Jump to content

sinmantyx

Member
  • Posts

    533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sinmantyx

  • Birthday 03/06/1975

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Flint, MI
  • Interests
    Your mom.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

sinmantyx's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Hah... I get sloppy comment seconds.....lol Great to see you here, luv.

  2. Wow: She has a gamelan, a serpent, and a contra-bassoon? How does she manage to fit the pipe organ in her house?
  3. Lay off already. I "learned" baritone in about a week or so. I had never played a brass instrument before, but I just picked the thing up, figured out how to blow into the damn thing/memorized how to play through the basic range of the instrument/got to the point where I could play some high school band music with the correct pitches with reasonable tone quality - the end. Of course, I had been singing since before I can remember and taking piano lessons since I was 4 or 5 (also pretty much before I can remember). I played other wind instruments as well - for years. Did I master the baritone in that amount of time - of course NOT - Thing is: once you "learn" how to play "an instrument" - "learning" other instruments is much, much easier. Plus - I've always had a knack for them. They just made sense. Some instruments are extraordinarily difficult to learn to play - simply because you have to condition yourself physically more than others (double reeds, french horn, etc.) - or they are simply extraordinarily complicated (keyboard instruments, harps or various kinds, etc.) It does not take a super-genius to learn a new instrument in a short amount of time. We all recognize that it takes years of discipline to master an instrument - however frighteningly simple it is to play. In fact, I think I would be more offended if someone claimed to have mastered an instrument at all - even with years and years of study. I think I played the flute for about five or six years before I actually felt I was playing "music" instead of notes. I played in an early music ensemble for several years - I certainly wouldn't get my panties in a bunch if someone told me they "learn to play the recorder" in a few hours. As long as you are capable of blowing over a pop can and getting a sound out of it - the flute is as "easy" as a recorder - it just has more bells and whistles (no pun intended) and it is easier to fine tune your pitches (thank you technology).
  4. What I've played: flute bassoon piano harpsichord recorder krumhorn cornetta baritone (as in the brass instrument) contra-bass clarinet (for a short time) electric bass guitar (for a short time) voice organ (for a very short time) home-made electronics the computer (various incarnations of using THAT) violin and pipa (but not in a traditional way - only for source material for computer music) Just this morning I was bragging to my choir director at church that (with the notable exception of the French horn) if you gave me ANY wind instrument, I would be able to play in at the high school level within a month. I suppose the Sousaphone would be an exception as well - simply because I don't have the lung power. I spent my high school days basically being given instruments that were needed for our band that was much too small. I would fill in where I could. Did someone say something about a vampire flute band?!
  5. I'm saying that we don't treat fertilized eggs like human beings. If we did, we would go crazy. Just like it's completely unreasonable to think of a fertilized egg being discarded by the body as a corpse...it's unreasonable to think of a fertilized egg as a human life with as much value as a person. Not very many people actually believe that. However, lots of people SAY they believe that as a matter of rhetoric. When you say "fully human" what exactly do you actually mean? You certainly wouldn't find it acceptable to flush a human being down the toilet or throw one into the garbage. You certainly wouldn't actively engage in activities that would most likely kill human beings. There are people in this world who think discarding fertilized eggs from fertility clinics is paramount to murder, even though no one plans to implant