Self-defeating from a pro-life standpoint? Why?
Self-defeating from a pro-life standpoint? Why?
There are two kinds of abortions, surgical and medication. Here are some basic facts about the latter kind: [www.plannedparenthood.org]
Here's an article that discusses the hypocrisy behind coercion screenings for women choosing abortion.
Is the "you" in your comment the pregnant woman? If so, even if the woman did meet all of these (horribly inhumane and unreasonable) requirements, there may not be a place to have the abortion. Did you miss the part about the effect on clinics?
As soon as it's codified in law that any person seeking any medical treatment whatsoever must be screened for coercion, then maybe it's fine. But in reality, this is just part of the rhetoric used by the anti-choicers to suggest that they are trying to protect women.
"It's that our images of male beauty and desirability are in some ways even more limited and unattainable than those offered to women."
Propranolol is a beta-blocker. What are you talking about?
I understand that feeling, though I don't share it. But really, it seems appropriate only when women are claiming that they like their lives as they are and we think that they just don't know that things could be better (women who support female genital cutting, for example). But here, the women themselves are…
I couldn't disagree more. He's saying ACCORDING TO ME (or according to men) you're beautiful even if you don't wear make-up.
I like your mom. She'd probably hit it off with my mom, who lent me money to elope with a guy she hadn't met.
When I smear some lipstick on my mouth (which typically happens in cabs, because I'm always in a rush) I'm "involved in a system of meaning that helps [me] navigate the sea of changing conditions that are a part of postmodern social experience"?
Thanks for that link! That addressed my basic legal question (while not, of course, addressing the ethical ones).
Even if they are documentarians, the situation is far from simple. Ethics in journalism is complicated as hell; even in cases where there's an intense need for a story to be recorded in all its horror, and witnessed, and reported, non-intervention is problematic when intervention is possible and real people are being…
Seriously? I had no idea. Holy shit.
It may be SOP, but that doesn't make it ethical. In fact, I find it so profoundly unethical that I'm amazed that MTV hasn't faced massive public sanctions.
I've never seen this show, but how is it possible that there's an episode in which "Portwood is seen punching, slapping, and choking her baby's father as their child looked on"? Why didn't the camera crew intervene immediately?
Giving the author the benefit of the doubt, I think her question was limited to whether they should exercise *as part of weight loss programs* not whether they should exercise period.
If it wasn't for Downton Abbey igniting an interest in British aristocracy, I can't imagine caring. But I look at Kate Middleton and think of Lady Mary....
I don't think double penetration is normalized, in the sense that guys expect the girls they're dating to want MFM threesomes that include that. If only. :)
I think we should all start calling it Mr. Uterus. A Nabokov reference plus a swipe at the current political climate in one.