gadgetlady

Sarcasm can be instructive. The Lord has not taken anything away; my instructive sarcasm does not take away a baby that was slated for death from life and a deserving family. But thanks anyway for your backhanded compliment.

Yup, because there's something that happens as the "tissue" passes through the vaginal canal; it "magically" transforms from being "tissue" to being a baby. It wasn't a baby before that, but it is a baby afterwards. There must be magic dust or something in the vagina that bestows life. Gosh, I wonder if my kids are even alive at all; I had two c-sections, so they didn't get any of the magic dust.

Thanks, guys, but I really didn't do anything other than connect two families. God (or "coincidence", if you don't believe in God) used me to simply make one person aware of another. I am so blessed to have been involved, but in terms of actually "doing" something, I didn't really do much. The birth mother and the adoptive parents get all the hard work. So kudos to them!

Wheetsin, if you take fenugreek it will increase your milk production. Get a good quality pump and, when you're away from the baby, always pump on schedule. That should keep you producing regularly; it's when you start to skip feedings and/or pumpings that your body starts to produce less because it thinks you're weaning.

Here's a link to something I just posted (in a different thread) that relates to the issue of abortion; more than that, though, it's a victory story for the relationships established on LBT: http://www.lapbandtalk.com/f7/lbt-changes-lives-non-weight-related-lbt-story-79207/#post1039816

Barney Frank: "There needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending" and "There are a lot of very rich people out there we can tax and recover some of this money." Incredible. "Deficit fear has to take a second seat." [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k]YouTube - Barney Frank: Plenty of rich people that we can tax[/ame]

This was posted after I presumably spewed my dogma, not after four people who agree with you spewed their dogma. So I still see it as directed at the pro-life position in general and me, specifically, because it was posted in response to something I said.

I'm still fuming. Four people who disagree with Sandy's post don't get attacked for posting their POV about the issue, but when I do I am spewing and driving people away? Sandy posted something. People responded. I was one of them. If you don't like it, don't read it.

I have a right to address issues in the thread in which they were posted. I wasn't planning on saying any more on the issue because there is another thread dedicated to it, but the issue was brought up here so I addressed it here. How dare you accuse me of spewing dogma which degrades people -- just because you disagree with me! There are plenty of people who have posted on both sides of the issue, but I'm the one spewing hourly dogma which degrades people and drives them away? I did not bring up abortion on this thread. So stop attacking me.

Wow. There was a discussion early on in the abortion thread about abortionists who had become pro-life. There was a HUGE misunderstanding and a lot of name calling because I was talking about the fact that some abortionists have changed their opinion and are now pro-life. What it boiled down to, after many days (possibly weeks, I don't recall) of ugly posts was that the person I was talking to misinterpreted the word "abortionist" -- he thought I meant those in favor of abortion, not those who performed abortions. The point of what I'm saying is that words matter, and how we say things matters as well. While I agree with Sandy on this issue (obviously), I don't think it's a good idea to call people who are pro-abortion, "baby killers." I believe they support abortion, but I don't believe they participate in the actual act (necessarily). The waters can get a little muddy when you have politicians that fight to legalize (or keep legal) the procedure, because one could make the claim that without them, there wouldn't be abortion (or it would be reduced). We call Hitler a killer, but do we know if he actually participated in the individual killing -- or just ordered it? I don't know. We hold Manson responsible for the deaths that weren't at his hand, but at the hand of his followers. There is something of a correlation there between these issues and those who believe abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life. Obama is, I think, an unusual case, because of his opposition to laws that would require babies born alive after botched abortions to not receive mandatory life-saving techniques. Some will argue that this is not what he did, but if you look at the voting record and the language of the bills he opposed, it's quite clear. His position on the born-alive infant protection bill in Illinois is why I think he inspires such vehement language on this matter.

This is a GREAT question, issue, discussion topic. I think negativity is in the eye of the beholder. Is it negative if something points out the truth but isn't very pretty? Because I believe both campaigns think they're not being negative, and both opponents believe the other campaign is being negative. Someone told me Sarah Palin hit this on the head the other day (I didn't hear it directly -- just heard about it) -- a reporter asked her about all of the GOP negative ads and her opinion of them, and she asked them to tell her which ads. They said, "the negative ones." She asked, "Which ones in particular? Because if it's true, can it be called negative?" According to the person I heard this from, the reporter couldn't name a specific ad that was negative.

