BJean

Carrie I sure appreciate your posts. And I thank you for hanging in.

So God gave her an ectopic pregnancy? And you think God decided that she should have 15 children? And so she enlisted the aid of the medical profession, and you think it was God's design to have the medical profession help her on her quest to have as many children as she can? It's all in God's plan? What about the babies? It is in God's plan that outsiders are pressed into service to save these babies and raise them? You think that this woman is so brilliant in having 15 children, it's obviously what God wanted for her? What about the children? God wanted them to be raised in this world without benefit of a live in father? God thinks that a woman who is on a freakish quest to have as many children as she can is a good plan? What about the children?

The biggest difference between you and me is that you think it is cool to call someone out in a very personal way. I think that is inappropriate in a civil discussion or even a lively debate. You've told me before that you think that I am merely being passive aggressive. Which explains a lot. You say that you don't understand why I might find a particular situation tragic and wrong or sad and unfortunate, and I don't doubt that. (Btw, something can be all of those things at the same time.) I believe that is because anti-choice people have only one train of thought and everything and everyone is colored by their belief that it is their duty to police pregnant women. The ony reason you brought up that case is that it gives you an opportunity to emphasize sarcastically, that an abortion was done and therefore anyone who is pro-choice shouldn't have a problem with it. You want the opportunity to do the lovely things that I was speaking to in my earlier post. You're not interested in having a civil discussion that is polite and not personal. And once again, thanks. I always appreciate it when you quote me and give my words the opportunity to be read again. It's cool. And I'm not being sarcastic. I really appreciate it.

And Carrie you are absolutely right. How many times do we have to go through this exercise on this thread? Normal people can't discuss the issue without some foaming at the mouth extremists jumping in. Then right away the radical, sarcastic diatribe with grisly photos and links to right wing rhetoric that they are so fond of posting, ensues. As my sister used to say it'd gag a maggot.

I don't mind the arguments. I mind the sarcastic insults and the extremely bigoted way information is manipulated and skewed by anti-choice people. They use hate and fear and accusations to try to shame people into supporting their cause. Their behavior and the "information" they distribute is very ugly and it not representative of the way most women feel in this country. Thank God!

gaadget you demonize anyone who doesn't support your views on this topic. You are so full of rage that you don't have room to open your heart and mind to anything but the venom you spew toward anyone who holds an opposing view about abortion. And mostly, your comments about President Obama are just plain wrong.I can't speak to your claim that he has a special name for a fetus but I sincerely doubt if the insensitive and negative way you characterized it is absolutely correct. My whole point in this argument is that this is not an issue that should be legislated. It is a medical issue between a woman and her doctor. You seem to think that women need to be controlled and that doctors are money-grubbing, insensitive people who aren't smart enough to make medical decisions that are in the best interests of their patients. The fact that you are surprised (are you really?) that I find the case that you cited to be sad and unfortunate just shows how clueless you are. You put every argument for your case in neat little negative and sarcastic packages for us all to read. And you think that is convincing people that people like you should make life and death decisions for every woman in this country? Abortion is a medical procedure and it is a procedure that should be between a woman and her doctor. You have no right to make medical decisions, even ones about life and death, for other people.

gadget your sarcasm is totally lost on me. This is a very tragic case. All of the medical personnel there and the clinic itself should be investigated. From the article you posted, it sounds like that procedure is business as usual for those people. It is wrong, by anyone's standards, as far as I'm concerned. I do not believe that an abortion at that late stage in the pregnancy should be a medical procedure allowable "upon demand." If there are extenuating medical circumstances, that's one thing. If the lady just decided at that late date that she didn't want to be pregnant, it's a whole 'nuther thing. Your claim about President Obama that "Obama believes very strongly that clinics and hospitals shouldn't be required to give medical attention to babies born alive accidentally after abortions" is completely and totally wrong. You are guilty of twisting his beliefs about this issue just for your own purposes. The core reason that the then Senator Obama voted as he did on this issue is because believes that there should not be a requirement that an additional doctor has to be called in when during an abortion procedure, the baby has been discovered to be alive. That does not mean that he is against that baby being saved. Quite the contrary. President Obama believes that all measures should be taken to save a baby even during an abortion procedure, if it has been discovered that the baby is alive. You, along with many other anti-abortion people, are putting your own spin on why he voted the way he did on this issue. If you were honest, you would understand that although President Obama is not anti-abortion, he is absolutely for saving a live baby. This is not the only situation where anti-abortionists skew the truth and sensationalize an event for their own purposes.

