Yes, a majority of feminists feel this way. Unfortunately the bigots who think women should be superior to men are very, very loud lately.

I think the key here is that you aren't tracking your calorie intake. You are tracking your dietary intake. The first week I tracked, I was eating around 3,000 calories a day. It wasn't about tracking the calories, and it shouldn't be. It's about keeping a record of what your putting in your body so that you can use that record to make informed changes over time.
If I don't track what I eat I have no idea what I'm eating.

It definitely has to be a lifestyle change. And it needs to happen slowly. But I've found for me personally that if I don't track it I can't bring myself to care enough to make a good choice. Also, I don't do as well with eating foods that met my nutritional needs if I don't track them. Weighing everyday is excessive, obsessive, and wildly inaccurate. You should also take your weight with a grain of salt. The human body can fluctuate in weight as much as 5 lbs in the course of a single day with no real indication of health. So while I weigh weekly, what I am really tracking is the trends and not so much any given single recording.
Tracking also gives you something to show your doctor. Most of us can't tell you what we are for dinner 2 days ago, let alone give a comprehensive answer to what our dietary intake looks like. But if you are tracking you can show what your tracking to a doctor or nutritionist and they can work with you within the framework of what has been normal for you.

@catfluff is right on aspartame. But as a general rule, all no/low calorie sweeteners have the above problem, and most of them have not been conclusively found to be a problem for humans (with various degrees of testing).
However, as with all things consult your doctor. While soda isn't ever good for you, it's not realistic for everyone to cut it out of their diets entirely all at once. And this goes for other things too. While no/low calorie sweeteners have the problem where they trick your brain, they still may be a better option than real sugar for those with certain health conditions.
Even the most knowledgeable person on the internet doesn't know your specific health situation and can't cover all of the exceptions to any given rule. So while the internet is a great resource for getting ideas, talking to your physician should always be the final authority.

Often the decision is different from circumstance to circumstance. For some couples one woman wants to carry the baby and the other doesn't want to. Other times it's based in health reasons. One woman may be more fit to carry a child to term, or have better health from a genetic perspective. Sometimes the decision is based off who is able to take a longer maternity leave/whose income will be less impactful on the budget to be gone some extra time. Especially if they want to breastfeed. Also, since breastfeeding is typically done by the woman who carried the child (its biologically easier that way), its important to consider if both women are equally suited to breastfeed as that may not be the case. Some women produce more or less milk than is needed, which can be problematic. Also, some women shouldn't breastfeed (or have a baby for that matter) due to certain medications. All in all there are a lot of potential reasons why a particular woman will bear a child instead of her partner.

Thank you. Also, yeah, if its 50° in February in the midwest, it's hot. If its 50° in September, actually that's pretty normal. But if its 50° in August, it's a bit chilly yeah.

Also, if you like tea, adding tea to juice can be good. (I like green tea and berry juice myself) which can help make your drink more flavorful with less sugar.
Also also, it may seem like a great idea to use artificial sweeteners. It isn't. Anything that promises you sweet but doesn't cost you calories isn't a good thing for you. If you consume no/low calorie sweeteners often (even the natural ones) you confuse your body. You are designed to know you need a certain amount if calories (energy) and believe sugar is high in calories (energy) and if you tell your body, hey, not as true as you thought, it doesn't think "don't need sugar" it thinks "need more sweet to make same energy" which means eating something like an apple your body thinks it needs more than it does.

I would say God but I do not want to offend anyone. Its possible that dear Jellybean was an atheist

@sunflowers I'm glad you've been able to find support. I'm sorry you didn't find it with your relatives. Grief is hard, and sometimes a literal shoulder to cry on can be more helpful than a metaphorical one. When you could really use the later, I'll do my best. Feel free to ping me on the discord, I almost never check it but I'll get alerts if you @thekaylapup and I'll respond so long as I can.

That was weird. Very weird.

While I can't perfectly explain why the meaning if the words in the title is fitting, I feel it useful to point out that they are made with the same letters.
The eyes
They see
eee h t s y

It's also very possible to train rabbits. Our rabbit is trained to only restroom in his cage (we couldn't get him to use the litter box, we don't know why). He is trained not to chew on the carpet (this was the only thing he ever tried to chew that he wasn't allowed to chew). He knows his name and we are working on teaching him to come when called. He also is trained to be picked up and put down without struggling (as rabbits often struggle when picked up or set down).

... of what breeder you buy your rabbit from. Some breeders are much better about socializing their rabbits than others.
Rabbits can also be litter trained and this is recommended to do for your sanity and the cleanliness of your home. This will take some time so I recommend you obtain your rabbit when you have some vacation time available.
All that being said, I really like having a rabbit. Our rabbit is very laid back (not all rabbits are) and he's cute and soft. He doesn't smell bad (most rabbits don't as long as you keep their litterboxes/cages clean). He doesn't make many messes (those we do clean up a lot of bedding and pieces if chew toys).
Our rabbit also doesn't typically chew in things that aren't his. Some rabbits do, so you do need to train them not to if this is a problem. It's also important to make sure they do have plenty of things they can chew on as rabbits need to chew to wear down their teeth.

