So driving around tonight, the new Saliva song comes on the radio. It sounds alright, music-wise, but I had to make my own interpretation of it.
Why?
It's one of those songs, similar to the first single of their last CD - "Ladies and Gentlemen" - where they feel the need to introduce themselves to their audience.
Why do artists feel the need to write a song "Hey we're back again, in your stereo! We got a great new sound (which sounds like all our other songs) and we're gonna rock your socks off! YEAH! WOOOO! We're back, get ready for it!"
1) Obviously "you're back" if you have a new song with a new album and they're playing it on the radio... and obviously I'm aware of this if I'm listening to you or I bought your CD.
2) Okay, so you're new is album going to rock and felt the need to include this in your introductive first track/single - if I'm already listening to the CD, I think I'll be able to figure that out with having an intro tell me that and if I'm listening to the radio, I'm not going to know until the album hits stores and I can go out and get it, so basically your song is just an advertisement to me at this point.
3) Why do some artists have the need to put this stupid 'introduction' song on their album and then make it a single? It's a waste of a track! Don't tell me your new album rocks, show me! Singing a song about how you're back with a new album doesn't really help me when I'm either already listening to it or this lone song is on the radio.
4) Why are you talking specifically to your fanbase? Your fanbase isn't the ones that care - they bought the album already. Granted when it's on the radio it may introduce you as an established band with a rockin' new album to those that haven't heard your previous songs, but still - doesn't mean you have to torture the rest of us with stupid intro songs like this!
Am the only one that thinks songs like these are stupid and pointless? I mean most the times, bands/artists have a ton of material they recorded but when it comes time to put it on an album, they have to narrow it down to about 13 tracks, so why are they wasting one on an intro song? Was there really no better songs they recorded that they could have picked for the 13?
I don't get it... and this is at least the 2nd album in a row where Saliva has done this - the first single of the new album is the first track off the album and all it does is reintroduce them to their fanbase and they sing about how great the new stuff is. And it's not just Saliva that's done this - other bands and artists have done it too, I just happened to hear them tonight and felt the need to rant about this 'trend.'
11.06.2008
Too Sexy, Too Soon?
Well since the abortion/abortion survivor topic in my last 'note' got quite a bit of response, here's another topic up for discussion!
Checking my personal email in my free time today, there was a link on the main hotmail page leading to this story - Too Sexy Too Soon.
The article talks about how kids - children - today are being influenced and taught at younger ages about sex appeal. "The authors explore a culture where grade-schoolers want to dress like go-go dancers, 10-year-old boys have seen Internet porn, and 13-year-olds talk casually about oral sex."
Granted, growing up my parents were pretty strict on me (as is typical of 1st borns), especially when it came to what I wore. There were things my friends would wear, that I was not allowed to wear. I wasn't allowed to wear strappy tank tops/cami's or any other shirt that revealed bra straps without wearing something else over it - showing cleavage was out of the question! Up until my sophomore year of high school I could only wear jeans twice a week to school and on Wednesdays, when we had chapel (remember I went to a private school), I had to wear a skirt. I was always taught to wear your Sunday Best for church. Skirts and shorts that went more than halfway up my thigh or showed my butt when I bent over were not acceptable. I also recall not being allowed to wear glitter gel (which was popular back in the day!) and my dad getting extremely upset the one time I did and saying that only sluts wear glitter gel. Looking back, it probably was a bit extreme and my sister's lucky they've loosened up a bit since then (my dad does not recall his glitter comments, lol), but at the same time, it gave me a sense of modesty and decency.
Obviously, I don't dress like that anymore - I'm most commonly found wearing jeans and a strappy tank top. But at the same time, I'm not running around with everything falling out.
As I mentioned, I used to wear skirts twice a week. Now these were long skirts by choice. The reason being, I've never liked my thighs and playing soccer for 5 years straight didn't help it any. I wear shorter skirts now, but they're usually about knee length, as I'm not comfortable risking having people get a glimpse at my butt.
I do show a little cleavage sometimes as well - it does get attention and what girl doesn't want a little attention? It helps boost your esteem knowing that people notice you. I'm not talking about falling out of your top and/or flaunting it - there's difference between classy and trashy. When Josh and I go out, I take a little extra time to make myself up. Why? Because him I want him to feel like he's the luckiest guy in the room with the beautiful woman on his arm.
