PantomimeGoose

Agreed. My husband and I are most likely about to get an interview for our removal of conditions, and I will most likely have to take a leave of absence from my PhD, which I have been commuting to so we don't go into debt. And the government sits there saying that everything must be done to keep families together, and to help students who are high achievers struggling for a better life.
I guess that doesn't apply to my family, and my education.

I'm not arguing that aliens have constitutional rights (at all). But I think there's a viable argument that denying USCs access to their families is potentially a violation of various rights possessed by the citizen; equal protection under the law, implicit right to privacy, pursuit of happiness and so on. While federal law doesn't necessarily have much to say about marriage, we are a discrete minority who is potentially being discriminated against by the implementation of immigration policies that are unnecessarily onerous. Our spouses coming to live in the US is and should be a privelege, but it just becomes a farce when we, who have rights as citizens, go through a prolonged, awful process and the law is changed for illegal aliens because people feel it's too mean (i.e., it seems to be violating rights that they don't have in the first place).
I'm not sure that anything is advanced in the US government with thoughtful, non-polarizing advocates these days. The discussion about illegal immigration reform has been about as thoughtful and intelligent as a Life Time movie. It does a good job of plucking the heart-strings for theme music though.

I'm not arguing that aliens have constitutional rights (at all). But I think there's a viable argument that denying USCs access to their families is potentially a violation of various rights possessed by the citizen; equal protection under the law, implicit right to privacy, pursuit of happiness and so on. While federal law doesn't necessarily have much to say about marriage, we are a discrete minority who is potentially being discriminated against by the implementation of immigration policies that are unnecessarily onerous. Our spouses coming to live in the US is and should be a privelege, but it just becomes a farce when we, who have rights as citizens, go through a prolonged, awful process and the law is changed for illegal aliens because people feel it's too mean (i.e., it seems to be violating rights that they don't have in the first place).
I'm not sure that anything is advanced in the US government with thoughtful, non-polarizing advocates these days. The discussion about illegal immigration reform has been about as thoughtful and intelligent as a Life Time movie. It does a good job of plucking the heart-strings for theme music though.

I'm not arguing that aliens have constitutional rights (at all). But I think there's a viable argument that denying USCs access to their families is potentially a violation of various rights possessed by the citizen; equal protection under the law, implicit right to privacy, pursuit of happiness and so on. While federal law doesn't necessarily have much to say about marriage, we are a discrete minority who is potentially being discriminated against by the implementation of immigration policies that are unnecessarily onerous. Our spouses coming to live in the US is and should be a privelege, but it just becomes a farce when we, who have rights as citizens, go through a prolonged, awful process and the law is changed for illegal aliens because people feel it's too mean (i.e., it seems to be violating rights that they don't have in the first place).
I'm not sure that anything is advanced in the US government with thoughtful, non-polarizing advocates these days. The discussion about illegal immigration reform has been about as thoughtful and intelligent as a Life Time movie. It does a good job of plucking the heart-strings for theme music though.

Agreed. My husband and I are most likely about to get an interview for our removal of conditions, and I will most likely have to take a leave of absence from my PhD, which I have been commuting to so we don't go into debt. And the government sits there saying that everything must be done to keep families together, and to help students who are high achievers struggling for a better life.
I guess that doesn't apply to my family, and my education.

Our infant mortality rate is high for a developing country because we have a lack of social services, and are one of the few developed countries foolish enough not to advocate for wide-spread birth control and family planning. Lack of access to education and medical resources for family planning equals a greater unintended fertility rate. Unintended fertilty correlates highly with infant death.
The reason infants typically die around the time of death is unsanitary birthing practices or congenital defect. A hospital will prevent your baby from dying of these things, even if they stick you with a big bill later. Historically, the reasons infants and young children die later in life are weaning hazards, lack of medical attention, urban stressors (crowding, pollutants). These factors are predicted by parental investment (which can prevent accident, malnutrition, failure to seek medical help etc.). Give people the resources to choose not to have babies, or to take care of the babies they have, and the babies will stop dying.
Interestingly, the primary reason that we chose not to implement many of the social programs that low infant mortality countries like Sweden enjoy, is because they were pioneered by Germany, right around the time we became suspicious of everything German. Today, Germany's infant mortality rate is half ours.

Our infant mortality rate is high for a developing country because we have a lack of social services, and are one of the few developed countries foolish enough not to advocate for wide-spread birth control and family planning. Lack of access to education and medical resources for family planning equals a greater unintended fertility rate. Unintended fertilty correlates highly with infant death.
The reason infants typically die around the time of death is unsanitary birthing practices or congenital defect. A hospital will prevent your baby from dying of these things, even if they stick you with a big bill later. Historically, the reasons infants and young children die later in life are weaning hazards, lack of medical attention, urban stressors (crowding, pollutants). These factors are predicted by parental investment (which can prevent accident, malnutrition, failure to seek medical help etc.). Give people the resources to choose not to have babies, or to take care of the babies they have, and the babies will stop dying.
Interestingly, the primary reason that we chose not to implement many of the social programs that low infant mortality countries like Sweden enjoy, is because they were pioneered by Germany, right around the time we became suspicious of everything German. Today, Germany's infant mortality rate is half ours.

Our infant mortality rate is high for a developing country because we have a lack of social services, and are one of the few developed countries foolish enough not to advocate for wide-spread birth control and family planning. Lack of access to education and medical resources for family planning equals a greater unintended fertility rate. Unintended fertilty correlates highly with infant death.
The reason infants typically die around the time of death is unsanitary birthing practices or congenital defect. A hospital will prevent your baby from dying of these things, even if they stick you with a big bill later. Historically, the reasons infants and young children die later in life are weaning hazards, lack of medical attention, urban stressors (crowding, pollutants). These factors are predicted by parental investment (which can prevent accident, malnutrition, failure to seek medical help etc.). Give people the resources to choose not to have babies, or to take care of the babies they have, and the babies will stop dying.
Interestingly, the primary reason that we chose not to implement many of the social programs that low infant mortality countries like Sweden enjoy, is because they were pioneered by Germany, right around the time we became suspicious of everything German. Today, Germany's infant mortality rate is half ours.

Our infant mortality rate is high for a developing country because we have a lack of social services, and are one of the few developed countries foolish enough not to advocate for wide-spread birth control and family planning. Lack of access to education and medical resources for family planning equals a greater unintended fertility rate. Unintended fertilty correlates highly with infant death.
The reason infants typically die around the time of death is unsanitary birthing practices or congenital defect. A hospital will prevent your baby from dying of these things, even if they stick you with a big bill later. Historically, the reasons infants and young children die later in life are weaning hazards, lack of medical attention, urban stressors (crowding, pollutants). These factors are predicted by parental investment (which can prevent accident, malnutrition, failure to seek medical help etc.). Give people the resources to choose not to have babies, or to take care of the babies they have, and the babies will stop dying.
Interestingly, the primary reason that we chose not to implement many of the social programs that low infant mortality countries like Sweden enjoy, is because they were pioneered by Germany, right around the time we became suspicious of everything German. Today, Germany's infant mortality rate is half ours.

Why did Keroauc drop out of Columbia and ramble around the country on his family's dime? The youth are disaffected and they want to feel something more real than getting a 9-5.
I agree that it's a little fruitless to say 'that's not Islam'. The Westboro baptist church 'isn't Christianity' at this stage in Christian history because 'Christians' like that are thankfully now only a vociferous minority compared to the many visible Christians in our society. That doesn't mean that that was *never* Christianity: it was once. Heck, it could be again someday if the disaffected fringe takes back over.

Why did Keroauc drop out of Columbia and ramble around the country on his family's dime? The youth are disaffected and they want to feel something more real than getting a 9-5.
I agree that it's a little fruitless to say 'that's not Islam'. The Westboro baptist church 'isn't Christianity' at this stage in Christian history because 'Christians' like that are thankfully now only a vociferous minority compared to the many visible Christians in our society. That doesn't mean that that was *never* Christianity: it was once. Heck, it could be again someday if the disaffected fringe takes back over.

Why did Keroauc drop out of Columbia and ramble around the country on his family's dime? The youth are disaffected and they want to feel something more real than getting a 9-5.
I agree that it's a little fruitless to say 'that's not Islam'. The Westboro baptist church 'isn't Christianity' at this stage in Christian history because 'Christians' like that are thankfully now only a vociferous minority compared to the many visible Christians in our society. That doesn't mean that that was *never* Christianity: it was once. Heck, it could be again someday if the disaffected fringe takes back over.

But that's just the issue: you're assigning 'responsibility' to a woman for her 'mistake'.
The 'mistake' perhaps being contraceptive failure or rape?
Let's face it, men are not the ones faced with the financial, physical, and emotional costs of bearing and raising a child in non-family settings. Even if an absent father is paying child support, the lifestyle change, the 'responsibility' for the crime of having had sex falls disproportionately on a single mother.
And re adoption: Our foster system is full of disabled, drug-addicted, and abused minority children (I looked into adopting). 'Oh, shucky-darn, but in a perfect world....'

