeks. Certainly not as big as the chickens in the store. Meat breeds have been bred to develop quickly, and they are farmed to get them to slaughter as fast as possible. My source is he http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/poultry/factsheets/1.html Orchid See Orchid's Kitties! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage Want a Purebred Cat? Read This! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid |
#484
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve G" wrote in message oups.com... Phil P. wrote: (...) Oh, its no effort at all. In fact, threads like this make me more cautious about who I place a cat with. So, you find the thread useful... S. Oh Stevie, I'm so flattered that my opinion is so important to you! |
#485
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-02-19, Meghan Noecker penned:
On 18 Feb 2005 08:40:07 -0800, "-L." wrote: Monique Y. Mudama wrote: On 2005-02-18, Meghan Noecker penned: On 17 Feb 2005 08:23:31 -0800, "-L." wrote: No, I choose to be childfree, and I also choose never to consider abortion, therefore, I am not pro-choice. Choosing never to consider abortion is not "not pro-choice." Plenty of pro-choice people have that stance. They just don't try to dictate what others do in that situation. i think she was talking about her, personally, but yes - good point. Well, I am confused now. Assuming that pro-choice is not pro-abortion (as I have been taught around here), but actually to keep ALL options open; then how can I be against abortion and still pro-choice? If you personally would never have an abortion but want other women to have the legal right to have an abortion, you are pro-choice. If you personally would never have an abortion and also want to ensure that no other woman may have an abortion, you are not pro-choice. I interpreted your statement as the former because of the "I choose" part of your statement. I may very well have been wrong. I still don't see how they can be considered the same. I cannot be pro-choice if I have to accept abortion as a valid option. -- monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca |
#486
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-02-19, Meghan Noecker penned:
And that is why we have so many uneducated children. I am not referring to you specificially, but the idea that parents don't want it taught in school, so while you may teach your kid, many other parents are *not* teaching their kids. There are a lot of teenagers, even adults, that do not know what days of the month that they can get pregnant. They have no idea how their own cycle really works, and how they can predict those days. They also do not realize that our cycles will vary by person and can change over time. So, it is up to us to figure it out. When I was a teenager, I was a nervous wreck on a monthly basis because I always thought my period was late and I must be pregnant. It wasn't until my mom took me to the gyn (when she found out I was sexually active, to get me on the pill) and I read the question on the form, "How long is your cycle?" that it occured to me that possibly not everyone in the world has a 28 day cycle. I strongly support better sex education in schools. I have no problem with schools discussing abstinence and emphasizing it as the safest choice, *as long as* they also make clear the many other options out there. Sex ed teachers in my school were either the gym teacher or the bio teacher, neither of whom had a freakin' clue. The female gym teacher even told us that pain during menstruation wasn't normal and that it indicated dysmennoreah! (sp) My first boyfriend knew more about my body than I did. I had never even heard of the clitoris. I honestly think that sex ed's general line that boys are the ones who want sex while girls are just the ones who can give it to them does a severe disservice to girls, who have fragile enough egos as teens. Teens will do almost anything to be liked, certainly including sex (not all teens, obviously). And what's with the SG having to be fired for advocating masturbation? Gee, it's safe, easy, and a great way to learn about your body without actually having sex. Clearly it must be evil =/ Perhaps in reaction to all of the above, I make a point of learning as much about sex as I can, from the vanilla to even the stuff that really grosses me out. I imagine myself being able to answer kids' questions when they're afraid to ask their parents. Of course, I'd have to know some teenagers for that to really help. -- monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca |
#487
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-02-19, Diane L. Schirf penned:
Native Americans used sphagnum moss and seeds high in estrogen to prevent pregnancies as well. There are seeds high in estrogen? Interesting. -- monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca |
#488
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-02-19, Meghan Noecker penned:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:58:17 -0700, "Monique Y. Mudama" wrote: Because it doesn't work. We've been trying it for centuries. Sex ed teachers are doing it right now. It doesn't WORK. Use me as an example of someone for whom it doesn't work, if you'd like. I'd much rather teach teenagers how to use condoms and make the Pill and other contraceptive measures freely available via a doctor's checkup that the parents don't have to know about. But they aren't teaching abstinence here. Parents complain that it is religion, and they don't want it in the schools. Okay, that's just as insane as the other extreme. Abstinence is just not having sex -- how can that be a religion? *sigh* Also, nobody is teaching these kids that condums are *not* safe sex. They are only 99% effective. And that is statistical - in other words, it doesn't mean that it works for 99% of people. It means that it works 99% of the time. So, if you have sex 100 times with condums, the odds are that one will fail. Huh. The term "safer sex" was coined for a reason =/ Yes, this is why I've never really been comfortable relying on condoms for pregnancy avoidance. Unfortunately, that leaves me with hormones as the alternative. They have their own drawbacks, and also have failure ratings, although those are mostly associated with people who frequently forget to take the pill at the right time. I remember having been on the pill for several years and expressing concern about getting pregnant -- my gyn just laughed and said that with as much hormone as I had in my body, I shouldn't worry about it. And I have yet to see if any of those studies take into account the simple fact that a woman can only get pregnant a few days each month. So, are they really 99% effective, or is it worse than that. I have wondered about that when I see statistics, but I don't know if the studies do take that into account or not. I mean, I'd understand condom manufacturers not mentioning it, but I'd be surprised if the pro-abstinence people wouldn't do their own modified study ... Realistically, though, I don't think most women have sex only when they're fertile, and fertility calculations aren't perfectly reliable, anyway. Also, consider that the HIV virus is smaller than sperm (and it is dangerous every day of the month, and you have that risk to deal with as well. So, no, I don't think condums are that safe. They just give a false sense of security. And that doesn't even begin to deal with the emotional problems. And HIV isn't the only scary thing out there, and it's not the only uncurable one, either. It is the deadliest untreatable STD, AFAIK. You can tell teenagers not to sleep around as much as you'd like, and a large percentage will still do it. So while yes, abstinence is the only guaranteed way of not having kids, I don't feel that advocating exclusive abstinence will prevent teenage pregnancies. It just leads to brilliant solutions like "Well, anal sex won't get me pregnant, so let's do that." Of course, that leaves the kids even more vulnerable to STDs than does vaginal sex. I think we need to get real with sex education and start telling them the truth. How easily these things do fail. And how dangerous it really is. And the same with anal sex. These kids are believing a bunch of myths, and it is only making things worse. I 100% agree here. Although, instead of "how easily these things fail," I would want there to simply be full disclosure, no agenda. There are, for example, a lot of benefits to the pill -- prevention of cancer, reduction of acne, easier cramps, for starters. I agree that it should not be taught as the only option - kids would only rebel against that. But it should be taught as the best option. And the other options should all be shown in an accurate way - showing them the dangerous associated with each. Dangers and benefits. I agree. -- monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca |
#489
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-02-19, Hodge penned:
In article , (Meghan Noecker) wrote: They are only 99% effective. About the same as the pill. So, sex without protection -- 100% unsafe and with no protection against STDs -- is better? Well, according to the chart that came with my pills, which granted might be biased: first column is typical use, first year. second column is perfect use, first year. Male Condom: 14% 3% Progestin-only pill: 0.5% for both Combined pill: 0.1% for both Doesn't look the same for me. I would say, pill-only is best for trustworthy monogamous relationships in which both parties have been tested. Pill plus condom gives you better protection. Depo has extremely reliable numbers (injected every three months), and I did it for a long time, but it's a pretty serious change to your body's dynamics and I decided to give it a rest. "Abstinence" is unreliable because most people aren't going to give up sex for long. That's flat unrealistic, and historically it's never happened. Not I, that's for sure. I just don't have that kind of self-control. -- monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca |
#490
|
|||
|
|||
"Diane L. Schirf" wrote in message nk.net... In article , Orchid wrote: Women have *always* had the choice to terminate pregnancies -- prehistoric medicine women have been found buried with their tools of the trade -- which always include natural abortifacents. Native Americans used sphagnum moss and seeds high in estrogen to prevent pregnancies as well. -- In the ancient world it was alligator dung pessaries. I am not kidding. Also, the seeds of Queen Anne's Lace are antiovulants; and both rue and pennyroyal have been used as "things to bring on menses" (aka abortifacients) for thousands of years. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Really OT!] Price Estimate Help | Jeanne Hedge | Cat anecdotes | 33 | August 25th 04 02:07 PM |
veterinary drugs in UK - where can I get in EEC at reasonable price ? | icarus | Cat health & behaviour | 6 | June 14th 04 04:52 PM |