Drea

No. I would say that both parties are irresponsible. You are scurrying around the issue of responsibility by changing the subject. I did not change the subject. The subject is being irresponsible with contraception. And both men AND women are at fault -- both are equally irresponsible when unwanted pregnancy occurs. Just as both are equally responsible when wanted pregnancy occurs. It's the woman's fault. PERIOD? Gimme a break. If you choose to stick your equipment (unbagged) into a woman, there is a chance she may become pregnant. The man HAS TO take at least 50% of the responsibility. Sheesh women don't get pregnant by masturbating for goodness sake. It takes TWO to make a pregnancy. And what is your solution? Being that you won't accept additional education for women by the anti-choice folks...(yet blame all unwanted pregnacies on us).

Which, Whitedoors, from my perspective is not a bad necessarily a bad thing. Hubby and I basically share the traditional marriage roles which makes for a nice balanced life.

"What's missing in the report is.. Perhaps the guy had something to do with it? Maybe he didn't want to use a condom. Maybe he didn't have any and they went ahead and did it anyway? Both parties are responsible, no? Of course there are women who continually forget to take the pill. In their case the quarterly "shot" is an alternative. There are others, but the shot is administered and therefore can be controlled.

Catchme you soooo nailed it. ... but I still believe in marriage. Andrew, Legal in the eyes of the law. As he and I would sign a legal contract of marriage as recognized by the government. And yes, I want to have the ceremony to publicly promise our love to one another. For us and our friends to say "yahhhh we finally did it!" *picture cheering happy people*. And yes, marriage gives the sense of permanence to the relationship. No, I do not expect to be "happier" (or sadder for that matter) after the ceremony. Being married also makes other things easier... banking, credit, life insurance, rrsps, taxes... all are less complicated with a married couple (as compared to a co-habitating couple). But really, I love the man. That's it. That's enough.

White, it wa a totally honest question... don't get all up in arms about it. Do you know which educational institution in Canada educates the scientists and astronauts that inevitably get hired by NASA (as Canada does not have its own space program)?

Leafless, okay back to the thread topic... you have yet to answer my question: please clarify what you mean by "today's feminist demands".

And Leafless, please clarify what you mean by "today's feminist demands".

Leafless: In my situation, as in the post above, who had the "unreal expectations"? Him and his family for expecting us to start a family so young? Or me for expecting to have freedom and choices in my life? jbg: I headed for the exit immediately -- so it would have been better for me to stay in that marriage? In your opinion it would have been better for our future children that I remain uneducated and at home and miserable in my role as wife and mother? Pfffft. When I left I took my car with a tank of gas, my 2 cats and my clothes. I had $2 on me. So much for him being saddled with the economic costs of two households.. By the way, I went back to my home town in 2001 and ran into my ex. He apologized profusely for not allowing me anything by the things mentioned above -- cats etc. He was amazed at how resiliant I was and proud of me for what I had accomplished. Luckily, we didn't have any children. I believe in child support but not alimony. Women are just as capable as men at earning a living and should be held to the same standard -- kids or no kids.

In 1983, at the age of 18 I got married. At 21 I went off the pill as "we -- his whole friggin' family" decided it was time for us to have children. At 21 I looked at myself in the mirror and asked "Are you ready for this? Are you old enough to have children? Is this what you really want?" My answer was a resounding "no!" So I left. At age 21 I enrolled in college. I partied, worked and studied throughout my entire 20's. What a blast I had! What great fun experiences! Had I been stuck in my traditional marriage with no means of escape (divorce) I would have been miserable -- a miserable wife and mother. No thanks. I now live with an awesome man (now that I am old enough to make a committment ) and one day we will publicly and legally decry our love and committment for one another in a ceremony.

LOL That's too funny Canuck! Our whole family is into ancient history.... I guess parents do rub off on their kids!

Of course. Care to read my post again? How you got NAIT to TOP scientists I have no idea. ie: NAIT doesn't train scientists. I didn't mention NAIT. I asked a question: Where then, Whitedoors, do the scientists that NASA hires (from Canada) get their educations? My son is planning on going to UBC to study science (archeology, anthropology, paleontology) .... of course this could change as he is only 13 ;-)

Did it get them off welfare? Of course. Those programs are fan-f****g-tastic. Some of them Canuck. Of course there are always those that, no matter what you do for them, won't make it. jbg, it was a very basic program to get women working who had perhaps never worked before. Give them a skillset to be able to handle an interview, appropriate dress for work, how to answer the phone, open email, etc. Out tentant was one of them. OMG now she is pregnant again. Her third child on her own. Geeeez...

while I agree with you lenard, new immigrants for the most part, are not all welfare cases. Refugees perhaps, but you'd have to take that one up with the UN, not the Canadian govt. The UN sets the mandate for treatment of refugees... I live in a small city of about 100,000. ALL of our welfare cases (I used to work as a teacher assistant helping women get off welfare) are either white or native. More whites that natives... Not one single "East" Indian, Korean, Jamiacan or Vietnamese woman was in the program. Not one. Ever. Of course there were immigrants at the school -- but not on the govt's dime. (the women I taught were all forced to taking retraining to get off welfare and their schooling was paid by the govt). BTW, ALL of the immigrants were taking courses in the health field, none in business administration or travel and tourism...

Where then, Whitedoors, do the scientists that NASA hires (from Canada) get their educations? You know "brain drain" and all that... IF our Canadian scientists didn't have top notch educations I doubt if NASA would hire them.

You've obviously never tried to get a female pot plant to bud.... ;-) It aint that easy. The conditions have to be just right. Unlike brewing wine where all you have to do is wait. btw, EVERYBODY doesn't drink now. At least no more than people did before or during prohibition. Not EVERYBODY likes the way alcohol makes them feel. Person #1 comes home from work and pours herself a glass of red wine... Person #2 come home from work and roll a joint. (geez, not like the ones you see on TV -- a normal joint is about a quarter of the circumference of a cigarette) Why should Person #2 be considered a criminal while Person #1 is not? They are both injesting (oooh scarrrry!) a mind altering substance are they not? Why is one legal and the other not? There is no logical reason for it. AND if Person #1 continues and pours herself two, three, four, five glasses of wine she will be totally wasted. I've never known anyone who would keep smoking and smoking... but I know plenty of people who would keep drinking and drinking and drinking...

Consumption of the drug nicotine has decreased dramatically in the past 20 years. Yet it remains legal and freely available to adults everywhere. It has restrictions on where it can be consumed so that it's use does not affect those who choose not to use it. Same with alcohol consumption and drinking and driving. Used to be cool to down a 26er and drive your 75 Camero at 120 miles an hour... now this behaviour is frowned upon. What happened over the past twenty years to facilitate this decrease? Education. Until drugs are legalized and the public educated to nth degree (like MADD, anti-smoking, etc.) drug use will continue to rise legal or not. And the only people that benefit are the criminals.

Gee, I'll have to ask about that. *insert red face* I've worked in newspaper for 15 years and have never ran across it or even questioned an obit when I was in classifieds...

Yah, RB. The picture that is truly "them". Leafless, a car ad is different than an obit. A word ad for a car will take up about 1/2 cm (x 1 newspaper column wide). The picture has to take up an additional 1/2 cm, doubling the amount of space required. An obit takes up about 15 - 20 cm so adding the photo doesn't have much of an impact on the size. The newspaper adds the photo at no extra charge.

The Bush Administration may be able to talk the American people into a war in Iraq, but I doubt if they would be able to talk them into attacking and killing Canadians. Individually Americans and Canadians look at one another as friends. "Groupthink hate" propaganda (like for today's muslims) would be difficult because so many people have individual relationships on both sides of the border. I've heard of the NAU and it is not in the best interest of any of us. As close as we are culturally, American and Canadian sociology are worlds apart.

So, then why don't we just leave out the picture, like most obit's were anyways before publishers decided: 'Why don't we make a little extra moolah by including a photograph'. An obit is the same price picture or no picture. Cost is determined by the amount of space ie; 2 columns x 5". Whether or not this space is filled with text or photo or a combination makes no difference.

I strongly advise you stop encouraging people to commit drug offenses. It's against forum policy and against the law. What is with posters these days, this is the second one this week... though this one being much less serious. Sheesh... gravol is a hallucinogen if one ingests too many... perhaps Obsidian was encouraging you to use those? ;-) His point (I think)being that there is an unecessary fear of psychedellics and other recreational drugs is completely unfounded.

Why wouldn't they be an accurate cross section of the general population? Melanie is correct -- women of all income levels, education levels etc have abortions.

Could very well be her son is the father. Sick bi***! She refused DNA testing when the baby was first born. Only reason to refuse is if she was hiding something. As far as I'm concerned, the baby's name should be changed and she should be raised in a regular household with no money whatsoever. When she turns 30 she gets to find out she has billions in the bank AND she would get to grow up normal and loved. IMO when that much money is involved raising the child for love flies out the window.

Wilber, humans have been trying to "alter" their minds since we became human. Drugs and mind-altering are not new. IMO all drugs should be legalized, regulated and taxed. Then the public should be educated, educated and educated some more. Look at how vilified smokers are today. We are the scourge of the earth. We are scum. We are the absolute worst of the worst. (I smoke btw ;-) Now, if we throw as much money into educating the populace that drugs make you a loser (like cigarette smoking does) then the problem will be solved in one or two generations.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%. Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%. Hmmm...I always figured I was more "centrist". Of course this is an American site and in America "Liberal" means something different than it does in Canada. Personal freedom is more important to me than economic freedom. All-in all, these descriptions are pretty accurate IMO.