But that's just the issue: you're assigning 'responsibility' to a woman for her 'mistake'.
The 'mistake' perhaps being contraceptive failure or rape?
Let's face it, men are not the ones faced with the financial, physical, and emotional costs of bearing and raising a child in non-family settings. Even if an absent father is paying child support, the lifestyle change, the 'responsibility' for the crime of having had sex falls disproportionately on a single mother.
And re adoption: Our foster system is full of disabled, drug-addicted, and abused minority children (I looked into adopting). 'Oh, shucky-darn, but in a perfect world....'

Good news! I guarantee you there's a stranger dying out there right now who needs a liver, a kidney, platelets, marrow- someone *you* are a donor match for! Quick! Hie ye to the barber surgeon!
Ah, right. It's different when it's actually about *you*. Bodily sovereignty is a beautiful thing.

For what it's worth, making abortion available and destigmatizing it drastically lowers the rate of infanticide and late-term abortion. My master's thesis was on infanticide in the ancient world. Partial-birth abortion, accidental smothering, and negligent wet nurses were more-or-less legal and common ways of family planning until just before the industrial revolution.

No slavery here. See, accepting that you might get hurt in a car wreck is accepting the risks of driving. Accepting you might get pregnant or get an std from sex is accepting the risks of sex.
Someone telling you that you're not allowed to ameliorate your situation by means available to you (by say, putting a cast on a broken leg, or getting an abortion if you can't raise a child) is punishment, designed to demean you as a human and make you feel like you are a bad person who should suffer for participating in a normal activity.
I would say that an abortion can be a very responsible decision, compared to raising a child a mother may hate or may be incapable of caring for or putting them into the system where they may very well be neglected or abused.

It is just about the woman. No one can force you to donate your bodily tissue even to save the life of another fully living breathing loving functioning grown human person. Would it be moral if they were able to?

But that's just the issue: you're assigning 'responsibility' to a woman for her 'mistake'.
The 'mistake' perhaps being contraceptive failure or rape?
Let's face it, men are not the ones faced with the financial, physical, and emotional costs of bearing and raising a child in non-family settings. Even if an absent father is paying child support, the lifestyle change, the 'responsibility' for the crime of having had sex falls disproportionately on a single mother.
And re adoption: Our foster system is full of disabled, drug-addicted, and abused minority children (I looked into adopting). 'Oh, shucky-darn, but in a perfect world....'

But that's just the issue: you're assigning 'responsibility' to a woman for her 'mistake'.
The 'mistake' perhaps being contraceptive failure or rape?
Let's face it, men are not the ones faced with the financial, physical, and emotional costs of bearing and raising a child in non-family settings. Even if an absent father is paying child support, the lifestyle change, the 'responsibility' for the crime of having had sex falls disproportionately on a single mother.
And re adoption: Our foster system is full of disabled, drug-addicted, and abused minority children (I looked into adopting). 'Oh, shucky-darn, but in a perfect world....'

But that's just the issue: you're assigning 'responsibility' to a woman for her 'mistake'.
The 'mistake' perhaps being contraceptive failure or rape?
Let's face it, men are not the ones faced with the financial, physical, and emotional costs of bearing and raising a child in non-family settings. Even if an absent father is paying child support, the lifestyle change, the 'responsibility' for the crime of having had sex falls disproportionately on a single mother.
And re adoption: Our foster system is full of disabled, drug-addicted, and abused minority children (I looked into adopting). 'Oh, shucky-darn, but in a perfect world....'

Good news! I guarantee you there's a stranger dying out there right now who needs a liver, a kidney, platelets, marrow- someone *you* are a donor match for! Quick! Hie ye to the barber surgeon!
Ah, right. It's different when it's actually about *you*. Bodily sovereignty is a beautiful thing.

Good news! I guarantee you there's a stranger dying out there right now who needs a liver, a kidney, platelets, marrow- someone *you* are a donor match for! Quick! Hie ye to the barber surgeon!
Ah, right. It's different when it's actually about *you*. Bodily sovereignty is a beautiful thing.

Good news! I guarantee you there's a stranger dying out there right now who needs a liver, a kidney, platelets, marrow- someone *you* are a donor match for! Quick! Hie ye to the barber surgeon!
Ah, right. It's different when it's actually about *you*. Bodily sovereignty is a beautiful thing.

Good news! I guarantee you there's a stranger dying out there right now who needs a liver, a kidney, platelets, marrow- someone *you* are a donor match for! Quick! Hie ye to the barber surgeon!
Ah, right. It's different when it's actually about *you*. Bodily sovereignty is a beautiful thing.