Well… Living with a life threatening condition myself, I can say this much... The more important thing is how you feel and how you're doing. Everything outside of that will fall into place. As long as you're feeling fine and are active, I wouldn't be too worried about it.
I don't know about in other countries, but here in Canada, the adopting parents are the ones who pay such bills in the process of agreeing to adopt the unborn child. As for the maternity leave, some of that here in Canada there are laws to regulate so that the mother doesn't get totally screwed in the process.
On that topic, it would be interesting to know the way that such things work in other countries.
I can't say that I disagree with abortion in every case, since there are some cases where it is necessary (such as trying to carry to term will kill the mother). That being said, I do agree with notquiteme in that there are other alternatives to killing an unborn child if your reasoning isn't "valid" so to speak. In such cases as not being able to afford the upkeep of a child, or cases where it was an accident such as a condom break that neither parent was planning on, there are options such as adoption that would be more humane in the end.
At least with adoption as an alternative, rather than murder an unborn child, you can still give them the option of having a loving family that can take care of them, and provide for them the things they need to have the life that a child deserves. This is just one such alternative that I can think of that in many cases would be a more humane thing to do, rather than kill an unborn child.
Wow… How can one possibly draw such a conclusion from a photograph alone? It just goes to show that some people are seriously warped at this day and age. What about the one who laid the accusation? Wouldn't that be a sign that he may be himself? After all, suspicion is often the first sign of guilt :lolp:
I vote for big cock… Once the big coke is gone, it's done, but a big cock is a gift that keeps on giving 
That is kinda hilarious actually… Particularly the argument that "Nature has such sex acts that not even Brazilian hookers would try" :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
I get fortunate in that regard in that the medication that I'm on for ADHD doubles as an anti-sleep medication. Dexedrine (otherwise known as Dextroamphetamine… accent on the amphetamine) seems to both keep my mind going and keep me awake. The only down side is that every now and then, I have to counter it with a dose of Temazepam in order to sleep.
If using a condom, do yourself a favour and use lube. The only time that spit does anything different is when barebacking. In that case, spit actually creates a much more intense feeling that can drive both parties involved absolutely wild. That's really the only difference.
One thing that you fail to take into account with an HIV test is that they're only really accurate to within the last 3 months on the most part. All it takes for the virus to be passed on is one single night of fun, without taking the proper steps. Take it from someone who is now HIV+ because they trusted the wrong person… One night of fun isn't worth the lifetime of problems that it can cause. Always assume that they are poz unless they are a monogamous life partner that you have grown to trust over time.
Not to mention, if you're having some random hookup with someone, you have to take into account that you're probably not the only person that they hook up with. For this reason alone, you can get caught with a surprise at any time, unexpectedly. While on this topic, I bet that you didn't know that over 60% of people who are newly diagnosed with HIV didn't even know they had it. In a case such as mine, you can think you're safe, but later come to discover that you had been carrying HIV for almost a year before you even knew about it, all because you trusted the wrong person.
Bottom line people... No love without a glove. I know I may sound like a broken record by repeating that over and over, but if you truly understood the mind f*** that it puts you through, along with the cost of the medications ($1533.53/mo just for the ones that keep me alive, much less the ones that deal with their side effects), the side effects of the medications, the chronic body aches in some cases, along with a number of more interesting things like discovering that your body will do things that you never thought possible, you would truly understand the importance of why it's just not worth it. You may want to do yourself a favour and re-think that policy of "trusting" someone before its too late. Don't get caught in the same trap that I did.
Another little food for thought... When you become HIV+ and go through that whole stage of mental instability (and trust me... it WILL happen no matter how educated or "prepared" for it that you are) and truly understand what it's like to be HIV+ in every regard, then you'll know what it's like to live with the burden of knowing you passed HIV onto someone all because you didn't know you had it. That's a guilt that you can never get rid of and will haunt you for the rest of your life (especially when that person commits suicide when they find out).
You may think that I'm just talking smack, but for those of you who don't know, take these words of advice from someone who has known that they're HIV+ since they found out on March 20, 2009 (almost 2 and a half years ago). I know of what I speak and sincerely hope that you don't make the same mistake that I did.
It's another reason why one must think before they do.
Abortion, in my opinion, means that the egg was fertilized then killed. and yes, i think abortion shouldn't be allowed, except for extreme cases:
- the life of the mother is in danger
- the mother is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, and possibly depressed (as the case in rape). If the mother hates the unborn child, I'm no longer sure about what would be the correct thing to do.
I more or less share your opinion there. I have only ever taken a pregnant female to an abortion clinic on one particular occasion. Despite the fact that I do not believe it is the right thing to do because there are other options, in this particular case, I stood behind her as her doctor had told her that if she tried to carry to term, it would kill her. In cases like those, it's a much different story, especially when the person I took was already a mother of 2, both of which depend on her.
WOW! The article is right… Just when you think you've heard it all, something like this pops up.
Nice… I did watch my uncle j.o once really late at night watching porn on TV... it was hot as hell lol :laugh:
Details!!! We want details!!! :lolp:
So just to make sure that I'm understanding this correctly, the quality, resolution, etc of the video does not necessarily account for the rating of the torrent, rather the technical nature behind the way it is compiled, named, listed, etc., yes?
NICE! It'd be interesting to see about having some of these pictures perhaps in a higher resolution in order to be able to have them printed to a poster of some sort to use as art work. There is a certain level of artistic element to them. Me likie.
With respect to the quality of the torrent, there is one thing that I see coming into play here. A lot of our users don't seem to necessarily understand the difference in the quality of the torrent (e.g. video compression, frame size, frame rate, sound quality, etc) versus whether or not the content of the torrent is appealing to them personally. This in and of itself creates the potential for a flawed rating system just for the simple fact that there are a number of users who will give a torrent a bad rating simply because the content of the torrent doesn't appeal to them, rather than rating it based on the actual quality and technical standards of the torrent.
Perhaps this point is something that also needs to be addressed when taking the whole rating system into account. For example, if I were to rate torrents based on their personal appeal to me, all torrents from censored for example would receive a rather low rating, whereas a torrent that for example may be a VHS rip (with obvious lower quality) may receive a higher rating based on its content. Where exactly does one draw the line with respect to the rating system?
As well, the other thing to take into account when rating a torrent is the file format. A flash video file (.flv) generally would tend to have a lower overall quality (especially if ripped from a tube site such as XTube) than a torrent that is either in DVD-R format (.iso or .vob) or was converted directly to a video file such as a less compressed AVI file or a better compressed MPEG video for example. Perhaps if this rating system is left to moderators, a definitive answer with respect to the technical standards needs to be set. If the rating system that is currently in place remains in effect, this is something for all users to take into account when rating a torrent for its quality.
Just my two cents on the topic of the rating system.
:funny2: :rotfl: :funny2: :rotfl:
That is just too funny!
I wish I had a teacher like that :lolp: