Jump to content

Shienvien

Members
  • Content Count

    3,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shienvien

  1. 'cept caffeine will not cause physical addiction and does a whole lot less lasting damage than almost any other drug out there. It can, however, cause habitual addiction, as well as it won't do you any good if you have high blood pressure or heart problems. In the latter case it can kill, but so can eating something you have a strong allergy against. _ _ _ The problem with morals tends to be that morals are not absolute. The same arguably goes for logic. If for one abortion is always taking responsibility, then for some it is justified only in certain cases... I personally have difficulties comprehending the second type of logic. Kat for instance said that having an abortion when one did not try everything within one's power to not get pregnant in the first place is not responsible. Here I'd argue that the abortion itself is responsible, but the actions before it were not. Abortion is, after all, often the best option as far as the potential child is concerned.
  2. Look at the number of children currently in the adoption system and not getting out. It is already far higher than that of people who can and will adopt one.
  3. Plus, it is ridiculously probable that even if one does have perfectly regular cycle with very obvious signs (not all that common) for a significant time, there'd be just that one fluctuation in it - and that one fluctuation suffices completely to do the trick. It can be freely said that all methods which rely on 'knowing your body' aren't even remotely sufficient for one to feel 'safe'. Rather, those could borderline be grouped with the urban myths.
  4. I have done research, and have never heard of a single properly proven reliable method of some kind which does not involve using contraceptives of any kind, does not mean sterilization, and does not include total abstinence, which would make a woman be even remotely (95%+ effectiveness) safe from becoming pregnant. I am fairly certain that even if I asked an actual doctor, I'd get the exact same result as with my current knowledge. - It is because of that why I am interested in this/those method(s) you claim exists. (You can always respond in PM if you think even the basic principle of such should not be read by the non-adult members of the site.)
  5. Having an abortion is always taking responsibility. It is perhaps not as agreeable method of it as doing everything one can to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place, but it is taking responsibility regardless. How, exactly? (If we leave sterilization and abstinence aside.)
  6. What says there would not be an equal amount of women with 2-3-4 husbands?
  7. Detecting brainwaves is usually the most feasible solution.
  8. Unless you're already braindead (absolutely no chance of recovery of any kind, since technically you're already dead as a person), there is always the opposite aspect of 'what if s/he would have recovered if we had not pulled the plug?' This kind of thing can plague people for the rest of their lives, and is what makes pulling the plug such a hard decision.
  9. No, because unlike early fetuses, those people already had consciousnesses, thoughts and feelings of their own. Ending something which already is is a whole lot different from stopping something from coming to be.
  10. My personal viewpoint is that when a person is already braindead, there is no longer a reason to keep the rest of their bodies going. From the moment the brain will never function again onward, there is no longer a thinking person in there somewhere. If the brain works still, then I'd say keep then on life support, unless they are indeed suffering from something which is definitely terminal (or they are already very old and their bodies are failing from this alone, or they themselves have expressed the wish of not being kept alive past a certain point).
  11. That's very rare - one is far more likely to become infertile from a random infection or even the complications of a carried-though pregnancy. Modern abortions are generally safe and result in no difficulties in getting pregnant afterwards. @brairtrainer: What do you mean under wake-up call? I can agree that a woman who has had several abortions in a very short span of time should be given a bit more elaborate after-consultations, but I strongly disagree with the notion of telling her 'no' after a certain amount of times.
  12. This. There are literally millions of people in the world who stay in abusive relationships simply because they do not see or even have any other viable options. They might continue staying in one because they hope things will change (or they might deny to themselves anything is wrong in the first place), they might continue stating in abusive relationship because they are afraid they will be killed if they tried leaving it, they might think it is still preferable to being completely homeless, etc., etc. Restricting abortion will only result in more dead and broken-to-no-repair people. Press forward on good education and the availability of various birth control methods - those will naturally help bring down abortion rates -, but never advocate restricting abortion itself.
  13. *Raises hand.* I can't say I fall in line with the senior members of the forum and main site, but for a good several years already.
  14. Not true by far. In fact, there is a huge number of various creatures who thrive solely because of humans. The Earth couldn't care less what we did or did not do. The Earth is not a living being, and what is not alive can't technically have parasites. They don't build as large constructions, sure, but that's about it. Other animals than humans are entirely capable of exploding in population and consuming entire forests, weeding out or eating up other species, etc., etc. We humans are literally like any other drastically successful species.
  15. @kittygrl: 2x2GB should work fine with it, though there are other compatibility aspects you must take account of.
  16. Usually while dealing with people, as an extension of basic psychology. It has been so many times when I observe a situation, and suddenly realize I've seen it already, despite the different people and location. I've seen it, and I know exactly how things will progress from then on. Again. Typically occurs when things are about to go from unpleasant to downright nasty.
  17. Those weren't my computers, though. You see, I'm just the person to whom people turn to in the hopes that I'd be magically (and for free) able to fix whatever they have brought down upon their devices...
  18. I'll once again second Tikindi and tell that Norton *is* bad (and likewise neither I nor any of the It-techs I know will suggest using it). If I thought for a bit, I could probably even dig up a few things from the bottom of my brain which I know Norton is absolutely useless against. Have had to do the fixing after things have gotten through and set up a camp in the system...
  19. No one is 100% safe with a gun. However, on the off chance that something does happen which requires one to draw it in defense (and lets hope it wont!), it would massively increase the one's chances of surviving (being not raped, having most possessions left in place, etc.) even if only used as a device of intimidation. It will take police a few minutes to arrive at best, and during those few minutes, one is on one's own. Also, professionals? Common house-robbing is not done by professional killers. As I've said before, most people do not want to be shot, criminals included, and if they might not think much of it beforehand, having a bullet hit the wall inches from one's body often already suffices to make then change their minds.
  20. An alarm does quite a deal less psychologically than seeing an actual gun pointed at you. Also, it is better to have the ability to retaliate than have none, in all cases. An alarm certainly is not going to stop a person who does not care about the consequences from slitting your throat. A gun might. The last time I checked, guns weren't illegal in the EU. I live in EU. There are certain very gun-restricted countries, like the UK, but guns aren't banned over here. Link to source please? Furthermore, I am firmly on the standpoint that higher gun-related crimes rate is worth it if the general crime level is lower. Is it better to have two gun-related deaths in a year and two thousand murders total, or eighty gun-related deaths a year and eight hundred murders total?
  21. Believe me or not, those men do not wish to be shot themselves. The higher the probability that you have a gun, the lesser the chance they will attack you. Retreating to a position which offers decent cover in your house with clear sight to the door of the room and yelling that you have a gun often actually works to drive them away. But what shall you do against five armed men who have guns (or even simple knives) while unarmed? The only thing you can do, unless you get an opportunity to sneak out, is to hide and hope they won't discover you. Even if you know self-defense, taking on several people is usually a futile thing, so that falls out as a valid option.
  22. A gunman has to have very good aim to ensure that the person he just shot would be unable to draw a gun of his/her own and return the fire before he can vanish. In other words, a gun on a person still remains a deterrent to a person who might want to shoot the one. A man with a knife might jump out of a bush or out from behind the nearest corner the same - the chance of fighting back successfully would have been just as bad. It would be about a quarter of a second before a person will even start to raise hands in front of oneself out of reflex, and more before any sort of conscious reaction. It's too slow. Self-defense is only useful if you know your assailant is there before you get a bat to the head or a knife between your ribs. Also, if you're not physically in a good shape, self-defense (or running) is not even a valid option. If you notice it in time you can cover and run just fine (it is much harder to fatally hit a moving target). And, gunshot wounds usually do not drop people dead like in movies - it is quite possible you can get away and get aid even if you were hit.
  23. As been pointed out: if the girls had guns, they might likewise have gotten away, or not been bothered in the first place. The potential of getting shot themselves is often enough to drive away the potential assailants. Mind you, unless you notice the person early on and get a good head start, a knife is no more harmless thing than a gun. Plenty of people do not make fast runners because of their bodies alone. (Edit: Reminds me of this baseball-bat murderer story... Attacked random walkers in a park, and kept people under terror just fine.)
  24. Knives make decent offensive but very poor defensive weapons. Gun is practically the only thing many weakly-built people can use as a means of self-defense. Also, a knife-wound is just as likely to kill, and a heavy bash against the head with a hard object is perhaps even more likely to kill, beating in general can kill. Guns aren't more lethal per se than most other weapons. They're simply ranged. - Have tried shooting a wide array of firearms, have a gun.
  25. Guns, mind you, are primarily ranged weapons. That's what makes them good defensive weapons. Once within an arm's reach, a man with a knife is probably even harder to successfully fight back against. And, fighting back depends a whole lot on the person's physical abilities. Slow movements or reflexes? Weaker than opponent? Fighting back in the disarming/defeating them sense is immediately not a valid option. Have a gun? Maybe the attacker will back off. - Those who don't know: I intervened a knife-fight once, unarmed. Got my right hand quite badly cut up in the process, could have easily died is my reflexes failed me a bit more.