littleJaina

I attempted tonight, and the result looks terrible! I'm seriousl, when I dished it up it kinda looked like a plate of vomit. It doesn't taste terrible really, I mean, if I was hungry I'd eat it, but it isn't really enjoyable. Considering that it was cooked with bacon, cheese, garlic, and mushrooms (all things I love), it would seem like it should taste fine - but... nope.

Any ideas?

parental rights to a different child?

If all you know is the name of the biological mother? In Texas, is there a registry for parental rights terminations there a place to find parental rights terminations that isn't sealed? I'm not trying to find the child, just to find out if the parent gave up a child.

"...getting rid of the belly package that's been making me gain weight."?

Help me understand this, because I just don't. I've helped raise a special needs child, and I don't get what would cause someone who just gave birth to one to go "Oh, I think it's time to make a big leap in my career!" I'm sure there has to be some rational explanation. Do any of you have one?

I was recently informed that several states do not allow "idiots" or "insane persons" the right to vote. I'm not really concerned about starting a debate about how competent someone must be in order to vote. I am interested, however, in how you feel about the choice of the wordings. Personally, I am shocked that it has been allowed to remain since "idiot" is not exactly a well defined term. Who gets to decide on whether or not someone is an idiot anyway?

http://www.bazelon.org/pdf/voter_qualification_cha...

The states that do not allow "idiots" to vote are as follows:

Iowa - No idiot, or insane person, or person

convicted of any infamous crime, shall

be entitled to the privileges of an

elector. IOWA CONST. art. 2, § 5.

Kentucky - “Idiots” and “insane” persons shall not

have the right to vote. KY. CONST. §

145(3).

Mississippi - “Idiots” and “insane” persons shall not

be entitled or permitted to vote. MISS.

CODE ANN. § 23-15-11.

New Mexico - No person shall have the right of

suffrage who is an “idiot” or “insane”

person. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 19:4-1(1).

and Ohio - No “idiot” or “insane person” shall be

entitled to the privileges of an elector.

OHIO CONST. art 5, §

New Jersey recently amended their constitution, but before 2007 it read "No person shall have

the right of suffrage who is an “idiot” or

“insane” person." which most of America would probably apply to anyone but themselves.

What are your thoughts?

I was recently informed that several states do not allow "idiots" or "insane persons" the right to vote. I'm not really concerned about starting a debate about how competent someone must be in order to vote. I am interested, however, in how you feel about the choice of the wordings. Personally, I am shocked that it has been allowed to remain since "idiot" is not exactly a well defined term. Who gets to decide on whether or not someone is an idiot anyway?

http://www.bazelon.org/pdf/voter_qualification_cha...

The states that do not allow "idiots" to vote are as follows:

Iowa - No idiot, or insane person, or person

convicted of any infamous crime, shall

be entitled to the privileges of an

elector. IOWA CONST. art. 2, § 5.

Kentucky - “Idiots” and “insane” persons shall not

have the right to vote. KY. CONST. §

145(3).%0

If you are not an international adoptive parent or are not in the process of becoming one, please DO NOT ANSWER! I'm not interested in the "why adoption is bad" stuff...

I have never considered domestic adoption myself. My first experience of adoption was through foster care, and that is still where I see the largest need, and the only place I would personally adopt from. I get slightly ill when I see celebreties bringing home "rainbow kids" when we have so many here that need love.

Still, I can't believe that all people who adopt internationally only have selfish reasons. I looked, but I didn't find an unbiassed question on WHY yet - at least not anytime recently. So I ask you - why was international adoption the way you chose?

This question is in response to a sad news story out of Houston this week. A young mother of two went to the hospital with stomach pains she says she thought were ulcers. She goes into the bathroom at the hospital, delivers a six-week premature infant, sticks the infant in the garbage and goes home!

What is WRONG with this picture??? Texas has a "baby moses law" that means all she had to do to NOT be charged with a crime was take that infant out of the bathroom with her and tell the hospital staff she wished to abandon it. She needn't have even left her name with them!

I'm thinking maybe there needs to be a poster in all public restrooms that talks about the infant safe abandonment law the way all work places have to post FMLA and OSHA codes. What do you think would get the word out and convince mothers to not kill their babies? If a mother can attempt infanticide while INSIDE the hospital something is surely not working, but what could fix it?

