DisRuptive1

Well it is true, ya know. A woman will never, ever be as attractive as she could be if she had any children. Some girls already have poor self-esteem and don't want their looks to go down hill. So they have an abortion. And do you really want a child to be raised by someone with poor self esteem? And what about mother's who have children without fathers. I think those women are selfish to not have an abortion or at least put the child up for adoption. Living in a one parent household can screw up a child. Some women understand this so is it wrong if they have an abortion if their boyfriend/spouse says that they don't want a child and will leave them if they have it? If they have it, their child will have no father or a father who doesn't help them out in any way (if the father is smart). If she has the abortion she can maintain her life with her boyfriend/spouse. Abortion isn't always about the right to life of a child. There is more behind it in most circumstances. And some people just are not fit to be parents. Either they're bad or ignorant parents, or they just don't have the money to support a child. So what is more wrong? Killing a child by abortion (I do agree PBA is barbaric and should be outlawed), or bringing a child into the world in which it has no or very little support, terrible parents or lack of one, or parents which don't have enough money to support it, and therefore have to get another job and so then can't spend as much time with the kid which can be bad if it's a single mom or dad (although single dads are very uncommon).

Next week (notably Tuesday to be exact) marks the release of the next Grand Theft Auto video game for the Playstation 2. For those of you that don't know (but you should, since the game is awsome) the basic premise of the game is carjacking. Walking up to a car, beating the driver senseless, throwing him out of his car, and drive away as quickly as possible with your driver side door still hanging out in the wind, only to be shut when you've got a fair enough distance away. With your new car you can then head to wherever in the city and take various missions such as putting out fires, taxiing people to wherever they need to go, assasinating people, taking pictures of corrupt politicians, blow up a mall, steal a prototype tank after killing all the military protecting it, etc. Critics argued that the violence is bad for the children blah, blah, blah but shut up after being told about how in the Coliseum at Rome people would cheer on senseless acts of violence towards animals and humans alike. And the game violence isn't real even though public beheddings, stonings, hangins, various battles during the US civil war, and crucifixions of Christ's time were all a regular occurence of their day. So maybe the virtual violence of games like GTA, Doom, and Quake (other popular violent games) serve some carnal survival need in human beings. And critics argue that the game will cause the people playing it to do criminal acts since you play within a crime wave, most of which you create yourself. But critics usually focus on the one thing that sets GTA from other violent games: prostitution. Only in GTA can you hire the services of a prostitute (depicted by seeing your car rocking), and then kill her and take all your money back when the deed is done. Since it's so easy to do and not get caught in GTA critics argue that people will follow this behavior, although it's been shown that most people will not (and those that will don't need to play a video game before they do it) and the event mortifies most people. It's actually been shown that the media is responsible, but only responsible for making people do what they'd already be inclined to do rather than making people do stuff that they wouldn't be inclined to do. I. E. When did all the US school shootings start rising in frequency? After the media reported on Columbine Seeing that the next Grand Theft Auto is coming out next week, and should be the top selling game of ALL TIME (as the previous GTA held that title and will continue until the new one tops it) what are your thoughts on GTA?

That includes partial birth abortion, right?Are we also failing to realize about the outer appearences of mothers? It's obvious that a woman who goes through a pregnancy will no longer be as attractive as she could have been had she not had the child. Since men are visual creatures and attracted to attractive women, having children hurts a woman's chance of finding a suitor. Therefore, having an abortion can help a woman's future, by not diminishing her opportunity to find a mate. And she might not even want to have a child. She might have just wanted sexual release in the first place. I know men that will fail to use protection because of the desire for sexual release outweighs their sense of logic. And I do agree that education will help out. We all know that abstinence isn't going to help any sixth year old. We need to teach about protection instead. And at the very least, alternative things to do besides sex. Let the churches teach their children about abstinence. Schools need to teach children how to protect themselves. I think about 85% of all children will have sex before they graduate. Or some high number like that. I got the information from "The Guy Game." (video game)

TUBA!!!

Is it wrong at all for a 20 something male to date a 30 something female? And how about a 50 something male with a 20 something female? Non-LDS of course.

You're not homesick. Like all young men, you've had your first experience of being away from home and you liked it. You want to travel, that's all.

It should be noted that waxing is a whole lot more effective than shaving.

Has her parents talked to her about protection? Don't they teach this stuff in like the 6th grade? And don't feel guilty about the baby. The baby didn't do anything wrong. Only the mother did.

^Posts too much in this thread.

But if you really think you have a problem go to a nutrionist or a psychologist. Don't go to a psychiatrist, because s/he knows that he can make a fortune off your worries by telling you that there is something wrong with you. Although be careful about the psychologist also: they are only half-educated.

This topic has no point. But I was in the cereal aisle the other day and I found some Shrek cereal that turns your milk green.

Spoils of war, eh?

..

What about the dumb jocks? They get scholorships and then don't know what to major in so they take business management and become managers and stuff and I'm rambling.

