FunnyDuddies

Why do we need to clean up the mess that their govt has created? I feel bad for them, yes, but they lose all sympathy from me the moment they break the law to come here. there are so many ways for them to come here legally. Why start off your new life here in america by breaking the law? If you do it legally things are so much easier. No ducking out or hiding from the law, you can get a job anywhere, health care, education, etc. its actually a more difficult life if you start out illegally.

I know how all of that works. I do it on a lot of the other sites I run. I was speaking as a response to those who were stating that the rants and raves section is more of what this board is about, not the lap band, but debates and hot topic issues. I was stating that if this were the case, then the advertisements that Alex should be running should have more to do with the threads in rnr rather than weight loss and the lapband. and that if that started happening he would lose a lot of members.

I fully agree with this. If they would come here illegally then they have already demonstrated that they have no regard for the laws in this country.

Your fiance is correct IMHO.

I also agree completely. Every time someone breaks a law, no matter how small it seems to them, it makes it easier for them to break another law in the future. Illegal aliens have no respect for our law the moment they step onto this soil without going through the proper channels.

its not the act of them paying taxes, it is the act of that person being here illegally. that is what is against the law, and needs to be called on.

And there are laws against employers hiring illegals. it is just not enforced. We do not need more laws or more rules. We need to enforce the ones we have.

actually there have been many doctors who have come out stating that they are very willing to do a tubal ligation for women. it has also become very popular for young men to get fixed. there is no longer a huge taboo against it. So I recommend you actually talk to your ob gyn. Your chances are much better with a young female ob gyn.

Are you serious? If so, please elaborate. I don't understand what kind of response you're expecting.

No clue as to what part you want me to elaborate on. Let me know, and I will be happy to do so.

My gym buddy (new friend as of july 06) lives with an illegal alien .

What blew my mind is he has a tax id number , pays taxes and even files taxes and gets a refund.

WTF?

edie

An illegal alien that has a tx id number and all of that? If you are positive, 100% positive, it is your duty to turn that person in. That is against the law, hurts us all, and needs to be stopped.

And yes, it was condescending of doctors to deny me the right to have my tubes tied. I have always known that I never wanted children and as I have just mentioned I found the idea of pregnancy and childbirth utterly terrifying as well. The argument which was always used was that I was too young - I was in my 20s when I first started asking about tubal ligation - and that I might well change my mind. I suspect that the notion that there are women who do not wish to participate in this aspect of life was incomprehensible to them.

Anyhow, this is why I was rigorous about using birth control. My feelings of horror and panic when I found myself pregnant were intense.

I think it is completely within your right to have a tubal. Where were you living at the time? Was this outside of the United states. you talk about france, were you just visiting? I understand your anger about it, but cannot really comment on the laws outside of my country, as I have not studied them fully. I really do not like debating something that I do not have a good amount of knowledge on. But as for the personal issue, I agree that you should have been given the option to have a tubal any time you wanted it. Birthcontrol is an important thing to women like you who really do not want to ever be pregnant.

You mean there's a difference between abortion and a vasectomy? Really? No duh.

Of course men can't carry babies internally. Of course men can't go into labor and deliver a baby. They can choose with whom they have sex. I doubt if there are very many cases documented where a woman forced a man, by gunpoint or otherwise, to have sex with her. Which is another fine reason why men have no business making decisions for women who can carry babies and who can be compelled to have sex against their will.

Both questions, compulsory vasectomies and compulsory childbirth are not decisions that should be controlled by the government. Period. End of story.

Think up all the horrid, heinous bloody visions of dead babies you want. It is a woman's right to make decisions about her own body just as it is a man's right to make decisions about his own body. You can't get around the fact that although sperm is the potential for life, it is not a life in and of itself. Nor is a fertilized egg. But even if it were, it still would not be your place to decide for me if I must develop a baby in my womb just because one of my eggs was, against my will, fertilized.

So you are more hung up on the issue of rape? Or abortion in general?