The difference though, is that I still try to stay modest and decent. Like I said, you can look classy without dressing trashy.
I don't understand parents who let their kids run around looking like they hang with Paris Hilton. Yes, I feel my parents were a little extreme when it came to what I wore back then, but at the same time, I don't think kids need to be running around, with g-strings sticking out the top of their pants in jr high and high school either.
It's sad that kids are being exposed to sex and sex appeal at such young ages - whatever happened to the innocence of childhood? At 12 and 13, most of us had crushes, not sex.
When I went to school, even the public schools had dress codes. Granted at my school, only select faculty tried to enforce it, but still, there was some sort of a standard to be followed for what was appropriate and what wasn't.
And as sad as it, when you dress with your boobs about to fall out and your butt showing, you're putting yourself at risk for unwanted attention and it gives mixed signals. Yes, guys should respect a woman and behave, but do you honestly think they're not going to notice? Guys tend to think with their dick. Not all men can control themselves and behave as gentlemen. In a perfect world, yes, a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants and not be judged or worry about a man attacking her. But it happens.
In the article it says:
"When a girl has learned early on that what matters most is how sexy she is, then by the time she hits the tween years, the message is already deep in her psyche and it just becomes louder and more harmful. Sex gets speeded up — 12- and 13-year-olds are doing what 16-year-olds used to do, and by the time they're 16, many are already blasé about casual sex. That's when you hear about "friends with benefits" and kids thinking about sex as being separate from a relationship. This not only puts them at physical risk for STDs, unwanted pregnancy, or even date rape, but they also lose the chance to develop the empathy and compassion that are necessary to make intimate relationships work later on."
Why aren't more parents protecting their kids? You can still be the 'cool mom' or the 'cool dad' and teach your kids right from wrong, appropriate from inappropriate. It's for their own safety and well-being later on down the road.
It's sad that kids as young as 10, who are perfectly healthy and normal, think they're fat because they're not as skinny or as 'glamorous' as... Miley Cyrus, the HSM girls, etc. It pains me to hear that - that society and our culture is already having that kind of negative effect on young little girls.
And it's sad that sleazy dramas marketed towards youth have this much of an impact on our culture and way of living. A lot the stuff kids see on MTV and tv, they copy. Granted it's always been that way, but the styles have changed a lot in the last 10-15 years. Since when did it become acceptable for our kids to wear tops with necklines plunging down to there? Or shaking their booty suggestively to the boys at Jr high and high school dances, like they're in some nightclub? Why are we throwing sex at our kids at young ages and allowing it? Do we really want our babies to have babies?
MTV has great show called "Sex with Mom and Dad." The premise is, the teen/young adult is sexually active or wants to but don't think they can talk to mom and dad about it, so they have a family meeting with infamous Dr. Drew Pinksey to discuss and usually the kid admits to mom and dad of already sleeping down and half the time they're not using any protection. This one girl, at 19 already had over 25 partners, with 2/3 of them being 1 night stands she could barely recall the names of, and she never used protection. I think what Dr. Drew is doing for these families is great - he's educating the kid while getting them to open up to mom and dad and at the same getting mom and dad to accept the fact that their 18+ kid is an adult and not a child who can handle grown up discussions with mom and dad. At the same time though, is this show causing more harm to society? Kids, preteens and teens who watch this are getting educated and being taught that it's normal for kids their age to be promiscuous like that. Even though Dr. Drew might tell the kid on the show the dangers and risks of being promiscuous doesn't mean the kids watching are going to remember that point. They all think "Oh it won't happen to me."
I'd like to have a daughter at some point, I really would. Do I intend to make her follow the same strict standards I grew up with? No, of course not - being strict on your kids only pushes them away and makes them go behind your back. But at the same time, I'm not going to let my kid think it's okay to run around like a hoochie momma and start having sex the second she has interest in boys. I want to be the cool mom, like I've seen some of my friends parents be, but at the same time, still have standards and family values and teach them to my kids - that is still possible, right?
Okay so this kind of turned into a rant. Please feel free to read he article and comment about it!
Checking my personal email in my free time today, there was a link on the main hotmail page leading to this story - Too Sexy Too Soon.
The article talks about how kids - children - today are being influenced and taught at younger ages about sex appeal. "The authors explore a culture where grade-schoolers want to dress like go-go dancers, 10-year-old boys have seen Internet porn, and 13-year-olds talk casually about oral sex."