You guys crack me up. You think by not saying my name but saying "some people" that you're not attacking the person but the idea? If you don't think I've participated in healthy debate, why don't you go back and review the many pages of this thread? I've asked questions, answered questions, and responded to every challenge posed. Yes, I think I'm right. But so do you.

And everyone on the opposite side of the fence thinks their interpretation of the Constitution is right and mine (and everyone on my side of the fence) is wrong. BTW, as I pointed out, Alan Dershowitz is a long-standing liberal abortion advocate and thinks Roe was poorly decided. So it's not just "me".

I'm not quite sure who you're talking to, but if you're talking to me please note that I did not call for the closure of this thread; I have also apologized for saying something that didn't need to be said.

Personally, I think closing threads is useless as the opinions (and personality conflicts) just erupt elsewhere. But it's up to everyone else.

When you have two groups who disagree vehemently on issues, you're bound to have conflict. It doesn't necessarily need to be negative unless people start getting personal -- or even if they start calling the politicians involved names -- and then it can ramp up very quickly, unfortunately. I've seen some doozies from both sides, and, as you know, I've been involved in some doozies as well. But you have to remember that while there are some who are entrenched in their position, such as myself and many others on this board, there are still "undecideds". Rhetoric doesn't often affect them, but maybe some of the facts that come through here and there will. I've been very happy to explain my position in logical, clearly though-out posts and PMs, to several LBTers. One of these days (hopefully soon -- I need to get permission first) I'm going to share a positive story about something terrific that came out of a very hotly debated issue and often name-calling thread on this board. You don't always know what's going on behind the scenes :Dancing_biggrin:

THAT was a typo (I started to type "I shouldn't have taken the bait"). Sorry. I meant I should have ignored. I would go back and fix but with your quote immortalizing my typo :party: the thread wouldn't make sense if I did. Thank you for wanting to believe in positive intentions :Dancing_biggrin:

You're right, KYBandChick. I shouldn't have ignored the attacks and not said anything at all. I do apologize to anyone I offended, including BJean.

And hers weren't? Just stating the truth. I do rarely read her posts. Sorry if I offended you.

I understand that some people may disagree with the interpretation that many people, including me, have about the 14th Amendment. But I can't imagine what you're referring to that are "big made up lies." I can tell you it's a fact that Norma McCorvey says she was not gang-raped but that the sex with her boyfriend was consensual (if you care to read her testimony to a Senate Subcommittee, here it is: norma2.98.html). I can tell you it's a fact that Doe v. Bolton guaranteed abortion on demand through 9 months of pregnancy for any reason. I don't know what else you might be referring to. I am not a casual observer to this debate. My graduate school thesis was on the political and legal aspects of Roe and Doe and how Griswold affected the two. I don't willfully post inaccurate information here or anywhere, and I attempt to back everything I say up with references and facts. When someone does post inaccurate or questionable information, I ask for documentation (and rarely get it). The Supreme Court doesn't always get things right. Sometimes they are wrong on right-wing issues, and sometimes they are wrong on left-wing issues. That's not a question; it's a fact. I believe anyone would be hard-pressed to tell me that Dred Scott was properly decided.

Not really. I rarely read yours.

That's quite a statistic. Wow.

My cause for concern comes from his support of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which opposes parental rights. I agree that banning homeschooling would be a difficult task; it is not my only concern about Obama and certainly not my biggest concern, but it is a concern nevertheless. Devana asked me what I was concerned about, and this is one of 'em.

The opinions of many at the New York Times are often biased. But direct quotes from people aren't an opinion; they're fact. In case you doubt that his quote ''I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough" actually means he doesn't regret setting bombs and feels they didn't do enough, how about this: So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said. You can continue to wear blinders and believe this really means he's repentant about what he did, when he said he doesn't want to "discount the possibility" of doing it again, the "it" he was referring to is something other than terrorist activities, and that he was really talking about a discount at the local mall in his wife's favorite shoe store, but, again, I will take the man at his word. After all, he's exhibited in the past that he means what he says and he says what he means.