They are not like having a dog or cat. Rabbits are naturally herbivores so they do not hunt. Because of this rabbits don't play by tugging, pouncing, chasing, or wrestling. In fact you need to be careful not to be too rough because you can easily scare it even hurt your rabbit.
They enjoy running, but not being chased. They will jump really high, so containing them requires a much higher fence than it would take for a dog of the same size.
Many rabbits like going outside, but taking them on walks is a bit difficult. It's harder to train them to go where you want them to go, and you have to be really careful about their harness. Rabbits are fairly fragile and can break their backs from trying to run from you while wearing a harness and leash.
It's also important to socialize your rabbit well if you was want to pet them or cuddle or even hold them at all. Socializing a rabbit is difficult to do if they were not socialized when they were very young, so you need to be mindful...

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemies eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing
Now the old king is dead, long live the king!

So yeah. It's a choice. But it's a choice which compromises both the safety of your child and your community. It could easily be criminalized on a couple different levels.

Knowing passing on HIV is considered attempted murder in some places. Its largely being debated due to AIDS no longer being considered a terminal illness. But can you imagine if the same laws applied to airborne pathogens? You would suddenly not be able to take your sick child out of the house because knowing exposing others is attempted murder if the illness is deadly enough.
Also, not everyone died, sure. But many many people did in fact die. 15 million people died of smallpox in 1967. Its believed that around 400 million people have died of smallpox in world history. And that's just one disease. That only killed 30% of its (non infant) victims. The other 70% were left with scars, horrible memories, and dead babies. And that's just smallpox.
And you might think that the idea of exposing someone to a airborne disease being classified as murder is ridiculous, but remember that government mandated quarantines have definitely happened in attempts to prevent the spread of diseases.

Neglect is child abuse. Children have died from neglect. Neglect is not providing necessary care to the child. Not giving your child medical treatment has been viewed under heavy criticism for neglect. Typically it is only legal if you are a member of a religion which has been against the treatment in question since before a certain year. (Such as the Amish). Preventative care should be included. Vaccines save lives.
And none if this is to mention that not vaccinating your children means that the virus has more opportunities to mutate. If your child gets sick they might die, but they also might have the disease mutate in their body and then pass it on to children who had the vaccine. Those kids are now sick even though they were vaccinated. The virus will now continue to mutate and spread and it's become an epidemic. This happens with the flu all the time. Imagine if it happened with polio, or measles.

... to it being needed. But no one things the rights restrictions are bad. Even the people who have these restrictions recognize them as good for them most of the time.
So here's the deal. Making one right's restriction doesn't allow room to make more. In fact, the more rights restrictions a person in one of our programs has, the more likely someone is to go "are all of these really nessicary?" And yeah, they are really nessicary. One man isn't allowed to leave his home without supervision because he has a history of violence in the community. One woman isn't allowed unregulated access to lighters because she nearly burned her house down smoking in her bedroom.
And I don't think its unreasonable to say "Children are required to get vaccinated against polio because polio crippled thousands of people"
If a child is admitted to the hospital with frostbite from being outside in winter for too long without proper attire, the parents are definitely going to be charged with neglect.

And obviously people with allergies shouldn't be made to take vaccines they are allergic to. Also, your quote is a fear tactic based anti vax propaganda. Notice how you didn't provide a source? Because this isn't a quite from someone who studies political science or medicine. We can't know what the consequences of requiring vaccines could be, but we do know that many things have been required by the government historically that have not lead to the drastic consequences people at the time were afraid of. We also know that while individual freedoms are protected, we have by and large chose as a country to value public safety over individual freedoms when sufficient evidence exists to require such a restriction.
I work for a company that provides services to people with disabilities. And some of those people have rights restrictions for their health and safety. And sometimes the health and safety of others. And putting such as restriction into place requires significant evidence...

@butterflyer99123 While some people are fine even if they are not vaccinated, this is largely luck. And vaccines have saved thousands of people's lives and nearly eliminated certain illnesses that once caused death and suffering to many people.
Not vaccinating children from diseases that could kill them should be considered child abuse. For the same reason that it is considered child abuse not to dress your child adequately for cold weather. They might be fine, but there is a significantly increased chance of them getting sick.
I think that adults should 100% have the right to refuse vaccines. If you are 18 and you don't want a flu shot, your business. If you don't want to get the Hepatitis B vaccine, that's your choice, and no one should judge you for that. But parents shouldn't have the right to refuse vaccines for their children.