Ok, I don't think you got anorexia. You don't have the signs for it. You aren't feeling unnaturally cold, and you aren't losing energy. I'm thinking that you might not be AS active in your life. Things that you did earlier, such as sports or having growth spurts, just aren't happening anymore and your body doesn't need as much food. Chances are you're probably just eating right and losing weight that would come off naturally. Have you been eating a lot of protein? When you eat protein, your liver produces a chemical called cortisol. Cortisol is a hormone that travels through your blood (I think) and tells your body's fat deposits to release some fat because it isn't needed, since you just ate protein and you'll not be hungry for quite awhile. Both of these in turn can cause some signifigant weight loss. You probably put yourself on the Atkins diet without even realizing it maybe. As to your rib cage showing, just go to the gym and start a workout regiment. If you maintain proper form in all exercises you'll soon be gaining weight like crazy (in the form of muscles) and it should help your bony look. As long as you're eating when you NEED to eat, and you're not starving yourself (hunger pangs show up when you do), then you should be ok. Oh and since you're a guy, forget the part about missed periods, that doesn't apply to you.

Ewww, cocoa puff milk is better.

Are you male or female? How tall are you? You've told us you've lost 8 pounds. It's pretty safe to lose about 2 pounds a week plus or minus up to 5 pounds for water. More questions. I'll be able to give better advice if I get the whole picture. Do you ever NOT eat when you are hungry? Do you even know what hunger feels like? Are your periods abnormal (assuming you're a girl)? Are you concerned about your looks, about looking fat? What types of physical activities do you do and to what degree? Are other people concerned about your weight? Do you actually NEED more food than you are eating or do you only eat when you have hunger pangs and stop when they go away? Is your energy level down or is it the same as before? Is schoolwork harder because of the lack of food? When you weigh yourself, do you do it at the same time each day (because if not water gain and loss can cause your weight to fluctuate, rhymes)? Do you ever vomit at all? Do you take any type of pills, besides basic supplements (i.e. vitamins)? Are you cold (physically)? Do you think about your shape and weight a lot? Do you snack on anything during the day (brownies, cookies, candy bars and soda can keep you going for awhile you know)? Another thing: just because you don't eat doesn't mean you're annorexic. You should only eat when you actually WANT and NEED to eat. Listen to your stomach. If it's growling for a Big Mac than put some food in it. If you don't feel anything down there then it's working on that pizza you just ate and hasn't finished. When your stomach empties it will signal to you that you need to put in more food. But answer my questions and we'll be able to give a whole lot more comprehensive and appropriate information.

Sadly, sometimes it's easier to get ahead in life by pounding time out on the job instead of in the classroom. Experience is sometimes more valuable than theory. Theory is for planners, experience is for labororers (those people that actually work!)

Since faith is like the opposite of knowledge (although ignorance is actually the opposite but faith is like ignorance but religiously but we know it to be true, but don't have knowledge of it's truthfulness, etc.) does that mean that Jesus had to also build in his faith and learn to trust in the Lord and everything? Does he have his own conversion story? And if you know how 16 year olds are then I'm sure you'll understand how Jesus was telling off all those priests, he probably thought he knew EVERYTHING.

My grandpa (non-mormon) has smoked about two cigarettes a day ever since he was 13. Eventually around his 70s all that smoke started causing problems, mainly with his liver. I don't know all the details as it was a couple years ago but it eventually led him to the point where we knew he was dieing. It got so bad that the doctors gave him about two to three weeks. As he used to volunteer for hospice he took advantage of their services and he was transported back to his house where he remained laying down in his chair in the den. After about a week he went into a coma or something. He never woke up but he kept breathing. The next few days my mom and my grandma stayed with him and I came to visit him too along with my brother. The people closest to him were all in that room. We watched him take his last breath and then he stopped breathing. About a minute later, after he had not taken another breath, both of his arms raised straight into the air, held there for a few seconds, and then collapsed down. That's the only significant thing that's happened to me.

I'm curious. When Jesus was sent here did he also have the veil put over his mind? Or did he know every single little thing, every little detail? When he told the apostles that one of them was going to betray him, did he know which one? Was Heavenly Father testing Christ in order to make sure he was acting Christ-like to all of the apostles, even though one of them was going to betray him and another was going to deny him thrice? Or did Jesus come to Earth without faith, with nothing but knowledge?

Because the media found out that 11 of the hits were illegal they believed that the all the tactics used on Mr. King were all illegal, even though he was on PCP and couldn't feel a thing.

There's nothing wrong with him making cameos, although I've never seen unbreakable and that reminds me I have to rewatch The Sixth Sense to see him in there. The acting wasn't bad. How can acting be bad if everyone was doing the same thing and talking funny like "Oh Paul Wiggen, look over here at me" or whatever. And the new characters that appeared near the end of the movie didn't act bad. It was only the village people I think the acting was intended to be like it was. I thought the movie moved kind of slow and they could have gone in all sorts of directions with the movie although I doubt that M. Night Shyamalan knows how to make a proper sequel. But those druid outfits were really cool. Yellow!!!

What about statements that are true but put the prophet in a bad light? Would you rather have us hold our tongue or share for the greater knowledge of us all? If it were found out that Joseph Smith killed someone for any reason (even though we are commanded "Thou shalt not kill") should we keep quiet even though giving the information is truthful?

When I say a civilian I mean a person who is used to conduct interviews for most of the city employees. S/he is not aware of the problems that law enforcement officers have and therefore will be looking for a whole different set of qualities than the sergeant. But thanks for all the answers.