Overstock

User Profile: charper1013

charper1013

Member Since: March 11, 2013

Comments

123
  • June 7, 2013 at 10:46am

    I work for the military (I’m a civilian now) and a few weeks ago, before this hit the news, I was looking on my base for a Humanist chaplain to talk to and was annoyed we didn’t have one. I didn’t know that we weren’t ALLOWED to have one because they don’t exist.

    As a Humanist, I believe in a lot of the same things as Christians, just not the “supernatural” part, for lack of a better word. I think human consciousness and intelligence is an awesome natural phenomenon that seems rare in the universe and that we should celebrate being human and being alive by living rich and fulflilling lives. I also believe that living a meaningful life that helps others and works to improve the human condition is the purpose of our lives.

    Lately, I’ve been feeling burnt-out in my office job, feeling like I’m not helping anyone or doing any meaningful work. I wanted to find a Humanist councelor of some kind to talk to. Not a psychologist, because I don’t need mental health counseling, but someone with the same beliefs to help me find the right path. I remembered meeting our base’s head Christian chaplain and remembered he was friendly and said they have chaplains for all beliefs (even a Buddhist and Wiccan chaplain!), but unfortunately, not my belief.

    I could talk to a religious chaplain, and that would probably be somewhat worthwhile, but when we disagree on such a substantial issue (the existance of God/gods), how could I get helpful advice from him?

  • May 20, 2013 at 2:21pm

    Um, this was the first lesbian relationship the older girl had ever been in. That doesn’t really sound like some kind of pro- lesbian recruiter to me.

    Also, no one’s trying to “recruit” people into being gay, because that would be pointless. You can’t change your sexual orientation. The fact that people are either born gay or straight is a big part of the LGBT movement, so why would they want to “recruit” people when that would basically be admitting that sexual orientation is a choice (which it isn’t)?

  • May 20, 2013 at 2:18pm

    So you’re telling me people would be outraged if a male high school senior was dating a sophomore or freshman girl? Because I really don’t see that happening.

  • May 20, 2013 at 2:16pm

    I think it would be just as dumb if they were a hetero couple. When I was in high school none of the senior class boys got arrested and charged with a felony for being in a consensual relationship with a sophomore or freshman girl. They’re both in high school (heck, even in the same classes) and they were both minors when their relationship began. I would find that perfectly acceptable regardless of what gender they are.

  • May 20, 2013 at 2:12pm

    This is absolutely ridiculous. Both girls entered into their relationship voluntarily; there was no abuse or “sexual battery” involved! It’s absurd that the younger girl’s parents can have the older girl charged with a FELONY crime despite the insistence of the younger girl that everything was consensual and no abuse occured.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 16, 2013 at 2:34pm

    @JAEMD: I completely agree! Thank you for talking some sense into this situation. The abortion argument is the epitome of patriarchy in our society in that so many people want the government (made up of mostly men) to make decisions about what should occur within an individual woman’s body. People talk about how they want small government, but legislating a woman’s uterus is the exact opposite of that. We think it’s ridiculous and silly when we hear stories about the government of North Korea requiring its citizens to only have certain hairstyles, but this is a thousand times worse! Telling a woman that she must sacrifice her individual liberty as a “punishment” for having sex while the man gets nothing but a “tsk tsk, shoulda been more careful” is a perfect example of why we do NOT respect gender equality in this country.

  • May 16, 2013 at 2:16pm

    Yeah, if we could just get rid of all the women there’d be no more abortions! Oh, wait…

    Maybe women are more pro-choice because they are the ones whose bodily autonomy is up for debate here?

  • May 16, 2013 at 10:47am

    Why is this sick? The cells created from this process are more effective for stem cell therapy than harvested adult stem cells. It’s not “creating life only to destroy it”, it’s creating cells that could be directed to form into anything. Just because “baby” is one of the things they could form doesn’t make any difference. They aren’t babies, they’re liver cells, neurons, bone marrow, etc. And they aren’t destroyed, they’re implanted back into the patient, a.k.a. the body from whence they obtained their DNA or “life”.