those fertilized eggs. I have students who will actually refer to them as "children" who have a right to exist and any scientific work done on these cells as being sick and twisted. They ARE taking the "life begins as conception" rhetoric to it's logical extreme. It's not absurd to think about fertilized eggs outside of a woman's body. Some people think fertility treatments are sick and wrong because the treatments don't always "take" - as if "natural" ways of becoming pregnant always "take". You might not think this is news -- but to an amazing number of people (even those with biological children) it IS news. My take is this: the woman who bears the child is instrumental in transforming a "clump of cells" into a human being. To say that the fertilized egg is "fully human" before developing inside a woman is acting as though after conception, she contributes nothing that actually defines the potential child as "fully human". The 80% statistic was something I was told from one of my doctors a while ago. I'm not sure where she gained this information and it is possible that she may have simply been trying to make me feel better; and stop me from assuming that I was the problem. Men certainly have their issues with fertility. I certainly wanted to make it clear that blaming "expired eggs" was oversimplified. There is a strong history of always blaming a woman for fertility issues, so it also struck a bit of a nerve.
  6. That is an assumption that I had as well, however, I'm not sure if that is actually true. Of course, that is the situation in some circumstances, but I don't think it comes close to accounting for the current trends. Also, your implication that it's the woman who loses fertility isn't actually reasonable. It is true that women have a smaller window of opportunity due to menopause, but more than 80% of the time, it is the man who has a fertility problem. So, if a couple is wishing to adopt because of infertility, there is a very good chance that the *sperm* is to blame - not the eggs. One other reason that infants are in such demand is because policies are a lot more egalitarian than they used to be. Now, it is much easier to be approved for adoption because many of the restrictions have been lifted. One interesting restriction was that, in the past, you had to be a member of a church in order to adopt a child. There is one couple in the UU church that became members many years ago just so they could adopt. So there are many more families waiting for adoption: not necessarily because more families WANT to adopt now days, but because more families have the possibility to adopt now days.
  7. That is not true. If "left to it's own devices" it will die. Only until about 30 weeks of development inside a woman does it even have a reasonable chance of surviving as a separate entity. I think men like to think they are a full HALF of the equation, but that's just not true. My fetus is part of my body. For most of the development of the fetus, it's life was completely dependent on me. If I died: it would die. Without a mother, the zygote would have no hope whatsoever of becoming a newborn. I tried not to "count my chickens before they were hatched" until I was getting into my second trimester. I just can't wrap my head around the implications of treating fertilized eggs like humans. I mean (I'm not sure if you are in this camp) but what does that really imply?! The only way to actually HAVE a baby is to run the risk of KILLING several fertilized eggs along the way. Half the time they don't implant. So, if you are trying to have a baby...there is a really good chance that you are going to kill fertilized eggs. If we really treated fertilized eggs like human beings --- we'd have to give every maxi pad of a woman trying to get pregnant a proper burial. To convince women that every zygote = baby is just emotional abuse. Most women who plan to have children will have a miscarriage (even if they don't realize it). Chances are, I had one a couple months before a pregnancy actually "took". Seriously, if every zygote is a human being --- woman's bodies are natural born murderers, tubal pregnancies are death sentences, and mothers are nothing more than safe deposit boxes.
  8. Hiya Sinmantyx ! =D