Granted, growing up my parents were pretty strict on me (as is typical of 1st borns), especially when it came to what I wore. There were things my friends would wear, that I was not allowed to wear. I wasn't allowed to wear strappy tank tops/cami's or any other shirt that revealed bra straps without wearing something else over it - showing cleavage was out of the question! Up until my sophomore year of high school I could only wear jeans twice a week to school and on Wednesdays, when we had chapel (remember I went to a private school), I had to wear a skirt. I was always taught to wear your Sunday Best for church. Skirts and shorts that went more than halfway up my thigh or showed my butt when I bent over were not acceptable. I also recall not being allowed to wear glitter gel (which was popular back in the day!) and my dad getting extremely upset the one time I did and saying that only sluts wear glitter gel. Looking back, it probably was a bit extreme and my sister's lucky they've loosened up a bit since then (my dad does not recall his glitter comments, lol), but at the same time, it gave me a sense of modesty and decency.
Obviously, I don't dress like that anymore - I'm most commonly found wearing jeans and a strappy tank top. But at the same time, I'm not running around with everything falling out.
As I mentioned, I used to wear skirts twice a week. Now these were long skirts by choice. The reason being, I've never liked my thighs and playing soccer for 5 years straight didn't help it any. I wear shorter skirts now, but they're usually about knee length, as I'm not comfortable risking having people get a glimpse at my butt.
I do show a little cleavage sometimes as well - it does get attention and what girl doesn't want a little attention? It helps boost your esteem knowing that people notice you. I'm not talking about falling out of your top and/or flaunting it - there's difference between classy and trashy. When Josh and I go out, I take a little extra time to make myself up. Why? Because him I want him to feel like he's the luckiest guy in the room with the beautiful woman on his arm.
The difference though, is that I still try to stay modest and decent. Like I said, you can look classy without dressing trashy.
I don't understand parents who let their kids run around looking like they hang with Paris Hilton. Yes, I feel my parents were a little extreme when it came to what I wore back then, but at the same time, I don't think kids need to be running around, with g-strings sticking out the top of their pants in jr high and high school either.
It's sad that kids are being exposed to sex and sex appeal at such young ages - whatever happened to the innocence of childhood? At 12 and 13, most of us had crushes, not sex.
When I went to school, even the public schools had dress codes. Granted at my school, only select faculty tried to enforce it, but still, there was some sort of a standard to be followed for what was appropriate and what wasn't.
And as sad as it, when you dress with your boobs about to fall out and your butt showing, you're putting yourself at risk for unwanted attention and it gives mixed signals. Yes, guys should respect a woman and behave, but do you honestly think they're not going to notice? Guys tend to think with their dick. Not all men can control themselves and behave as gentlemen. In a perfect world, yes, a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants and not be judged or worry about a man attacking her. But it happens.
In the article it says:
"When a girl has learned early on that what matters most is how sexy she is, then by the time she hits the tween years, the message is already deep in her psyche and it just becomes louder and more harmful. Sex gets speeded up — 12- and 13-year-olds are doing what 16-year-olds used to do, and by the time they're 16, many are already blasé about casual sex. That's when you hear about "friends with benefits" and kids thinking about sex as being separate from a relationship. This not only puts them at physical risk for STDs, unwanted pregnancy, or even date rape, but they also lose the chance to develop the empathy and compassion that are necessary to make intimate relationships work later on."
Why aren't more parents protecting their kids? You can still be the 'cool mom' or the 'cool dad' and teach your kids right from wrong, appropriate from inappropriate. It's for their own safety and well-being later on down the road.
It's sad that kids as young as 10, who are perfectly healthy and normal, think they're fat because they're not as skinny or as 'glamorous' as... Miley Cyrus, the HSM girls, etc. It pains me to hear that - that society and our culture is already having that kind of negative effect on young little girls.
And it's sad that sleazy dramas marketed towards youth have this much of an impact on our culture and way of living. A lot the stuff kids see on MTV and tv, they copy. Granted it's always been that way, but the styles have changed a lot in the last 10-15 years. Since when did it become acceptable for our kids to wear tops with necklines plunging down to there? Or shaking their booty suggestively to the boys at Jr high and high school dances, like they're in some nightclub? Why are we throwing sex at our kids at young ages and allowing it? Do we really want our babies to have babies?
MTV has great show called "Sex with Mom and Dad." The premise is, the teen/young adult is sexually active or wants to but don't think they can talk to mom and dad about it, so they have a family meeting with infamous Dr. Drew Pinksey to discuss and usually the kid admits to mom and dad of already sleeping down and half the time they're not using any protection. This one girl, at 19 already had over 25 partners, with 2/3 of them being 1 night stands she could barely recall the names of, and she never used protection. I think what Dr. Drew is doing for these families is great - he's educating the kid while getting them to open up to mom and dad and at the same getting mom and dad to accept the fact that their 18+ kid is an adult and not a child who can handle grown up discussions with mom and dad. At the same time though, is this show causing more harm to society? Kids, preteens and teens who watch this are getting educated and being taught that it's normal for kids their age to be promiscuous like that. Even though Dr. Drew might tell the kid on the show the dangers and risks of being promiscuous doesn't mean the kids watching are going to remember that point. They all think "Oh it won't happen to me."
I'd like to have a daughter at some point, I really would. Do I intend to make her follow the same strict standards I grew up with? No, of course not - being strict on your kids only pushes them away and makes them go behind your back. But at the same time, I'm not going to let my kid think it's okay to run around like a hoochie momma and start having sex the second she has interest in boys. I want to be the cool mom, like I've seen some of my friends parents be, but at the same time, still have standards and family values and teach them to my kids - that is still possible, right?
Okay so this kind of turned into a rant. Please feel free to read he article and comment about it!
11.05.2008
If you voted for Obama, please answer me this question
Okay so the real point of this 'note' is about halfway through, as I feel I need to make my stance on the issue and why I feel how I do clear, so bare with me for a few paragraphs first.
So I know the issue of abortion doesn't seem to be one of the more 'important' topics in the this past election, but it's a topic I've always been passionate about.
As most of you know, for the most part, I'm pro-life. I used to be all hardcore "ban abortion, period." but since high school I've come to terms with the fact that there may be a few instances where it can be accepted, specifically when it comes to the life of the mother being endangered - i believe someone should have the right to decide whether they or their own unborn child lives.
I think South Dakota's proposed Measure 11, a proposed ban on all abortions except in the case of incest, rape, and serious threat to the health of the mother, was a great idea! I think in all other cases there is no point in destroying an innocent life. Being too young to be responsible for the consequences of your actions is not an excuse to have an abortion. If you choose to have sex yet you cannot afford or support a child and you end up pregnant, that is still no excuse to have an abortion. There tons of couples and people out there who unfortunately cannot conceive a child of their own and would love to adopt! Because of the demand for couples wanting to adopt there are huge waiting lists!
Yet people continue to abort the unborn because they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions. Every time you have sex you run the risk of getting pregnant. Condoms can break. Birth control can be counteracted by mistake. Don't believe me? My husband was conceived while my mother in law was on birth control. He has cousins who are the result of a condom that broke. It happens. While some methods are more effective than others, there is still that .01% chance it could happen even when you're being smart.
I also think "partial-birth" abortions are sick and twisted and don't understand how anyone can possibly be in favor of that! Liberals said it was inhumane for the way we were treating terriorst prisoners - people who want us dead and will stop at nothing - yet they support a procedure that involves sucking out the skull of fetus who is almost completely out of the womb. Is really killing a partially born child like that humane? You gotta be kidding me!
When your cervix is dilated like that, you're going to labor, meaning, your baby is being born. What the partial birth abortionist does is turn the baby around, so its feet come out first, stop it right around the neck, so the only part still inside the woman is the head and then they remove the brain and other material inside the skull and then they remove the dead infant body and dispose of it, like it was nothing. Is this honestly necessary?? Why would you wait at least 5 months to decide you don't want to have your child? By then your child already has fingerprints! People that choose and support this disgust as do the liberals that support this but think we're being inhumane to terrorist prisoners.
**********************
Now, onto the whole point of this note, now that I made my stance on the issue.
I've asked multiple friends the last few months who are Obama supporters to please tell me 1 thing - anything - he has done for our great state of Illinois the whole 4 years he's been our senator aside from the last 2 years he's spent campaigning and voting 'present' on major issues in congress. The only response I got was that he's still made all the meetings while being on the campaign trail. That's great, but that's not what I was asking.
Reading through a friend's political notes, I found something he did do while working for the Illinois senate.
