BJean

How outrageous to claim that the "feminist movement" does not care about discrimination against unborn baby girls. I don't know what your article said about the "feminist movement" as it relates to this couple from India who were only wanting a boy child. I don't really care what it said. But I do know this - most women, whether they are a part of the "feminist movement" or not, absolutely do care about unborn babies. You're pretty mixed up gadget. You carry things to the extreme and they don't have to make any sense for you to post them or post a link to them. As I have said, ad naseum, some people value the unborn more than people who already have lives. That's certainly your perrogative to do so. But to make outrageous claims based on your one-dimensional beliefs on this topic does not add anything positive for your side in this debate. I know it isn't my job to let you in on that little secret. It would be more politic on my part if I just let you hang yourself. But your post, as usual, begged for rebuttal. Now, it's your turn. Come right back at me - have at it. Do yourself proud. Like Daffy Duck used to say, "Put 'em up... put 'em up."

I absolutely do believe that parents can spank their children without flying off the handle and killing them. But the reason I equate hitting with abuse is because 1) I do not believe in hitting children because I believe that hitting in and of itself can be abuse, and 2) hitting or spanking is often done when a parent is frustrated. That can lead to serious abuse if the parent who hits when they are frustrated continues to do it repeatedly and often. I have known too many people who have found themselves intending to just spank a child to get their attention and before they know it, they have raised some little red hot dots on their kid's behind. I went to college with a young gal who was a single parent. She had 2 children when she was still far too young. She was upset with the world about having to tend to children instead of being able to go to the football games and school functions. She couldn't afford a babysitter and could just barely afford daycare while she was in class and at work. She confessed to me one day that she beat her children. She actually had to take one of them to the emergency ward for a dislocated shoulder after she had jerked her little girl way too hard. She was for all the world, a very lovely person. She had no intention of harming her children. She really did love them. She was just in way over her head. She had no books to tell her how to discipline without hitting. She simply was so strung out from school work, a part time job, paying the bills and wiping her kids' snotty noses that she just lost it sometimes. I believe she confessed to me because she was scared to death she was going to seriously harm one of her kids. I know that her story is not all that uncommon. If you want to correct your children by hitting them, spanking them, swatting their behinds, or whatever your term for it is, perhaps you are in total control and you know exactly what you are doing. If you never hit too hard and your children do not misinterpret the message of the spanking and your declarations of love for them afterwards, great. But if the truth is that you sometimes find yourself hitting in anger and frustration, I ask you to slow down, think it through and remember that your children depend on you for everything. They love you unconditionally and they want to feel loved and respected in return. It is confusing for some children to be spanked by the most important person in their lives. I don't say all this to make you uncomfortable or defensive. I say all this because I care about the children.

Thanks Brandy. I am sure that there is child abuse everywhere in the world. But you sure don't hear about it being such an epidemic in other countries like it is in the U.S. People work hard to differentiate spanking from child abuse on this thread, but it doesn't stretch the imagination much to suggest that the two seem to be linked. I mean if you never hit your child, there is certainly less chance that you will get carried away one day and turn it into more than just a spanking. For me, it is just not acceptable for an adult to hit a child anymore than it is acceptable for a person to hit a puppy or a kitten or any other pet. I think we all agree that training a child should be as important, actually more important, than training a dog.

Great attitude, plain!

Branded: That's a ton of reading. What I read was that women who are mentally or physically ill before an abortion will probably be mentally or physically ill after an abortion. That in no way proves that there is a greater risk after an abortion or after a full term pregnancy - either physically or emotionally for women. You hear all about the women who have been traumatized after an abortion. I hear all about women who feel total relief and joy after an abortion. Both are extremes. Both are real. Neither are absolutely indicative of 100% of women being traumatized or happy after an abortion. So while those items you posted are interesting reading, they only tell part of one side of the very complicated story. That is why there is no simple and conclusive answer to the question of whether women should have the choice of whether or not to complete an unwanted pregnancy. For some women, going through with the pregnancy is absolutely the right answer. For other women, it is absolutely the wrong answer. That's why it should never have been illegal and should never be illegal for women to have the choice.

MrsFlipFlops: It sounds like you believe that pregnancy does not carry health risks. Is that your position? That pregnancy is less risky to women than abortion? So for that reason women should never have an abortion because it carries health risks? I hope I am misunderstanding you. Pregnancy is always a health risk to a woman. Most of the time, there is a happy ending to a healthy pregnancy, one where a beautiful bouncing baby is produced. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees. Pregnancy changes a woman forever and in some cases, it kills women. Sometimes when women have been compelled to get pregnant and are expected to "do what is expected of them", even though they did not feel that they could handle it, they have gone through with a pregnancy and bore a child. And sometimes those women wind up with serious health issues, either mental or physical or both. Remember the women who have literally drowned their children in a bath tub because they were unable to cope? Or driven them into a lake, or how many other scenarios do we need to remember in order to understand the seriousness of unwanted pregnancies? I am like you in that I hope women will take responsibility for themselves. I hope that they will make good choices and take excellent care of themselves both physically and psychologically. But when there is a woman who hasn't been able to do that, for whatever reason, and she discovers that she is pregnant when she did not want to be pregnant, I believe that she should have the choice to decide whether she can bear a child and survive the experience, or whether, because of her health or other circumstances, she should choose to have an abortion.

I'm with brandy in wishing you well and hoping you take care, meatballsMom. You put a lot of your own interpretation on my post and that is your perrogative. I think that most people reading here will be able to distinguish between what I actually posted and how you dissected it and made it something different in some places. But that's fine. I think what I posted speaks for me and you certainly do not have to agree. That's what makes the world go 'round, they say. I didn't expect to win any popularity contests by saying what I think about using corporal punishment when one disciplines one's children. My beliefs on this topic go way back to a time when Parent Effectiveness Training was a huge movement in Europe. I tried it with my children and found it to be the more intelligent approach, as well as being more effective in the long run. Obviously everyone has a choice when they correct their children. But since child abuse has become so prevalent in the United States, it makes it imcumbent upon us to do all we can to help our fellow Americans learn better ways to cope with and discipline our children.

If it's just the run of the mill soap I'm pretty sure since Rose is pregnant, McDreamy and Meredith will continue the drama by getting married in the hospital chapel, Then Meredith will adopt Rose and Derek's baby after a lengthy court room battle. (After all, Meredith wins since she is a doctor and can afford the better lawyer. Besides Rose is an over-worked nurse and creates lots of good depressing drama for the show.) Rose is so depressed she will start sleeping with Hahn since she no longer trusts men. Callie will decide that women are too hard to date (or not hard enough, I guess). No wait, I know... Callie DOES like Hahn so much that she wants to live with her in their love nest. She decides to have a sex change which McSteamy performs. McSteamy takes advantage of Callie while she's anesthetized (the sicko). Callie finds out she's pregnant a month later and although she has a man's physique, she continues the pregnancy. Since she has no boobs left, Hahn has to do the breast feeding. That makes her feel all maternal and female and she decides to sleep with McSteamy after all. Callie winds up being a single father. But since Rose has become empowered by all her therapy, and still loves Hahn, she sues Callie and gets custody of Callie's and Hahn's love baby. End of story. Oh wait, I forgot the part about the paternity test. McSteamy enlists Meredith's aide and jiggies with the test results and it shows that Hahn is the father of Callie's baby. Whew! McSteamy escapes the discovery that he jumped Callie's bones while she was asleep. Now it's over.

Wow. Looks like I pushed somebody's buttons. For the record, I didn't say that people know what is in other people's minds. You must have been so angry by what you were reading, you didn't read it that thoroughly. Or maybe you just didn't understand what you read. I don't wonder that you are so quick to react negatively to something you diagree with when you hate people like Dr. Phil and Oprah so much. What about them makes you so upset? That they have been so successful and have so much influence? Oprah's a horrible person because she brought Dr. Phil to her audience's attention and put him on TV? Or is she just horrible because she's Oprah? I guess we should stop reading best seller personal help books put out by people like Dr. Phil, turn off the Oprah show and tune into our computers where we can hang on YOUR every word regarding spanking and human behavior. I mean after all, you are seeking your doctorate and that makes you well-qualified to criticize those imbiciles who know absolutely nothing and who are thiefs because they use books and other resources to help them do their dirty work. Are you so put out with Dr. Phil and Oprah because they think spanking is wrong? I guess I'm wrong too because I believe that parents should stop, think, and assess the situation instead of just hitting a child. I did not, by the way, suggest that parents should wait until they get home or are removed from the place of the child's infraction to address the situaiton. I don't know where you got that. Seems like another assumption along with all the false assumptions about Dr. Phil, Oprah and oh yes, George Bush and Barack Obama. Hmmm. An equal opportunity insulter. Cool. Brilliant. Is there anyone in the public eye that you do respect? I don't suppose Pat Robertson impresses you, does he? You're not impressed by that forward thinking Mike Huckabee are you? Who do you think is intelligent and worthy of listening to? Care to toss a few of your heros' names up on the board?

As I have said before, adoption is not the always the best solution to correct the problem of a woman becoming pregnant against her wishes. The fact that you qualify your stance on abortion MrsFFs, to exclude women who have been raped, are victims of incest or when a woman's life is in danger tells me that you do have some compassion for a woman who has become pregnant against her wishes. The difference between you and me seems to be that I believe that the decision of whether a woman is healthy enough to have a baby is not something that others should decide for her. Many people have posted that since the law states that it is a decision that can legally be made by a woman, that's that. Unfortunately, as others have noted many times, it is a law that some people think should be changed. They believe that the law should force all women to continue every pregnancy, whether it is in the best interests of the woman or not. That is unacceptable to me and I agree with Tommy. Those who are against women having abortions are perfectly free not to have abortions. They are also free to assist any woman who wants their help in making a decision of whether to abort a fetus or bring a fetus to term. It is a free country. That is fair. But if it is to continue to be a free country - equality for all - then it is incumbent upon us to do all we can to keep women's right to choose the law of the land. Women's freedom and equality should not be taken away because one segment of society has a belief that they should be able to control women by forcing them to continue unplanned, unwanted pregnancies that put women at risk. They even want to decide for women what set of circumstances constitute risk. The only person who is fully qualified to determine that risk level is the woman. She is responsible for making the tremendously important decision of whether she can continue a pregnancy and survive it. She should not be judged by those who seek to control her life and that of her fetus. That is not freedom and equality by any stretch of the imagination. We have to protect women from those who wish to impose their beliefs and will upon them.

MrsFFs, I can't believe that you would equate skydiving to sex. Sex is a biological drive. Something that we have whether we like it or not or whether we are smart or dumb or ugly or pretty or young or old. No one that I know would be willing to never have sex unless they were willing to have a child. I have (actually HAD) a close friend who had her tubes tied. She had been checked out and was told she had no ability to have her remaining eggs fertilized by her husband. In fact, she went for years (about 6) without becoming pregnant. However, when she was in her 40's, she did become pregnant. The risks for her were grim (which is why she wanted to be absolutely sure she couldn't become pregnant and had her tubes tied) but because of religious beliefs, and after much torment for her and her husband, she did go through with the pregnancy. It was a surprisingly uncomplicated pregnancy and she was able to deliver a tiny but normal, healthy little girl. But the little girl will never know her mother. Her mother died from complications - expected but unfortunate complications that could not be avoided. The decision not to abort cost her her life. Of course, it gave the world Sarah, which you probably think is what should have happened. The husband went after the doctor, of course, since we are such a litigious society and it seemed like the right thing to do. But for him and his nearly grown boys, they had to not only cope with the loss of their mother/wife, but they had to decide how that little girl was ever going to know what it was like for her mother to hold her and love her. Your approach to this problem of broken down birth control and biological drives that we all deal with is simplistic, I think, and totally unrealistic and very, very unfair to babies.

One thing that I've observed while reading this thread is that people who are spankers seem to think that all the kids who misbehave or act out or are obnoxious or in juvenile detention facilities are the ones who were not "disciplined" and only "talked to". That's why I'm glad that Brandy posted Dr. Phil's advice. There are forms of discipline that work, and work extremely well, that have absolutely nothing to do with corporal punishment. Dr. Phil is a brilliant man, although somewhat obnoxious himself sometimes. He certainly does know about human behavior and has had a very successful career because of his ability to decipher human behavior. You may not enjoy his personality and you may not like how he says something, but you can't argue with his success and his very real knowledge of human behavior. If you feel that you must spank your child because they have not responded to your voice, then you are probably not using your voice and your intellect in the most effective way. It takes a lot of thought, patience and respect for a parent to not hit a child when the child has done something wrong repeatedly and will not stop when they are told to. But spanking is not the best consequence if you are truly trying to teach your child a lesson. It is a very quick way to shut them down, that we probably all agree on. But your goal as a parent/teacher/protector should be to give the message to your child that you respect and love them and that he or she is an extremely important human being. Even though they are having a melt down for one reason or other, they need to know that you are the person who is there to help them with the problem that is causing the misbehavior. They need to know that they can depend on you when they are tired, angry, frustrated, hungry, scared and all the other emotions kids have, even at those times when you are preoccupied with your own emotions or tasks. The first step is for you to figure out what is really going on. You cannot correct a child if you do not understand what caused the behavior. Yeah, I know what you're thinking... if your child is acting out in a store you sure don't have enough time to stop, analyze and communicate with your child in order to determine how to deal with his/her problem. But in fact, it is your job to do just that. The reality is that, for most parents who spank, they are frustrated and sometimes perplexed at their child's behavior and they just need for the behavior to stop so they can do whatever they feel is more important at that particular time. You can argue all you want about the kind planning and forethought that goes into the spankings you administer, but MOST spankings are not carried out in that manner. That is why a clerk in a store is a bit outraged when they see a parent hit a child. They know that if a parent is angry enough to hit their child in public, there is a good chance that when they have the child in private and they are angry and frustrated, they are likely to be even more physically harmful to the child. That is why we're having this discussion. Not because most people use good judgement when they spank their kids. It is because spankings happen most often when people are angry and frustrated at their child for doing something repeatedly that they've been told not to do. You can justify spanking your child until the day is long, but we all know why we're having this discussion. If you have the utmost respect for your children and you take your role of parenting as seriously as you would any job, I believe that you would work very hard to understand your child and what causes their misbehavior, like Dr. Phil suggested, and solve the problem of rule breaking in a non-corporal punishment way that actually teaches a lesson to the child and instills self-respect and self-confidence instead of fear. Of course all of this is IMHO. :biggrin:

Hey if that would do the trick, I'd second that thought. :biggrin2:

laurend I'm afraid that tee shirt would get you shot just about anywhere in the U.S. Especially with the political climate of the past 7.5 years hanging over our heads. But Fanny I see the humor and think it's a perfect post for this thread.

Yup. Gotta opt out once in a while. Good to see that you were hangin' in! :biggrin:

brandy that's exactly how it went for me with Grey's and Private Practice. These last few Grey's episodes have gone back to being good again. Now they've left us in the lurch. McDreamy's probably gonna go and have good-bye sex with Rose and she'll be preggo and Meredith will sit in her kitchen floor and slit her jugular vein. Kidding.

MrsFFs, please tell me you're kidding. There are no birth control methods or medications that are 100% effective. None. Even having your tubes tied is not a 100% guarantee that you won't get pregnant. So are you saying that when there is a failure, the price a woman should always have to pay is to bring an unwanted child into the world? So the ONLY time people should have sex is to procreate? My goodness, that is a very hard line to take and it is hardly realistic. If that is how you feel, you should live that way. But it does not make sense for you to hold everyone else to your standards and beliefs. Besides, babies are far too important to be used as punishment.

It probably doesn't matter. Men often think they have all the answers. Besides many of them like to tell women what to do. And a lot of them like to invoke the "power of God" to give themselves some credibility. Humph! Some men are brilliant, I will admit that. But when they start giving advice and telling everyone else what to do, especially when they have no practical experience, my B.S. antenna comes out. A Priest who tells a woman she must forgive a husband who has beaten her because her marriage vows are sacred also comes to mind.

Yeah, I agree. And maybe having her legs tattooed as well as her arms would appear to be too freakish for American Idol. I saw a guy once who had his entire legs tattooed with a solid design except for the back of his calves. There he had an opened zipper tattooed where there were creepy round bugs appearing to tumble out. A little unnerving, I must say.

I love you too Aphrodite. gadget: Yes, the fetus has a circulatory system unique to it, but the mother's blood is used to make the baby's and they share the same body. That's why my DIL had to take shots to keep her baby from killing her.

Gosh yes, it's back! And now it's gone. Frustrating for sure!!! They finally figured out that the medical mystery part of the show is what makes it unique and special. And the pumped up drama. Whoo hoo! All that whinning and carried-over silliness was getting old already. Love the story line about Callie and what's her name - putting McSteamy about right where he should be. The two kids having their close encounter of the 1st kind. The freaked out not really prego.... etc. George putting his foot down - really? George putting his foot down? Changes, that's what I'm talking about!~ I for one am thrilled that Meredith is, at least in one aspect, finally seeing the light. (so to speak) Of course McDreamy is a little out on a limb here, walking off after she has made such an impressive effort to show she's worthy. Now I'm beginning to wonder about HIS sanity.

If we're looking for miracles, we can find any number of unexplainable events that we can choose to believe are miracles. History is full of them. If you are a believer in miracles, you don't find it hard to accept something that can't be explained by conventional wisdom or science, as being a miracle. If on the other hand you aren't a believer in miracles, you don't find it difficult to believe that unexplained events are just that, unexplained. Events that defy the norm aren't events that can't happen given the right circumstances. So it is understood by non-believers that they are not miracles, just random events that aren't expected. IMHO, of course.

Thanks Devana. Just about what I figured, only surprisingly even worse. I appreciate your input here. Your pediatrician story made me remember mine. When our DD was a baby and had "colic" and cried a lot because her tummy hurt, our pediatrician advised us to allow her to cry in her bed for at least 30 minutes at a time, rather than try to hold her or continually comfort her - since holding her might condition her to demand attention even when she was not in pain. He said she needed to learn to comfort herself and that sometimes babies just need to cry it out. He said that 30 minutes, or even 45 minutes of crying alone in her bed would not physically harm her. And he added that sometimes that's the only way parents can keep their sanity with a colicky baby. I asked him if that was how he handled his 5 children. He said, no, he could never listen to his children cry without trying to figure out what was wrong and if he coundn't find anything wrong, then he would hold them, rock them and comfort them. I said then why are you telling me that I should let her cry? He said because that's the current conventional wisdom and he can't dispute it. I asked him if we would be spoiling her by giving her that much attention and he added that babies can't be spoiled. Their behavior is generated by instinct. Man IMHO, if we don't use common sense and logic to tend to our children's needs, we're not doing them or ourselves any favors.

Susan he was my favorite from the get-go too. I was very disappointed when he was voted off and I was really happy that he did so well last night too. I agree. David Cook seemed thoroughly in his own skin when performing with ZZ Top! I wouldn't let my DH delete the tivo either. I want my DD to see it too.

The baby is absolutely part of my body. There's no other way to interpret it. Those addtional arms, legs, lungs, brain, etc., are mine and entirely my responsibility. It is not a separate individual until it is a separate individual. It cannot survive without me. As an individual it has no automatic right to life unless I give it life because it cannot live without me. My blood it its' blood, my oxygen is its' oxygen, etc. It is emcumbent upon me to determine what will happen to my fertilized egg. You and others have no rights to my eggs, fertilized or not. You could become involved if my fertilized egg were to be implanted into your womb. Then it would be your responsibility to grow it into a human being. You could provide nourishment through your blood and other organs. You could give it life. Or if it didn't live, you would be responsible for not giving it life. If someone presented the idea that all embryos should be removed, become the property of the government and subsequently implanted into donor uteruses chosen by the government or implanted into women, like you, who insist that they have the right to save each and every fertilized egg in this world, then that's a whole 'nuther ball game and set of beliefs to argue about. I'm sure that the lines would still be drawn with some people believing that they can tell other people what they should believe and what they should do with their fertilized eggs. There's no need to state that "we must agree to disagree" because that was determined hundreds of pages ago. Where's the icon beating its' head against a brick wall when you need it? :crying: