source?

According to the CDC, approximately 7.3 million women of childbearing age (between 15 and 44) in the US are likely to have impaired fecundity. Overall, that means an impaired fecundity rate of about 11.8%. Many of these women will not become aware that they have a fertility problem until they try to start a family

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/4651989

thats just the WOMEN rate of infertility

and then you have women who get ABORTIONS because they dont want children

and those who properly use their BIRTH CONTROL to avoid pregnancy

there are these things called infertility and condoms and pills,,,,and,,,,,

do you realize how many kids there would be if all adults were having kids?

its no more or less common than someone going through a lifetime and never needing medical care,,,

this is the same argument they try to use against taxes from single people going towards paying for schools,,,

its called an investment in COMMUNITY so you have the OPTION to use it without worry

not everyone rides a bike or uses transit,, some stick to sidewalks and walking

the caps and pre existing was in the bill too...

forcing them to pay for service entitlements is not...how do you think we pay for the raods, even though not EVERYONE drives on them?



this was just a way to TRY to support a 'free market' option,, as opposed to adding a healthcare tax on everyone,,,

I think that was EXACTLY the sentiment OBAma was making regarding judges

"I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress"

how many politicians actually DO point fingers at themself in election year?


did they all fail,,,,,?

cant help it in the media age where people have been indoctrinated in the 'right to know' culture

and jurors who are given explicit instructions to consider the case BECAUSE of that tendency for media to report facts

as I recall, the public thought the parents killed jon benet, she was found in the family home by the father after a gathering of family and friends had been called, but POLICE botched it by letting the father look for her so they were never charged

In the oj case, their appeared to be dna evidence but the POLICE botched it by holding on to the evidence so long and by having questionable evidence and a questionable officer on the case with potentially biased motives,,,,

In the Terry Schiavo case, the next of kin rights withstood public outcry and it remained the husbands call

in this case though, its the family that has the right to know, without doubt, and I hope they find out the facts

a jury should have facts , the police should not BOTCH an investigation, and the parents should get some closure,,,

the eyes dont develop 'love'

they develop 'lust' or 'attraction'

social interaction develops 'love'

good point

sometimes a topic puts people in a defensive mode from the start,,,wording is very important when tone is harder to 'hear' with our ears,,,,


I think if I put up a thread about 'recovering from being your childs friend',,,Id get plenty of defensive response from those who feel that their friendship with their children is not in the least harmful,,,or in need of 'recovery'.....

I understand the legal system fine. Noone is claiming there will be a trial without a charge and noone knows whether there is 'enough' evidence for a conviction.

Time will tell whether an arrest will be made and a trial will be decided

how long did it take them to arrest Scott Peterson,,,,,?sometimes the process is longer,, but it doesnt mean enough evidence isnt there,,,

nothing is clear here in terms of facts

the first reports I heard in 'media' did not have an edited tape,,but the whole conversation and people were upset THEN because the boy was unarmed and shot by someone with a gun who was still walking the streets FREE after saying on tape that he had been following the unarmed boy,,,

the family originally released older pics

he was a kid compared to the person who shot him, he paid no bills, he was still in high school

Zimmerman didnt outweigh him by 100 pounds, but he did outweigh him, he out 'experienced' him and out weaponed him and out BULKED him,,,,,

this became a story because the parents drew attention to their child being shot dead by an armed adult who was being allowed to walk free,,,,

self defense is a defense for killing

we know the kid was unarmed and now dead, and we know who shot im

we dont know if he fought to get the gun away from a threat or if he was shot by the gun for being a threat,,,but either way,,,

in this case a defense that should be presented in a trial IMHO

I want a TRIAL, the jurors can decide to convict

if there are cases of innocent black children being murdered by black men who continued to WALK FREE and uncharged,, Id love to hear about it,,,,

the issue is deeper than crime, its letting the potential killer WALK FREE

although, judicially, its wise not to act IMMEDIATELY, so that they can build the case they need because they only have so long to charge him after an arrest is officially made

thats understandable

its why I prefer to have scrutinized 'facts' come out in a trial,,,

I could refute that claim by replaying the 911 tapes of people who couldnt even TELL what races were involved,,,

this was a social status event, people with money, tired of their stuff being taken and an overzealous watchmen wanting to save the day by making sure the '*******' that was up to 'no good', waling in the rain with a hoody didnt 'get away'

and I Beg to differ, if we changed the races, and this was a white young man in a predominately black neighborhood where , lets say, graffiti had been rampant and a black man had followed him in a car, until he CHANGED Directions and RAN Away, and then that same man LEFT his car and continued to follow him

and that child ended up unarmed and shot dead,,, this would be unfolding the SAME way,,,,,

I will have to accept what the grand jury decides, I wont be 'satisfied' if no trial occurs though. no.

I Think the boy deserves an attempt at justice, not just a he said/she said defense from his accuser/killer,,,

I think the case needs to go to trial, given the 'victims' record of confrontation and his 'admitted' actions that night

which would give the child every right to DEFEND himself the way he did and the man no longer a right to merely claim defense,,,

saving a physical life is different than determining what 'harmful' lessons constitute abuse,,,,

and I Actually agree that inaction should not in itself be a crime,,,