In 2003, when he was a senate chairman, he voted down a state bill - not once, not twice, but 4 times! - to protect live-born survivors of abortion – even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002.
The Born Alive Infant Protection acts on the state and federal levels provide that infants who do survive abortions should be given necessary medical care and treatment. World Net Daily columnist Jill Stanek has been working to institute such provisions since, as a nurse, she discovered an abortion-surviving infant alive, but relegated to a closet shelf where the child was left to die.
Isn't that technically considered neglect? Parent's who neglect their kids are typically punished by the government - because a child was born instead of aborted doesn't give someone the right to leave it for dead. Once again, there are plenty out there who would love to adopt! Obama has been quoted saying that the first issue he would deal with as president is to make all abortions at any time legal for any reason, striking down all local, state and federal restrictions.
If an abortion's botched, and the child is born, what gives anyone the right perform infantcide?! How is that not murder?? An infant cannot defend itself. Why should it be left for dead just because you may not want it? Just because you don't want it doesn't mean someone else wouldn't. What did it ever do to you? Nothing. It's a completely innocent, defenseless human being, that was brought into the world because of you and because you didn't get your way you just leave it for dead.
Somehow that doesn't seem right to me.
Those of you that voted for Obama, did you realize that he supports this and are you really okay with that?
I'm not asking who would have been best for the election so let's not turn this into that. I'm just wondering, those of you that voted for Obama, did you realize that he supports this and are you really okay with that?
And granted, I really hate bringing religion into politics because we all know that never goes well and just turns into a big fight... but if you're a Christian and voted for Obama, how can you really support this? I don't mean to criticize those of you, I'm just really honestly curious and would like to understand your thinking - so please, don't hesitate to share and try to explain it to me, I really want to know.
Thanks for taking the time! This was something I came across at work and felt passionate enough to post a note about it. Again, these are *my* views and opinions - we're each entitled to our own, so please don't freak out at me and think "omg stop forcing your religious conservative views on me!" but I would really like to understand the way the rest of you think.
Also, some maybe wondering why I'm so gun-ho about abortion and adoption right now.
Aside from the election, it's simple really. Next month I'm undergoing surgery on my cervix to remove some abnormal cell growths. While it's a standard procedure and my doctor assured me that out of all the possible ways to remove it, this was by far the safest, easiest and most recommended, there's still the possibility that something could go wrong. I fully trust my doctor knows what he's doing, but there's always the possibility my body won't respond correctly or heal properly - there's a very small chance my cervix could close up making it so I can't ever have kids - as it is, after this procedure I'll be at risk for premature labor, as that's one of the main risks associated with it. If something goes wrong and I can't have babies, then the only way for Josh and I are to have kids will be through adoption.
I'm so sick of people taking for granted the fact that they can reproduce and then just aborting for the sake of their own convenience rather than deal with it for 9 months and then put the child up for adoption for a couple or person who isn't as fortunate to be able to produce babies. It just makes me sick that a lot of people view abortion like this.
Sources:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75788
So I know the issue of abortion doesn't seem to be one of the more 'important' topics in the this past election, but it's a topic I've always been passionate about.
As most of you know, for the most part, I'm pro-life. I used to be all hardcore "ban abortion, period." but since high school I've come to terms with the fact that there may be a few instances where it can be accepted, specifically when it comes to the life of the mother being endangered - i believe someone should have the right to decide whether they or their own unborn child lives.
I think South Dakota's proposed Measure 11, a proposed ban on all abortions except in the case of incest, rape, and serious threat to the health of the mother, was a great idea! I think in all other cases there is no point in destroying an innocent life. Being too young to be responsible for the consequences of your actions is not an excuse to have an abortion. If you choose to have sex yet you cannot afford or support a child and you end up pregnant, that is still no excuse to have an abortion. There tons of couples and people out there who unfortunately cannot conceive a child of their own and would love to adopt! Because of the demand for couples wanting to adopt there are huge waiting lists!
Yet people continue to abort the unborn because they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions. Every time you have sex you run the risk of getting pregnant. Condoms can break. Birth control can be counteracted by mistake. Don't believe me? My husband was conceived while my mother in law was on birth control. He has cousins who are the result of a condom that broke. It happens. While some methods are more effective than others, there is still that .01% chance it could happen even when you're being smart.