I'm sorry, I am not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that if he advertises bypass related products/services that banders will leave this site?

No, I am stating that if he advertises based on what is in the rants and raves section he will lose members. You know...abortion clinics and porn sites. We were speaking of how much relevance the rants and raves section had, and that to some it is more important than the site.

Anyway, none of this is relevant any longer. Alex has made his change, which didn't really address the initial issue, but people seem happy with it.

I am pretty sure someone will disagree with us, they just haven;t found the thread yet.

I am proud to say that I hold the human life higher than the inconvinience of keeping a child you are in the process of giving birth to. To me, the advancement that you speak of is truly a reversal towards animalistic behavior and tendancies. Plus, having faced this, I know where my responsibility truly lies. If I get pregnant again I will cherish every moment of it, if I lose it, I will mourn the loss of a human life, and if I give birth to a deformed or malformed child, I will love it and care for it every moment I get to spend with it. No child will ever be an inconvinience for me ever again. Because they are what we are handing this world over to in the future, and I think they deserve all the respect, adoration, and chance that we can give them.

I do understand the issue, I choose to look at in a different light than you do. No reason to get angry about it. You gotta understand, this is a debate on a board. A lapband board. We are not changing laws here. We are simply discussing. To get this riled up about some people being happy about a decision the courts have made is a bit extremist. We do not wish for you to join in our celebration. But that does not mean we cannot Celebrate. And when you choose to step into our celebration and tell us we are bad for our stances on certain issues, you should expect us to stand up for ourselves and what we believe. Just as we expect you to stand up and believe what you want to believe. As Mark and I have both said quite often in this thread, we are mearly agreeing to disagree, with a few other words added in for good measure. But we will make no changes sitting here just talking. People need to realize that whatever side you come down on, if you only make your voice heard here on a lapband board you are not doing your cause any justice.

And you are very very wrong when you say that I want the medical rights of women taken away across the board. The only thing I am debating here is abortion in its many stages. This has nothing to do with other medical practices of any kind, on men or women. So yeah, there are exceptions. lol

I understand that this topic makes me people angry. Its very emotional on both sides. But we cannot have a healthy debate if we do not keep a level head about it and try to debate the points intelligently.

Its simple for me. If someone tries to kill someone else, the only one needing protection is the one being attacked. I am focusing on the needs of the innocent child. Not on the inconvinience of the mother. If the mother is in mortal danger, then I have compassion, but when the baby can be born without distress to the mother, the mother no longer fits into the equation. At that point, if the baby can be born, and is being born when the action of the abortion will occur, then the focus is on that child. Not the family unit as a whole.

Whether my views are hard for you to understand or not makes not relevance to this discussion either, but I hope that I have made it clear why i feel this way so that you can better understand my point of view. Yes, in this scenario I am focusing on the child, because in the case of partial birth abortion there is no reason for the mother to need to kill her baby while it is hanging half way out of her. its barbaric and should never happen for any reason. And for a mother to have the selfish need to kill her offspring puts us back on the same level with the animals.

But, they can't "just drop it off like dry cleaning and not have to deal with it any longer." In those states, that's called abandonment and it's illegal. You may be able to legally give a child up in those states, but I'll bet it's not as easy as it sounds. Otherwise, those other states wouldn't have needed safe havens.

Actually, what happens is your nurse calls someone from child services, they come down and speakwith you for about 5 minutes. you sign a paper, you go home, and then you go to court on your date stating that you have given all right to your child up. in most cases you never even have to go to court. it is that easy. you never even have to see your baby.

inline:

That's true, but ultimately has no bearing. We are not discussing the killing of the already born, we are discussing the killing of the unborn. Two totally different topics.

Actually, we are discussing partial birth abortions. A procedure where part of the baby is still in the woman's body, but another part is out. in most cases the baby has already taken its first breath, and often times cries the moment the skull is pierced with the scissors. They also sieze and react to the pain when the brain is sucked out of the back of the head with a tube. But, in order for it to not be infanticide, part of the baby must remain inside the woman. My point is, if part of the baby is already presented, why kill it? Where is the harm in letting it be fully birthed?

