My kids, so far, look a lot alike. We really can't tell their baby pictures apart, if they're just face shots. We get a lot of people saying things like, "Well, there's no doubt they're related!" My sister and I look pretty similar, and both look like our mom.

Learn both. If you take up knitting, you'll need a crochet hook or two around anyway to pick up stitches. Knitting is, IMO, more difficult to learn but probably more versatile. Crochet is easier to learn and faster, but won't yield as many creative possibility, especially if you're interested in making clothing. I learned to crochet when I was a kid, and then to knit when I was a teenager. I think there was a benefit to already having some practice with manipulating yarn and sticks. On the other hand, if you learn to knit first, I imagine that crochet would be a breeze.

That's sort of how I feel. For me, God is love. God is that small voice that speaks to us about what's right, that urging toward the good that tugs at us. That's what I believe. Since I believe that, I believe that's how God works in everybody's life. Believe or not, God is always there, luring you towards the good (or at least the better). At the same time, though, everybody can accept or reject that urge towards the good. And I see absolutely no evidence that Christians reject it at a higher rate or atheists accept it at a lower rate. Because in the end we're still making choices, and every atheist I've known has been just as good if not better at making moral choices than the religious people I've known. Clearly religious belief is not necessary to make moral decisions. Of course, I'm the kind of Christian who isn't really a Christian according to the same people who think atheists can't have morals.

I would be very, very reluctant to say that Woody Allen, or a man who acted similarly, was a child molester. Not only was Soon-Yi not his biological child (so there was no actual incest taboo to break), he had never adopted her. She was an adult when the relationship began. They've now been married for almost 15 years. Raping a child in the shower is a horrific act of abuse and violation. Entering into a consensual sexual relationship with the adult daughter of your spouse (who is not related to you) is definitely outside-the-norm and problematic in terms of your commitment to your marriage, but it is just not the same thing. I think we need to make distinctions between sexual acts with prepubescent children, blood relatives, and/or a non-consenting partner and consensual acts between unrelated post-pubescent partners. The former are almost going to be morally wrong. The latter may not always be best or ideal, but are not the same thing and do not indicate the same kind of pathology that the former do. Otherwise we're left lumping Woody Allen in with Jerry Sandusky, and I don't see any rationale for doing that.

FWIW, I've seen the argument made that a woman not using hormonal birth control is statistically much more likely to have "chemical pregnancies" (months where an egg is fertilized but fails to implant and is passed with the menstrual flow, basically) than a woman using BCPs, so overall the women on BCPs will (because the pill so greatly reduces the chance of ovulation and fertilization) is actually much less likely to have an egg fertilized and fail to implant than a woman who doesn't. Now, you can argue that one is natural and one isn't, and that's fine. But, about 30-50% of fertilized eggs (and by some estimates more) naturally fail to implant.

Wow. That's harsh and, I think, wrong. When middle-class people talk about not being able to afford another child, I don't think they mean they couldn't afford to feed the child. They're thinking about things like how they'd pay for college for another child. Given the cost of education, this isn't some small fee they could pay if they just gave up the daily latte or traded their SUV for a used car. We figure we can't afford to send them all to college at this point, anyway, and I'd like to have another, but I most certainly would NOT ever judge anybody as "selfish" for having fewer children. I'm really, really bothered by the attitude of moral superiority that some people are giving off on this thread. Having more children than average doesn't mean you are more generous, selfless, or just generally better than average.

Definitely. Growing up we mostly had Italian food, chicken breasts/nuggets, meatloaf, and sometimes barbecue. Neither one of my parents like spicy food at all, so we never ate it. And I don't think my mom ever served a veggie other than broccoli, carrots, corn, or cauliflower. My parents are both willing to try almost anything, and like a wide variety of foods, but neither one enjoys cooking very much. My FIL has a really small number of things he'll eat (he grew up in one of those "Eat what you're served or don't eat" households, and instead of growing to love everything he was served, when he got old enough, he just decided he would never again eat anything he didn't like), so DH's family rotated the same 4 or 5 meals his entire childhood. I love to cook, and both of us will eat almost anything, so I'm a lot more likely to try new things or make more complicated meals. We're definitely more adventurous/experimental, in terms of what we eat, than either of our families were.

This is beyond offensive and insulting, to both young people and non-Christians. How do you explain all the good Bible-believing Christians standing behind Herman Cain after four women have come forth to say that he forced advances, some physical, on them? I guess it's just their belief in evolution, huh? This is about the fact that some individuals will ALWAYS put loyalty to the team--whether it be a sports team, a political party, a religious institution, or whatever--first. And, there's been such a quick judgment about this that it's not surprising that some students at the school would not immediately join in. It has NOTHING to do with age, with evolution, or with religious belief/atheism. I think it's incredibly sad and kind of scary that you think it does.

And now I'm getting on my high horse: seriously? After five years your daughter is still mad about being forced to invite somebody to a party? I think maybe she needs to be reminded that she's led a pretty charmed life if that's the most serious thing she's got to hold a grudge about. I'd probably make my kid decide to either invite everybody, including this girl, or only invite her closest friends from the team. And if she invited everybody and was upset, I'd understand, and sympathize for a bit, and remind her how hard doing the kind thing can be. (I'd probably also offer to take her and a couple of her closest friends out for a fun meal or outing.) But, five years later, my response would be to tell her to get over it.

Oh, get off your high horse. We're talking about preteen girls. I'm glad you have raised a perfect kid who would never, ever exclude anybody, but you can have the best, most accepting, most inclusive parents in the world and still do things way witchier than the situation described in the OP when you are a preteen. I hope if your children do something questionable, you are both extended more grace than you seem willing to extend here.

Early media reports were saying things like "inappropriate touching," not anal rape. I had the same reaction as Kutcher before I heard the full story. I think his response was fine, and I think the backlash against him is uncalled for. There is no reason to turn this into some sort of witchhunt for anybody who doesn't respond immediately with what we feel is a sufficient amount of anger and outrage, especially when many media outlets weren't reporting very accurately on what happened. I think there is no reason for him to stop tweeting. That seems like overkill to me. An admission of his error based on incomplete information should have been sufficient for people.

Except it's also why we use so many resources in the U.S. Living spread out is simply not a very green way to life, unless you are entirely off the grid.

:iagree:

It also doesn't count the underemployed, or people who currently have part-time work but want full-time work.

I actually think McQueary has less "chain of command" defense than Paterno. He was the eyewitness. If you witness the rape of a child, how could you NOT report it to the police? (And that's not even asking why you wouldn't step in and stop it right there.) Whose instinct would be to report it to their boss, rather than calling 911?