I also think "partial-birth" abortions are sick and twisted and don't understand how anyone can possibly be in favor of that! Liberals said it was inhumane for the way we were treating terriorst prisoners - people who want us dead and will stop at nothing - yet they support a procedure that involves sucking out the skull of fetus who is almost completely out of the womb. Is really killing a partially born child like that humane? You gotta be kidding me!
When your cervix is dilated like that, you're going to labor, meaning, your baby is being born. What the partial birth abortionist does is turn the baby around, so its feet come out first, stop it right around the neck, so the only part still inside the woman is the head and then they remove the brain and other material inside the skull and then they remove the dead infant body and dispose of it, like it was nothing. Is this honestly necessary?? Why would you wait at least 5 months to decide you don't want to have your child? By then your child already has fingerprints! People that choose and support this disgust as do the liberals that support this but think we're being inhumane to terrorist prisoners.
**********************
Now, onto the whole point of this note, now that I made my stance on the issue.
I've asked multiple friends the last few months who are Obama supporters to please tell me 1 thing - anything - he has done for our great state of Illinois the whole 4 years he's been our senator aside from the last 2 years he's spent campaigning and voting 'present' on major issues in congress. The only response I got was that he's still made all the meetings while being on the campaign trail. That's great, but that's not what I was asking.
Reading through a friend's political notes, I found something he did do while working for the Illinois senate.
In 2003, when he was a senate chairman, he voted down a state bill - not once, not twice, but 4 times! - to protect live-born survivors of abortion – even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002.
The Born Alive Infant Protection acts on the state and federal levels provide that infants who do survive abortions should be given necessary medical care and treatment. World Net Daily columnist Jill Stanek has been working to institute such provisions since, as a nurse, she discovered an abortion-surviving infant alive, but relegated to a closet shelf where the child was left to die.
Isn't that technically considered neglect? Parent's who neglect their kids are typically punished by the government - because a child was born instead of aborted doesn't give someone the right to leave it for dead. Once again, there are plenty out there who would love to adopt! Obama has been quoted saying that the first issue he would deal with as president is to make all abortions at any time legal for any reason, striking down all local, state and federal restrictions.
If an abortion's botched, and the child is born, what gives anyone the right perform infantcide?! How is that not murder?? An infant cannot defend itself. Why should it be left for dead just because you may not want it? Just because you don't want it doesn't mean someone else wouldn't. What did it ever do to you? Nothing. It's a completely innocent, defenseless human being, that was brought into the world because of you and because you didn't get your way you just leave it for dead.
Somehow that doesn't seem right to me.
Those of you that voted for Obama, did you realize that he supports this and are you really okay with that?
I'm not asking who would have been best for the election so let's not turn this into that. I'm just wondering, those of you that voted for Obama, did you realize that he supports this and are you really okay with that?
And granted, I really hate bringing religion into politics because we all know that never goes well and just turns into a big fight... but if you're a Christian and voted for Obama, how can you really support this? I don't mean to criticize those of you, I'm just really honestly curious and would like to understand your thinking - so please, don't hesitate to share and try to explain it to me, I really want to know.
Thanks for taking the time! This was something I came across at work and felt passionate enough to post a note about it. Again, these are *my* views and opinions - we're each entitled to our own, so please don't freak out at me and think "omg stop forcing your religious conservative views on me!" but I would really like to understand the way the rest of you think.
Also, some maybe wondering why I'm so gun-ho about abortion and adoption right now.
Aside from the election, it's simple really. Next month I'm undergoing surgery on my cervix to remove some abnormal cell growths. While it's a standard procedure and my doctor assured me that out of all the possible ways to remove it, this was by far the safest, easiest and most recommended, there's still the possibility that something could go wrong. I fully trust my doctor knows what he's doing, but there's always the possibility my body won't respond correctly or heal properly - there's a very small chance my cervix could close up making it so I can't ever have kids - as it is, after this procedure I'll be at risk for premature labor, as that's one of the main risks associated with it. If something goes wrong and I can't have babies, then the only way for Josh and I are to have kids will be through adoption.
I'm so sick of people taking for granted the fact that they can reproduce and then just aborting for the sake of their own convenience rather than deal with it for 9 months and then put the child up for adoption for a couple or person who isn't as fortunate to be able to produce babies. It just makes me sick that a lot of people view abortion like this.
Sources:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75788
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)