  • May 16, 2013 at 10:37am

    I think it’s ironic that the same types of people who think a two-month-old fetus is a baby with rights that trump the rights of the woman are the same people who insist that children are under the authority of the parents (i.e. to be disciplinde how the parents want, be taught how the parents want) and do not have personal individual rights. So you want the government to intervene and protect the rights of a fetus but when it comes to actual children, the government should **** out and leave it up to the parents to raise them how they see fit? I think you have it backwards, if you ask me.

  • May 16, 2013 at 10:28am

    Watch out, guys. This person quoted Switchfoot lyrics!! He must mean business!

  • May 16, 2013 at 10:23am

    By “the means” do you mean extracting a skin cell from a patient, engineering it into a stem cell, directing that stem cell to duplicate and form bone marrow cells, and then injecting those bone marrow cells back into the leukemia patient? Because I see nothing wrong with that.

  • May 16, 2013 at 10:22am

    Being pro-choice doesn’t mean you loooove abortions and want everyone to have one. You can be against abortion and still believe people can make their own choices.

  • May 16, 2013 at 10:09am

    Well seeing as how both the National Institute of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynogologists have declared that Plan B does NOT cause abortion, I’m going to disagree with you there. Medical experts describe pregnancy as beginning with implantation and define abortion as the termination of a pregnancy, so if there is no implantation there’s no pregnancy to terminate and therefore no abortion.

    http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html

  • May 16, 2013 at 9:21am

    @Fish_Bone: So you think women who have sex and become unintentionally pregnant should be punished for having sex by being forced to carry a pregnancy they don’t want?

    @Jodi: Most pro-choice people, including the current management of Planned Parenthood, do not agree with Sanger’s philosophies. She is considered an extremist crazy person. Nobody WANTS abortions to happen, and definitely not for some sort of eugenic goal, they just want women to be treated like human beings with full control over their own bodies and freedom to make choices for their own reproductive health.

  • May 16, 2013 at 9:14am

    Tell that to the leukemia patient who can receive life-saving bone marrow grown from this procedure.

  • May 16, 2013 at 9:11am

    I agree with you. I’m pro-choice but if I were to become accidentally pregnant, I would not choose to have an abortion. Key word being CHOOSE. We need to respect women’s autonomy to make their own choices about their own bodies. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want treats her as less than human. Let her make her own decision.

  • May 16, 2013 at 8:57am

    Just because a fetus CAN be a baby does not mean it IS a baby. Forcing a woman to incubate a fetus inside her own body when she doesn’t want to is an affront to her personal liberty and bodily autonomy. It’s called pro-choice because we believe women are human beings who don’t need politicians and clergy making decisions about what they can do with their bodies, they should be able to choose for themselves. Does that mean all women would choose to have abortions? Definitely not, and nobody would want them to. But women need to have that choice.

    Responses (37) +
  • May 16, 2013 at 8:22am

    No it doesn’t, learn some science. It is basically just a giant dose of the normal birth control pill. It puts a hold on ovulation for 24 hours or so until any sperm that might be hanging around die. No ovulation = no egg to be fertilized = no abortion to be had.

  • May 16, 2013 at 7:35am

    This is exactly why we need to have Plan B and other birth control as available as possible, so women never get in this situation in the first place. Monsters like Gosnell take advantage of women in desperate situations, and it doesn’t have to be that way. By making birth control and emergency contraceptives available over the counter for everyone and teaching proper sex-ed in schools (i.e. how to use contraceptives properly, how to practice safe sex, etc) we can eliminate the need for the majority of abortions. When will people figure this out?

    Responses (13) +
  • May 3, 2013 at 12:06pm

    Almost all pro-choice people and the modern Planned Parenthood do not agree with or support Sanger’s opinions. She does not represent the opinions of modern feminists and pro-choice people. Do some research.

123