I have had a very good friend for 8 years who is married and does not have children. She is in her 50s and she's had a hysterectomy so having children is not an option for her. I have never asked her why she didn't have children. She's never volunteered the information so I figured that she wasn't interested in discussing it. It's absolutely none of my business. And I gotta tell you, she has a wonderful life with her husband of 30 years. They have travelled the world and are completely supportive of each other in whatever they choose to do. They play golf as often as they can. They go skiing at least one every winter. They have a fabulous home, beautifully decorated. She is a great gardner and seamstress. She is totally fulfilled and quite content. And is constantly doing nice things for other people. Who would accuse them of being disobedient to God for choosing this lifestyle? They got married. They are a family of 2. They are complete. Whether they chose not to have children, or nature did that for them, I honestly do not believe that God would accuse them of being disobedient, even if at some point in their marriage she chose to have an abortion.

livin, I can SO identify with everything you said. I have never been able to understand it and no one has ever been able to help me understand it. I have come to the conclusion that for some people, our behavior is similar to a person who has anorexia. Except instead of us not eating until we kill ourselves, we eat until we kill ourselves. We don't want to eat anymore than an anorexic wants to not eat. But at some point, there has been some trigger that has happened in our bodies that causes us to be so driven. I don't know if anyone has ever done studies to link up the two behaviors, or illnesses maybe? But when behavior of either eating or not eating can be so extreme that it can eventually make you sick and kill you, it is not something that is as simple as dieting for the overeater or forcing yourself to eat if you are anorexic. Neither of those things alone solve the problem. I honestly think over time, eventually someone will discover the root cause of both conditions and then, they will be able to find a way to cure them.

I have had 2 children and I definitely have a phobia about pregnancy and childbirth! And for darned good reason. I had all of the negative side effects green mentioned and more. And have had to deal with many post birth problems caused by bearing my children. You see my body was just not made for child bearing. Yeah, I'm a woman, but have a very short wheel base and an extremely narrow pelvis. My doctors pitied me. I learned the eff word real quick.

Aw Patty, that's too bad. Takes all the fun out of marital prostitution.

See Wasa, I knew it. We agree on something... this topic is finito. :cursing:

There has been a double standard for hundreds of years. It is nearly impossible to even get many women to understand that. In fact in many cases, I think men understand how much women are discriminated against better than we do. Trust me, if men had the babies, they wouldn't dream of allowing women to control their bodies and make all of the decisions. And up until recent history, men made all of the decisions and we put up with it.

Well Wasa I'm not convinced that we do totally disagree. I am definitely convinced that we aren't communicating well. I want you to know that I do fully understand your point. For what that's worth. And I wasn't attempting to tell you that you don't have a valid point. Of course you do. I was merely saying that I think it is silly, or maybe inane is a better term.

I couldn't disagree with you more, Susan. A woman has all the rights in this very early pregnancy picture. It is incumbent upon her to make the best possible decisions for herself and her potential baby. I am not saying that the father shouldn't be involved in those decisions but I am saying that the mother HAS to make the decisions in every case and whether the father is involved in making those decisions is also her decision. Later in the pregnancy and after the baby is born, that is a different set of circumstances.

