What you want and how you want to be, are positions beyond the one you're in right now.
You're destroying the moments of happiness you could have right now because you don't want to accept your current situation.
Wealth and material take time to build and it just doesn't happen over night.
You got be careful. You cannot ignore how things are right now for a vision of a future that may not be - doing so will wreck your journey to success. And that's what it's about, success.
If you go to work and pay your bills and have no money left, congratulations, you are successful. Do it again...and again. With each round, your success will grow because you will learn new skills every time.
Meanwhile enjoy the little things because it's all anyone has in the end - including the powerful and rich.
Hope this helps

And how did you get here?

Uhm....totally.

@soco
I personally recognize the article was not yours and make no implications regarding you.
I noticed the link only provided an image of the article and therefore I took the time to recopy what the author had wrote and imported it as it was directly related to the subject of your Post. The article was interesting (to say the least.)

There was no real editing that Lano did.

Peace.

Their Post, yes.
As far back as I can remember.
Others who know will also validate this.

Because that was a primary feature of the old Help website and Roco has seen fit to maintain that ability.

Last night I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper.

It may stop the show in your world but it doesn't even register on my OMG meter.... What are you talking about?

One of the best explanations I have ever read; "Reasonable people can disagree when a Zygote becomes 'human life' - that's a philosophical question.

It's only philosophical when both the moral truth AND science doesn't agree with you.
Question: is the Zygote made of human genetic material donated from a male constituant - yes or no.
Is the Zygote made of human genetic material donated from a female constituent - yes or no.
Is the Zygote undergoing development changes of a predictable pattern - yes or no.
Like it or not, in all cases the answer is yes. As such the Zygote was NEVER "unhuman" to begin with. It's not a question.

However, regardless whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.

-Doesn't obligate a "mother" to- (well, it's a little early to be calling anyone a mother at this point....)
How do you go from questioning the validity of life in a human Zygote to comparing a fetus to an adult, seasoned with the dramatics of "ethics."
Where is the journalistic bridge that delivers the topic to that point?
Zygote - life /Fetus - adult
"Ethics."

"Sacrifices" that never existed. The female anatomy is designed to facilitate human life. No child was ever harmed in utero by a uterus - and it's quite apparent the uterus is still there, after birth. The only thing being "sacrificed" is the child and the female's title of "mother."

Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy, protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold vs Connecticut (1965), McCall vs Shimp (1976), Roe vs Wade (1973).

As decided by....no.
Your right to privacy, independence & autonomy existed long before 1965. These court cases are not the foundation (let alone the cornerstone), upon which your individuality is protected. They bear very little to those rights and are exclusive to women only.

Consider a scenerio where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe a plastic anaemia, no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you.

Okay, let's consider that scenario where I'm a perfect bone marrow match to an ALREADY BORN CHILD with a plastic anaemia.....

If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for what ever reason, the State cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent.

I fully agree... No human is biologically designed to readily exchange bone marrow with another human or even blood for that matter. No one should be forced to undergo an extreme proceedure against their will, even if it means saving the life of the child.

The problem most people have when it comes to articles such as this is their lack of discernment.
Comparing a life-saving procedure to a procedure that evokes death isn't going to further the cause of "pro-choice."
Moreover, other than becoming pregnant, you literally have to do nothing (or very little, medically speaking) to bring a child into the world.

It does not matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the ratonale for refusing is flimsy and arbitary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decesion to donate must be voluntary to be Constitutional.

Correct. Nature is/was responsible for the child having a plastic anaemia - it wasn't a result of some man made procedure and therefore I (you or anyone else) is not legally or Constitutionally required to benefit that child from our own physical means -

- but there are laws in place that prevent you, I or anyone else from bringing harm to that same ill child.

This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save. That's the law.

Again, that is correct - it is the law, it is also a person's unalienable right.

Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily.

If that is the case, a woman volunteers her life giving uterus every time she volunteers for the invasive procedure of ***sex that may result in pregnancy.....

By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just and refusing, morally wrong. That is a defensible, philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees.

I never needed anyone's permission or approval to clarify a matter. It's not going to be a choice of terms, one way or the other, granted by the majesty of - doesn't work that way, never has.

But, legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may chose to carry the baby to term. She may chose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But, it must be her choice and -

- No.
Pick one: God, Nature, Evolution and/or Science gave only woman the physical ability to maturate a bipartisan genome. Left in a natural course of events, the decision was already predetermined.
Look around you. Consider all of the things man (men) have invented and/or constructed. Women have had very little to do with that creative force compared to men. This is not saying women haven't had their role in it, but the percentage doesn't begin to reach a 50/50 level by a long shot.
Now, consider the fact there are very few times, on a monthly basis, that the chemistry of a female will spike a level pattern of emotions and thoughts...
Of all the things known in the creative universe, the creation of human life stands at the top of the chart and the decision to bring that life-force to full term cannot be solely left in the hands of one ***sex/gender, especially when that life-force was equally sequenced by two people (both male and female).

protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side.

- but it does not mean the law is exclusively on her side and lawmakers are waking up to the fact it takes two to tango.

Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.

The subject of body autonomy isn't going to be some ultimate solution when it comes to increasing the grounds of abortion.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/amwOibwQr0s[/youtube]

Uh....yeah @BigWilly!! What Soco said. The mud looks like the right color and the workers look....skilled.

Clue nailed it. RIT. I've used it before (years ago). It works well.

You're the best babe of babes:)
Thank you.