The LW says she wants to smoke whenever she wants, and that she 'acknowledges the health risks'.

What does THAT mean - health 'risks'? Is there research somewhere that says smoking only creates a health 'risk'? Because last time I checked, smoking is ALWAYS damaging to your health - the damage is not a risk but a certainty. And to anyone unlucky enough to be standing around inhaling your unfiltered fumes, it's even, and ALWAYS, *more*, damaging than it is to the smoker.

Not risk but certainty.

Say what you mean: I want to smoke regardless of the certain damage to me and to you. I don't want to hear your concerns about the damage to me or to you. I used to hear those concerns as evidence of your love and superior control over things addictive and damaging. Now you just bore me. Shut up. I don't care what you think or how you feel. I want to smoke, consequences be damned.

Removing sudden random acts of God from the equation, it is possible to eat without damaging your health. It is possible to drink without damaging your health. It is even possible to mountain bike without damaging your health. It is possible to engage in all of these things with moderation and control. Damage doing these things is a risk, certainlyl. But it is a controllable risk. Not a certainty.

It is NOT possible to smoke without damaing your health, and the health of anyone in the vicinity of your smoke. You want to still do it, fine. But don't be in denial about the actual damage - don't soft pedal it as 'risk'.

And for the woman who asked Gee, is it really our fault if we smoke and die of lung cancer? The answer is yes.

for Bush supporting Plan B for over-the-counter purchase for women 18+. ONce he's on record supporting, it will be very difficult to go back. Whether or not the decision is idealogically driven, that's how it will be interpreted - the same thing for a politician. We should count this one as a big win and stop acting bitchy and bitter that if our aims aren't accomplished in the approved way, for the approved reasons, it's not a 'real' win. It is. Stop looking the Republican gift horses in the mouth, and ride that pony into a equal rights sunset for all.

If she's going to get so much publicity for the stunt I think it's only fair the veracity of her claim is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (or in this case, beyond a bloodstain on a bedsheet).

The child is DNA tested for paternity. The father's wages are automatically attached, and he cannot graduate high school until he fulfills his financial obligation to the child. In the event he doesn't have enough money or can't make enough, then the parents of the father's wages are attached - and their son can't graduate high school until they pay up. If the parents don't have enough, the system turns to aunts, uncles and grandparents. The father/his family pay their half of child support and college education for 18 years - prorated into a five year period.

If the fathers and parents of the fathers were forced to take financial responsibility for the father's actions, you can bet there would be a lot fewer pregnancies. It wouldn't be a choice either - in other words, no mother could simply fall back on her family and the status (more aptly, lack of) of a working single mother. The father and parents of the father are legally liable for providing half the child care costs - food, housing, school clothes, doctors, tuition, college fund, etc). No choice about it. While this may not change the teen mothers' outlook, I bet a lot of prospective teen fathers will wear condoms or abstain once they understand by the example of unfortunate male peers just what the consequences are of getting a girl pregnant.