Wasa: The is the relevant portion that you could have posted of mine is: "This thread is about prostitution and you had said something similar in an earlier post about women (and secretaries were mentioned by someone) being no different than prostitutes when they give it up for a new car, and I was reacting to that silly premise." Again, (for the umteenth time) I'm not saying that prostitutes don't get married. And I'm not saying that there aren't male prostitutes. And I'm not saying that people don't trade their cars for sex. And I'm not saying that marriages aren't made in heaven. And I'm not saying that you're saying any of those things. Okay? Are we done? (Hi, Plain :confused:)

If I got personal in my last post, in my last sentence, I agree that it was not necessary. It is obvious that mama isn't really debating or discussing, she's just trying to be funny. On that note, you gotta admit that her card is humorous! Interestingly enough, she posts it like it's an insult and a bad thing that President Obama is going to be an improvement over what we've had for the past 8 years. I for one, am pleased to know that she's seen the light even if she had to use foul language to admit it. :biggrin:

I didn't suggest that it was you who referred to secretaries - in fact I said "someone" - quoted from my post wherein I intentionally did not suggest that you said it. Aw come on Wasa, you were not equating wives who trade sex for objects as being no different than prostitution? Cause that's how I read it. I didn't claim that trading sex for kitchens and boats is the basis for marriage. You took that part of my discussion out of context. What I was talking about was the comparison between wives (and secretaries) to prostitutes. If you don't understand why I have a problem with that, fine. But don't try to make out like you weren't comparing the two. That was what your post was about. As I read it, on face value, it had nothing to do with saying that the barter system, in whatever form, is the basis for marriage. Once again, communication breakdown.

Mama you got it all wrong. I should have used more words. When I speak of the president, I'm talking about what's right, fair and good for the country. It doesn't have anything to do with yours or my religious beliefs. It doesn't take religion or blind faith in order to establish good or right or fair!! And I do not agree with the rest of your interpretation of my post. In fact, I'm not sure you were even reading my post. I think you were just making judgements based on your own thoughts, not mine. I believe that our bombing Iraq was bad, the war in Iraq is bad, which also has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I believe that having our troops in Afghanistan is bad. We're not going to ferret out all of the terrorists and it is funneling money into a project that does nothing to make this country safe and better. Trace all the way back to the time when Russia went into Afghanistan - it didn't work for them either. And it definitely depleted their resources. I do believe that the heads of American corporations, in large part, take obscene amounts of money home and those companies have been failing by the numbers and American workers are paying the price. In fact, their greed is making the whole country pay the price. By many other developed country's standards, the taxes we pay are not extraordinary. I don't like paying taxes, but I certainly do see the necessity for taxes if I am going to enjoy living in this kind of society. The country can't run on gas fumes. And there's nothing either religious or anti-religion about that. And, btw, Americans paying a lot of taxes absolutely did not get America in the financial bind we're in! You probably have no clue about who Jeremiah Wright is and what he stands for. You know what you've heard in sound bytes and from whatever the media has told you. When was the last time you sat in his congregation? And although President Obama folded to the pressure put on him by people like you, and withdrew from Wright's congregation, I do not believe that where President Obama goes to church or whether he even has a church, tells us whether he can lead this country or not. I absolutely have not placed "blind faith" in President Obama. What I do believe is that he is intelligent enough to get the job done. (He has a high I.Q. and excellent education.) By his actions, I do believe that he has proven that he cares more about the working class in America than he does about the extremely wealthy. I do believe that he has proven by the things he has already done as president, that he is going to try to run this country in a fair way, in a way that does not align solely with one party or other, but in a way that represents as many Americans as he can. I wouldn't know if you have blind faith when it pertains to your religion, but you sure seem deaf and blind in many ways.

Spiritual advisor? President Obama? Are you nuts? He's our President. He's a very intelligent man who has this country's best interests at heart. Fairy dust has nothing to do with what he's trying to accomplish. And advising you spiritually is not his goal. Fairy dust is what Bush and Cheney were snorting when they insisted on taking us into Iraq. Looks like Cheney is still on the stuff. He is so blindly wrapped up in his greedy ambitions, he's still trying to convince people that feeding the corporate bigwigs obscene amounts of money is good for America. You better watch who you do allow to be your spiritual advisor - and in the meantime, think about supporting our President until he gets this country turned around.

kat you're spot on, as usual!! :bananalama:

plain I knew it! You like to fan the flames. I mostly love your posts. Not when you disagree with me, especially because you're always wrong then, but you always have something interesting to say and you're usually very witty and I really enjoy it when you're funny. I too try to get a good debate going and I love to read different viewpoints. I also try to be funny, but I'm not nearly as good at it as you are. Keep up the good work, dude. I miss it when you're not posting.

Wasa, geez, I'm surprised that you got so up in arms about my remarks. I don't have any problem with the idea that women (and men) can be manipulative in relationships. Sure, we all do that from time to time. What I have a problem with is saying that women are prostitutes when they manipulate their husbands. I thought I explained it better. Looks like you and I had a breakdown in communication. Both of us seem to have misunderstood the meaning of our posts. This thread is about prostitution and you had said something similar in an earlier post about women (and secretaries were mentioned by someone) being no different than prostitutes when they give it up for a new car, and I was reacting to that silly premise.

patty you are wrong to presume that a woman who chooses abortion is only concerned with herself. People are smart enough to know when it is a very bad thing to bring a child into the world. If a woman chooses to have an abortion it certainly doesn't doesn't mean that she doesn't care about the welfare of babies or about her potential baby in particular! Bringing a child into the world because you've decided that it is God's will, no matter what the circumstances for the woman or the child, is what I think is wrong. Churches that preach that abortion is wrong in all cases are simply doing it to preserve their religion and that is extremely selfish and convoluted. They say it is because they care about the children. But that is just not always the case. It is always the case however, that they are working to ensure that more people are brought into the flock they've created. The flock that brings them money and keeps the Vatican beautiful, for instance. If you will listen to your President, you might learn a thing or two about this topic and about what is right, fair and good. I mean really listen without placing your interpretation on what he says. Or is that simply impossible for people with blind faith?

plain, why do I sense that you just like giving me a hard time? If prostitution were legal, it would be easier to monitor who is doing what to whom in that profession. As it is now, they pretty much have to be caught in the act in order for the law to intervene. All the resources that are devoted to busting the prostitutes, the johns and the pimps could be reduced (I would imagine) and monitoring the profession could be done in an orderly fashion. Instead of prostitution being a huge drain on the system, they'd pay taxes which would defray the cost of keeping it all as clean as possible. And keeping kids out of the business would be much easier. Kat makes a lot of sense. I can remember once when my DH told me that sometimes he'd enjoy just getting his "needs" met without the intimacy and emotional feelings that are attached to a love match. (Not that I hit him with a barrage of psychological baggage when we have sex, or anything. :-) But being in love and having sex is quite different from having sex with someone who is a professional and it's all about the mechanics. Men would like to find that kind of sex with random partners who aren't prostitutes but they don't want to jeopardize their marriages. Many women feel that way too, but it's even harder for them to have a sexual encounter without an emotional attachment of some sort because women are conditioned to feel like and be treated like a whore if they don't know their partner well. :-) Wasa you sound extremely cynical about relationships. We discussed those types of comments earlier. Having a man purchase a boat or a kitchen or a new car isn't usually just about a sexual exchange in most marriages. Marriages and intimate relationships are more complicated than that. There's always a give and take between partners. If one of the partners reduces the relationship to nothing more than a barter of sex for goods, it isn't much of a marriage or even a relationship! I am certainly not saying it doesn't happen. I've had friends who married very wealthy men who were much older than they were and it was not uncommon for them to say that they had to go give their spouses a blow job so the men would agree to something they wanted. Even so, it is not the same as prostitution. But it is much closer to it than the average couple who married for love, not money. Most couples marry for a long list of reasons. Sex and money are two of them, but they are certainly not the only reasons. And it is disgusting to me to think that all married women think of their spouses as nothing more than johns.