I am beginning to realize after being with someone suffering OCD as the result of imprints and abuse that perhaps the best chance of a satisfying relationship for those so-afflicted is for them to pair-up and take care of one another if they can't keep the shit in check. Alternatives include paying for mental health professional's Mercedes, penthouse apartments, and Whole Foods grocery bills, or driving the relatively sane into a life of crime and drunkenness...

Somebody get this man on match.com and find him an OCD girlfriend!

Some kids really take to the water quickly, some don't-I've always thought it a combination of these:
age/exposure-imprint timing
instinctual/subconscious familiarity with genealogical heritage and proximity to water as factors
The quality of nurture (parents provide security, healthy environment.)

My first son was swimming at 6 months, we nightly went to the hot springs near our home and he became quite adept at squirming under water back and forth to not only ourselves, but anyone who happened to be in the pools. Pass the baby was our nightly game of catch, and met a lotta great people as well!
"Here, catch my baby when he bobs-up between your legs, lady!"

Massive blood-sugar drops do that to many and if on their first time, imprints them with a distaste for the high-Happens alla time, can't blame the herb.

What's really tragic is that SOME women's heads are full of awe when they find a douche because of their imprints from other douchebags at key stages-Some chicks love douche, they're called crazy-ass, damaged-goods bitches!

Sad but true, more and more women chose douche over grounded asshole

Tags for this video have been changed from 'duck walk, duck, duckling, walk, run' to 'duck walk, duck, duckling, imprinted, walk, run' - edited by calvados

uhhh, faulty imprints and socialization?

(All wet cat facial expressions are funny)
Bitch-slap the owner of the cat maybe and chastise the news anchor for laughing at what? I know poor kitty hates life in her floaty but her cat-loving, orally-imprinted and likely obese OWNER is the asshole here....

*edit Oh my GAWWWWD and using the word clearly in writ or statement sounds so FUCKING sophomorically smug and pretentious....

What is "clear" anyhow, hmm?? Cleeeearly you have a clue! (See how fucking inane that shit sounds??)

Hmm. Stupid comments and ignorance.

Ok try this: When, with approval of the current administration in collusion with all parties interested and motivated to disarm anyone who they deem unfit or unauthorized I am broadcast an inane, retarded, insulting, dishonest, video propaganda piece complete with a minlktoast, pencil-necked freak speaking for "THE CHILDREN" and a drunk-at-noon VP with a track record of bullshit longer than a freight train, my common-sense and fundamental understanding of the nature of human beings kicks-in, and I begin to make perfect sense to similar beings and sound like a raving sociopath to the those so programmed through imprint, conditioning, and environment.

Again, seek professional help if you are unable make the leap on your own.

If you happen to be one of those people without a so-called, "additive personality" but enjoys the occasional fiend-fest you can enjoy all those imprinted receptor-pops with satisfying moderation.

I ❤ Opiates and adrenaline

...oh and dopamine. Dopamines' good.

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

So THAT'S why I have a booklet sewn into my backpack!

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^critical_d:
I think all rabies tags are imprinted with the # of the place that gave the vaccine. The shelter/vet/clinic should be able to retrieve the owners info with the code on the tag. You make a good point in that owners should have their info on a separate tag. All my cats live indoors but my dawgie is tagged with a microchip just in case.
The little dog is lucky to have run into you (literally)!

When/if in the future I get a dog to take care of me it is going to have one of those little booklets autistic people have on their backpacks with a picture of " this is my owner " " This is where I live " " This is my owners contact info "
Lil' doggy with a booklet around its neck.
I am just happy the Animal Shelter was open on Saturday, I honestly would of had to plop it back outside if they were not. I know I am going to get in shit for bringing it into the apartment building ( cameras) but fuck them, I am moving on Monday so they can kiss my bum. I am human, landlords are not.

>> ^critical_d:

I think all rabies tags are imprinted with the # of the place that gave the vaccine. The shelter/vet/clinic should be able to retrieve the owners info with the code on the tag. You make a good point in that owners should have their info on a separate tag. All my cats live indoors but my dawgie is tagged with a microchip just in case.
The little dog is lucky to have run into you (literally)!


When/if in the future I get a dog to take care of me it is going to have one of those little booklets autistic people have on their backpacks with a picture of " this is my owner " " This is where I live " " This is my owners contact info "

Lil' doggy with a booklet around its neck.

I am just happy the Animal Shelter was open on Saturday, I honestly would of had to plop it back outside if they were not. I know I am going to get in shit for bringing it into the apartment building ( cameras) but fuck them, I am moving on Monday so they can kiss my bum. I am human, landlords are not.

I think all rabies tags are imprinted with the # of the place that gave the vaccine. The shelter/vet/clinic should be able to retrieve the owners info with the code on the tag. You make a good point in that owners should have their info on a separate tag. All my cats live indoors but my dawgie is tagged with a microchip just in case.

The little dog is lucky to have run into you (literally)!

>> ^chingalera:

What makes one set of parents better than another has little to do with their sexuality-unless the child identifies theirs based on the imprints and datum, setting and environment, provided by an agenda-oriented or otherwise fucked-up couple.


I could see this being factually correct if you consider that any gay couple that has kids, adopted them because they wanted children, versus a large portion of straight couples who (oops!) had a baby when they weren't prepared (and thus were not ready for being a selfless parent geared toward raising a child as their main priority in life).

What makes one set of parents better than another has little to do with their sexuality-unless the child identifies theirs based on the imprints and datum, setting and environment, provided by an agenda-oriented or otherwise fucked-up couple.