I cannot read most answers, so if you could write to me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

Most states now have punative father registries. Unless a potential father registers with them, he cannot contest the adoption of his child if the mother signs away her rights. Different states have different time limits on this. Some of them require there to be a waiting period after the child is born, but many require fathers to have been signed up before birth - or else he has no legal rights if the mother relinquishes for adoption.

Now, I whole heartedly believe that people should NOT be going around having casual sex, and that no father should ever be in the position of not knowing who may or may not be carrying his child. However, there are times when pregnant girlfriends run off, and the father doesn't know where she may have gone. If he doesn't register with the right information in the right state, he could lose his child. Is this not a violation of the spirit of the "no relinquishment before birth" law?

A biological father (particularly one that's not involved in the pregnancy, and has no interest in being involved) does not go through the same experiences a "birth mother" does. Should we then allow those fathers to waive their rights before birth? Paternal rights are already allowed to be waived in certain divorce cases where the mother claims her ex-husband is not the father of the baby she is carrying, even though the marriage was not ended before the child was conceived. This is done so that the (presumably) real father can be named on the birth certificate immediately. Since that is already allowed, should we not similarly allow birth fathers to waive their rights in adoption situations?

Would this prevent mothers from naming the father as "unknown" to avoid complications with the adoption since they would know ahead of time if the father had complied? Would this give adoptees more accurate information about themselves? What do you think?

In my opinion, losing a child is when, though no fault of your own, your child has been taken away. You can only lose a child if your child dies or is kidnapped. As a parent who has had a child on the brink of death (thank the lord he didn't go over) I get really offended when mothers who consciously relinquished thier children claim they "lost" them.

I had a child I was trying to adopt (yes her "first mother" truly did abandon her). This child almost died from cancer (would have if I hadn't gotten involved). After her father left (before I had been able to adopt her) I had to "relinquish" her to her grandparents for her own good. I know both kinds of pain. I'm not saying relinquishing doesn't hurt (Personally I cried for two weeks strait except when I was too dehydrated), but they are not both LOSING a child. One was death trying to steal her, the other I chose.

Is anyone else bothered by this, or am I being just as prickly as those who hate the term "birth mom"?

trauma or abuse. How do you deal with those feelings of anger?

I thought I had overcome all of mine, and for the most part I have. However, sitting around at Christmas watching my mother open Christmas cards, things bubbled back to the surface. She had received a card from my brothers' biological brother's adoptive family. It told all about how well the almost 21-year-old boy was doing, how excited he was about his new career. He was the 7th born child of 7 biological children, and the only one born (mostly) clean. Hearing about him, while looking at my brothers - my stomach starting boiling with bile again. I love my brothers, and they are both special in their own ways, but... it's not FAIR! Everything they could have been, SHOULD have been was stolen from them by a woman who couldn't even be bothered to stop getting drugged up and drunk long enough to have a baby - and never did manage to figure out how to use birth control. How do others deal with this anger?

Ugh, I have to type this all over again!

Anyway, here's my question. I have a 3-year-old son, who will be 4 in December. When is it safe to let him play outside alone?

My mother keeps telling me it's fine. We live in my old hometown (small - less than 2000 people). I rent a small house with a fenced in back yard (chainlink not privacy, but it's pretty sturdy). I remember playing outside alone or with friends when I was 3, maybe even younger, but I just feel uneasy about letting my son out alone. We don't have any swimming pools, trampoline's or old well's in the backyard... but I'm afraid he'll wander off or get snatched.

We've never had a kidnapping here, and murders are extremely rare (I could count all the ones that happened in my life on one hand)... but still! Am I just being paranoid? Is my mom right? Or have times changed, and I'm being sensible? I don't want to be babying my son too much... but I'm scared!

Ok, so I am interested in exploring Mormonism as a possible faith option. The only problem is, I can't find anywhere to get specific questions answered. I've tried the LDS website, but they just have genral questions on there, not specific ones. I tried going to a service once, but was virtually ignored. That wasn't really a good way to get questions answered anyway. Any help?

It lasts for days, and it's not the same as just being sexually excited. It's a dull ache, it can be hard to breathe, and your emotions run almost as bad as PMS. Instead of being "excited" it just aches down there, constantly. It happens to me almost every month, about a week after my period, and lasts for about a week itself. Am I the only one this happens to? Is there anything you can do about it (other than the obvious)?