And you can feel free to believe that. Other people have the right to believe otherwise.

Yes, they do. Doesn't make them right.

Yes, you do. And I have the right to band together with those that feel that the only people who should decide a woman's health care are herself and her doctor.

Yes you do. It is the beauty of the country we live in. If we want something changed, we do it with our votes. May the largest number win!

Not necessarily. There is a vast ideological and scientific difference between an abortion that results in the death of a viable fetus and an abortion that results in the death of a non-viable fetus. One may be outlawed, but the other will never be, at least not while there is disagreement about when life begins.

Sadly, this is true, but we at least get a step closer when we get one law changed, and we can just keep working to make sure that the voices of the innocent remain heard, no matter what the laws state.

And no matter how hard you wish it were otherwise, abortion IS facing the responsibility of being pregnant. It may not be the decision that YOU wish people would make, but they ARE taking responsibility. Should people that don't want children just never experience the closeness of sex with someone they care about? I know that you'll say that those women should make sure that they're sterilized, but as I think Green would be happy to explain to you, it isn't that easy.

Most responsibility is never easy to deal with. That is why a lot of people are so irresponsible. I understand Green's position, but that does not mean that I agree with it. If you do not wish to have children, there are various things that can be done to ensure that it does not happen. Some are full proof, some are pretty good, but not perfect. You take the chances. But if you decide to have sex you need to be prepared to raise a child.

I get that we all have differences in opinion over whether a baby, while still in the womb, is important or not based on whether it is wanted. If we applied this to other sections in our lives people would be all up in arms. But because we put so little stock in life in today's society it will be a long time until the laws change. Talk amongst each other is good, but it is in the govt offices that we need to make our voices heard.

Not in all states. Women in Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Nebraska are just shit out of luck.

They may not have "drop off points" but every woman in every state in this country can give their child up.

Once that baby is born, if the mother did not want it and planned to kill it, at that point the woman's emotional stature does not play into this. My father made me emotional and crazy and was awful to be around. Doesn't mean I have the right to kill him. And this boils down to just that. Death. No one's inconvinience can trump another's life. Yes, our laws are the way they are right now and so it is legal, but it should not be. Of course the bigger nightmare is for the baby that will be killed. How can you, as a human who lives and breathes and walks among other humans, have so little stock in human life? i think it speaks volumes to what our culture and our society has become. And it is sickening.

If the law can state that one person cannot kill another person, then the law should state that unborn and partially born babies be included in that "thou shall not kill" category. Inconvinience and stess are not reasons to punish an innocent life. No matter how much you think the mother would be stressedor inconvinience.

And it is my choice to make. As a voter I have every right to band together with those that feel the same way I do and try to prevent further deaths of innocent children. With the ban on partial birth abortions being upheld it seems the govt is starting to come around and see it our way.

Alexandra, Preventing unwanted pregnancies would happen more often if people would start taking responsibility for their actions. The reason they do not is because our society has made them out to be victims. Which is a bunch of hogwash. If people had to face their responsibilities then they would choose their actions more appropriately. Taking away a cop-out such as abortion would make more and more people look twice at having unprotected sex with someone they are not ready to raise a family with.

Marjon, I am not sure if you are aware of it or not, but within the first week of a baby being born, no matter what the issue might be, the mother can "just drop it off like drycleaning" and not have to deal with it any longer.

If a baby is gravely abnormal, then its chances of living are almost nil to begin with. why is it we have all decided it was ok to just not give that child a chance to live? Why take that chance away? I know....its so mentally hard on a woman who has given birth and doesn't want to spend the time to pull for her little kid to try and make it to the stable stage. its such a time waster. that is what it really comes down to here. If the baby is being born, and the mother is not in any danger (which it never is at this point) then let the kid be born. Give it a freaking chance!

Marjon, I have posed many questions to you, and you still have yet to answer them. You just go on about how I am changing the subject, which I am not. Lets stick with the rules of debate shall we?

Now that Alexandra has answered one of my questions, I shall continue.

The creator of the procedure that we are all talking about has come forth and stated that of all the partial birth abortions he has completed, 80% of them were not medically necessary for either the mother or the child. The other 20% were medically necessary, based on his interpretation. To which he added that none of these were life threatening. they included mental stress, the mother having bouts of vomiting, the child having a cleft lip or palatte. I understand that the law allows this, but how is this right?? You say "But if you were absolutely determined to end such a baby's life, and you had a "doctor" to help you do it, no law would stop you." Does that make it right? and if it is not right, shouldn't we change the law??

Where are you getting that anyone is saying it's "better" to have a late-term abortion than whatever alternatives there might be? The point is that no one, NO ONE, except the mother and her doctors are in a position to make the appropriate decision for whatever heinous situation is at hand.

That was in response to BJ and he post stating that abortion was a better alternative.

so here is a hypothetical, to go along with your stance. My daughter is being born, and her arm is paralyzed. While half of her body is still inside of me I make the decision that her paralysis is too much for me to bear with mentally, and i ask the doctor to kill her before she is fully born. should that be legal?

One thing that surprises me is that the same group of people who would fight to the death for one person who has differences, be it mental or physical, to have every option available to them once born and living amongst our society....yet these same people are so quick to kill it off if it is still within the womb.

The majority of abortions, either early or late term, are a result of inconvinience to the mother. Not a problem with the child. The percentage of abortions that happen due to malformation of the baby is very small. Studies have been done all over this country. Did you know that the number of abortions that happen because of the genetic predisposition to obesity is far greater than the abortions that happen because of Down Syndrome? A mental affliction that does not shut down a person. Yet more people would rather kill off the fat kid than kill off the retarted kid? Give me a break. The example that is used so widely (rape and malformation) happen on such a small scale, and it allows others to abort an unfashionable baby, which is criminal.

Are you all aware that there are a lot of groups that adopt mentally and physically retarded children to give them the best lives possible? And again....who decides if the affliction is bad enough to warrant death?

If a woman is pregnant, and is at the 9th month, and does not want the baby...you are saying it is better to kill it as it is being born rather than put it up for adoption? How about this....they don't really kill the baby, but they tell her they did. then they take the baby and put it up for adoption. What harm is there in that? the baby lives and grows up happy and healthy. and the woman doesn't need to deal with the baby she didn't want. Does that work as an alternative for you?

You take the position regarding that choice that in every single possible situation, no matter how sick the baby appears to be, or whether an x-ray shows that it has no brain, or whatever, the tiny shred of a chance that the baby will have some sort of a life must, in every single case, override every need of the mother. Sorry, FunnyDuddies, this is simply not your choice to make. It is inconceivable to me why you can't see that.

How many ultrasounds have you been privy to, or blood test have you seen taken, that shows abnormalities but end up being wrong? Heck, both of my kids were identified as being the wrong sex. LOL You would rather they suck the brains out of the baby as it is being born rather than let it be born and assess the situation after? Besides, most of the abnormalities you speak of would not subject the mother, or guardian, to raise a baby for years. The child would pass shortly after birth if it had such traumatic issues. For instance, while we might find that most of the people we deal with in life seem to not have a brain, when a baby is born "without one" medically speaking it is already dead. Nothing survives without its brain.

But again, its little life is not trumping anyone elses. The mom can walk away. The little one's life is on its own, and has a right to try and survive.

actually, not well said. it is all based on the fact that the woman will be stuck with the child. In this country we have the right to give up our children. I could walk into the courts tomorrow and give up my two kids. If she is giving birth to the child, instead of killing it, why not take it away and let someone who will want to care for the child do so? There are many out there who do this sort of thing. But instead you want the woman to make the choice of killing the baby? Is it more shameful to give it up?

If the baby is being born, let it be born. The woman is not trapped. she can walk away if she chooses.