RE IIuLTiMaFoRSaNII: so do you advocate for the US gov't to enact laws requiring citizens to become organ donors, donate blood and give up part of their livers and extra kidneys to the needy? Isn't requiring DEAD people to donate their body parts 100% less intrusive then requiring LIVE women to carry pregnancies to term? Once your factions get these laws on the books then start work on turning over Roe v Wade.

But a huge relief for others. For myself it was. I feel no regrets about having an abortion. And I'd even say in some cases, it is the better choice.

I'm certainly not condemning women who want to keep their abortion/medical history private. That is fully their choice and right to do so. However, I feel that I have a responsibility to contradict the perception that all women who have had an abortion are sad and regretful about their choice. Certainly some do feel that way, but not all. And hence that is why I believe that women should have the personal choice to abort or not and that it is a huge gov't intrusion to legislate otherwise.

Making women pay more for health insurance is the definition of discrimination. We can't change biological fact: women bear children. Should all women just stop reproducing so we can get equal insurance?

On the other hand, I don't think there is a speeding gene.

No there isn't a pregnancy gene, I never said there was, but by virtue of having an X chromosome regardless of if a woman bears a child or not she is charged higher premiums. That is discrimination. Higher costs based on pure biological fact. Plus I doubt those higer costs for women are just for child birth, some of them are associated with making sure that our reproductive parts stay healthy. Nevermind that the cost of child birth and prenatal care should be shared equally because ALL of us were born.

The male aggression argument is bullcrap. We have logic and higher thinking skills. You can certainly choose not to speed. I can't choose to not have a uterus/ovaries/cervix etc. Unless of course you believe that women should have all those parts removed so that we can have fair health costs?

On tv and commented to my husband that the commercial was probably not made by a woman nor was it targetting women, but men. I started running a couple of months ago and my main concern about my shoes are that they provide stability and support (and good value). I'm much more worried about injuries than the size of my ass. Which by virtue of me running is getting toned no matter what. The commercial reminded me of those silly platform type clogs/flip-flops that are supposed to tone your legs while walking but just look like accidents waiting to happen.

Yes, cutting up a card that charged you an inactivity fee is the easiest solution. However, the credit card companies have it so that doing so can negatively impact your credit score. If you close out an old account, you can get dinged for not having a long enough credit history. If you close out one with a high limit and you have debt elsewhere your debt to credit ratio increases and your credit score goes down. So when you do need a loan, like a mortgage your thrift will harm you by increasing your interest rate.