  9. ...and you know how much shit she got. Madonna also. There is no way in HELL a celebrity could possibly adopt an infant domestically...not with the laws that currently exist. Could you imagine certain people looking through adoptive parent profiles and seeing Angelina Jolie listed? It would be a circus. I've been led to believe (and I would be EXTREMELY surprised if this were not the case) that both families did "home studies" just like everybody else...yet, those who adopt internationally are routinely accused of "buying babies" or getting an "exotic fad baby". Grrrr..... There are places where orphans and infants are in need of parents, but not because parents are unavailable, but because the agencies involved are corrupt and impossible to manage. To adopt in some places means running a very high risk of fraud. Agencies in the U.S. make connections with other agencies around the world, but only wish to deal with reputable people who are ethical and also follow the law - will not mislead the agency, ask for bribes, lie about the baby's medical history, etc. If you wish to adopt an older child or an infant with certain medical problems, there are more children immediately available. However, even in the U.S. adopting from the foster care system is a bureaucratic nightmare, resulting in an emotional roller coaster, half the time. It's not just healthy babies that are in demand however. If you look through profiles you will find potential adoptive parents looking for infants with disabilities as severe as Downs Syndrome and Autism. If you see ANY infants awaiting adoption in the U.S. 99 times out of 100, that infant needs to be placed with a sibling group which includes older children. Bottom line: Having an abortion does not somehow give a baby from another country a family. Reputable agencies (such as agencies in China, Korea, and Russia) have very little trouble placing infants. Truthfully though, if a substantial amount of U.S. women did chose adoption instead of have abortions, theoretically it may begin creating a significant decline in international adoption. Interestingly enough however, the reason that infants are in demand in the U.S. is not because of an increase in abortion rates (because abortion rates have been decreasing for quite some time), but because young people are (believe it or not) having less sex and being more responsible. Whether you want to "blame" it on sex ed or AIDS or whatever...teenaged pregnancy is down. Unplanned pregnancy is still a bit crazy --- but I tend to think that's because more woman don't PLAN to have children.
  10. In some cases, that's just not true. I can't believe that a zygote with undifferentiated cells is human or a mass of hair, teeth and skin. Those are relatively extreme situations, but they do exist. It's just not correct to assume that every "offspring" has the potential to become "human". I just can't see a mass of undifferentiated cells as "human". In that case, it certainly is very literally "a clump of cells" and doesn't even have the chance of becoming anything other than that. I do understand your general point however. I'm pretty much in the same boat. There are only pretty extreme situations where I would consider an abortion or advising anyone to have an abortion. In that respect, I guess the "anti-abortion" label could be used for me. However, both practical and other ethical concerns put me in the "pro-choice" camp politically on most legal abortion issues.
  11. PS: Chidren should NOT be considered a "punishment" for irresponsible behavior. I really felt the need to say that. One piece of rhetoric that wears very thin with me is the idea that: YOU HAD SEX so you should be subjected to parenthood as some sort of horrible repercussion. I totally agree that those who have sex and are not willing/able to deal with ALL the possible consequences of those actions might want to re-evaluate their behavior. However, I don't believe in reinforcing or manufacting consequences in order to try to modify the behavior of others. Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy shouldn't be in the same catagory as taking a driver's licence away, putting someone in jail or any other consequence for irresponsible behavior. As Brassfusion pointed out: it's like disallowing dentures to encourage people to brush. However, in this case we're treating a CHILD like a spanking paddle...and not as a human being who deserves to be wanted.
  12. A lady who can't take care of herself and doesn't bother avoiding unplanned pregnancy is pretty horrifying. The fact that the county health lady was shocked tells me that this woman is a bizarre exception (thank goodness). It sounds more like this woman should be institutionalized and is probably having multiple pregnancies because she is being taken advantage of by like-wise irresponsible/incompetent men. There is no law or social program that will completely eliminate those serious underlying issues. I am glad however, that we no longer live in a country that would force her to bring all her pregnancies to term when she is clearly incapable of doing so in a reasonable way.
  13. The pill does NOT cause miscarriages....neither does "Plan B" (which is essentially the same hormone, just at a high dose). About one half of all fertilized eggs do not implant. About one fourth of all pregnancies spontaneously abort in the first trimester. Spontaneous abortion is a natural process by which your body disposes of pregnancies that are not developing properly. The main reason that possibility of genetic defects increase as you get older is because your body's immune system is not strong enough to abort the pregnancy naturally. Spontaneous abortion is a natural function of the body. It happens when the body is functioning perfectly. Yeah...there's a little eugenics council in everyone's uterus. Elective late term abortions of viable fetuses upset almost everyone...but legally, they can be regulated without even TOUCHING Roe v. Wade. They are extremely rare and very few doctors will perform them and many states do not allow them. Still: the anti-choice/pro-life lobby parades them around like they are the legal norm. Personally, I think adoption is a great option and I'm not sure why more people are not choosing it. There are many families waiting eagerly to adopt children in the U.S. The birth parent(s) choose the adoptive family and the level of "openness" of the adoption. The adoptive parents basically pay for everything. Practically speaking, the only reason to have an elective abortion (not because of a severe defect or a health issue) is because the woman doesn't want to carry the pregnancy or is avoiding the social complications of carrying the pregnancy and/or dealing with the potential father/sperm donor. People are having less sex and when they do have sex they use contraception more often than they did 20 years ago. The result is less unplanned pregnancy and fewer infants available for adoption.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.