BJean

Any botched medical procedure causes grief. I'm just tired of all the links that you post that are put here to disgust people in an effort to get them to change their minds about wanting women to have control over their bodies and to be able to make a choice when they are faced with insurmountable problems as they relate to pregnancies. When my DIL and DS learned that they were having identical twins from their doctor who was a high risk ob/gyn, they conferred with several other doctors who were experts in handling the complications that they were faced with (I won't go into detail here). All of the doctors told them that they should abort and "start over". There was a very high likelihood that one or both of the babies would die in utero and that in any case, the odds were very great that if either of them survived, they would be handicapped and probably their handicaps would include, but not be limited to, cerebal palsy. If they had listened to the people who were experienced in cases like theirs, we would not have 5 year old, healthy, wonderful twin boys today. My point is that it was a personal decision. One that only they could make. They were the ones who had to decide whether to risk bringing severely handicapped children into the world and to watch those children children possibly suffer the horrible consequences of that decision. They were the ones who had to find the personal courage and the money it would take to do right by their 2 children who might well be severely handicapped, if they even survived the pregnancy. It would not have been right for the state to have intervened and told them that they MUST, by law, abort them. Although many people believed that it should be their only choice. Neither should they have been told that they MUST, by law, have those children. They were babies that belonged to my DIL and DS, not the state. We should not be in the business of making these kinds of decisions for each other. There are too many variables, too many statistics, too many exceptions. One law that governs every scenario isn't possible or even desirable. Many of us have stories, some beautiful, some gut-wrenching, but there are as many possibilities and decisions that can be made as there are stories. The law should not force people to have abortions or to have children. Besides, whether you understand or believe it or not, there are things that are worse than death.

Oh good grief, here we go again.

Ok, gadget. I appreciate your not getting personal. That's awfully thoughtful and kind of you. Yes, to answer your obvious follow-up question, that was sarcasm. I'm sorry that you do not understand the value in steering the debate clear from personal accusations when we disagree with someone. You say that you try to not get personal but so far, you have proven nothing but the opposite to be true in your posts. I call 'em as I see 'em too. Now good night, gracie. :thumbup:

gadget I have no need or desire to get into a p$$$$ing contest with you. That's why I have no need, when stating my beliefs, to call people (including you) out on whatever they have posted. You have your style, I have mine. You can't badger me into turning this into a personality contest. I believe that you should go by the code of not getting so personal, you like getting personal and so that's that. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. Please don't expect anything different from me and then you won't be so upset when you read my posts that do not include quotes by you which I'll admit conveniently allows everyone to read your pearls of wisdom a second time. I must say I do appreciate your quoting me so often, but please don't expect me to respond in kind. Stick a fork in me... I'm done. Have a happy weekend ya'll. :thumbup:

I understand your comments, gadget about being a sinner and about not judging others and not wanting to control people. I hope you can understand why I believe that someone who puts conditions on Christianity and who makes judgments about how or why women become pregnant, and that they want to tell them what they must do in that situation, they do exhibit those qualities. I'm glad we're both out of time here. We definitely need a cooling off period. And although this is probably entertaining for some folks, it's painful for me.

I have to interject here that all of you who have made supportive and understanding comments about me, have not only made my day, you have made my week! I cannot tell you how very much your support and kind words have meant to me. I know that sounds gratuitous in a way, but I really can't express how nice you are to say positive things and let me know that you have some understanding of where I'm coming from. Sometimes I feel like the lowest creature on the planet when things turn ugly here. You definitely make me want to continue to be a better person each and every day of my life. Thank you. :crying:

gadget I have been called down and "reported" for supposedly attacking you. I have done my level best never to attack you, but to only address your statements. I believe that when two people debate, you do not expect them to become personal and throw barbs and accusations at each other. You expect them to address the issues, and you expect them to address what their opponent is claiming when it relates to the issues. When things become personal, the value of the debate is lost and the meaning of the accusatory words are useless to the debate. I only want to discuss the issues and that is all I'm attempting to do when I do not address you by name when I am addressing your comments. I also am not always only responding to your comments. Most often I am basing my response on posts made by several different people if their posts relate to the current discussion. For you to jump on me personally and accuse me of being passive aggressive because of my posting technique, and accuse me of things that I have not said, you have become very personal and that is uncalled for. I do not have time to sit at my computer and respond to your comments every time you make them. I have the time to read several posts from time to time and it is then that I post a comment. Btw, I am glad that the subject of religion came up on this thread in an honest way. Often it has been denied that religion has any bearing on the discussion. I have begged to differ. I think it has every bearing on the issue and is at its' very core. I do not believe that if one is not a fundamentalist Christian that they are inferior or bad Christians or even worse, that they are not actually Christian at all. Finally... we are at the core of the issue. You believe that you are right and that you are good and that others are wrong and others are bad. No wonder you wish to control others and tell them what they can and cannot do. You think you're someone who has the corner on goodness and light. Has anyone noticed that for a while we were able to discuss this issue with no animosity, no rancor? Like the lovely and loving human beings that we are, right? Wonder what happened? :confused2:

snuffy you are a true gem.

gadget you are one of the worst people I know about putting words in other people's mouths. I never said and did not even insinuate that home schoolers do not provide sex education for their children. No wonder you use all those crazy links and are so easily influenced by some of it. Maybe you are just in a big hurry and don't read as thoroughly as you could. I know you're smart, so it isn't a lack of intellect on your part. You want me less passive agressive? Now, when I have vowed to be as civil and peace keeping as possible? :crying: I'm doing the very best that I can and I try very, very hard not to become personal especially when I disagree wholeheartedly with someone. Seems you enjoy the personal interaction and changing things up so you can be in control. So have at it, punch away. I can take it. I know where you're coming from by now. In spite of everything, I'm vowing to stay sensible and reasonable and I will contribute as much as I can to keeping the peace. If you call that "passive aggressive" fine. The books are calling that a very antiquated term.

LMAO!!! Now that's funny, rain!!

Great point snuffy about the way religion enters the picture when people teach their children that abstinence is the only option, before marriage. That's one reason why some religious people are unhappy and uncomfortable with sex education in our schools. And that is sometimes a factor for many parents opting for home schooling. I have a sneaking suspicion that if they had their way, not only would they make abortion illegal, they would not want condoms passed out to their teenagers. There is a religious segment of the population who dislike Planned Parenthood because they believe that that organization condones and promotes sex before marriage. They also tend to classify some Christians as being more Christian than others. I find that classification to be very self-serving and narrow minded and I figure they must be very angry people with the state of our society these days. In stead of wanting all our laws and our country to be structured to conform to their particular religious comfort zone, we need to understand that people are imperfect and that people should have compassion for other people, no matter how imperfect they are. We need to not point fingers and insist that everyone conform to our own idea of morality. We just need to help others when they find themselves overwhelmed with a problem that they can not handle alone.

Saying that a certain number of women have not used birth control and have become impregnated and subsequently opt for an abortion does not mean that those women are using abortion as birth control. Very specifically it is not the same if the woman is not a person who gets serial abortions. A woman who uses abortion as birth control is not a person who could be considered as someone who made a mistake or just had unprotected sex (we don't even know the reason why they had unprotected sex). A person who uses abortion as birth control is a person who knows she can get pregnant when she has sex and has every intention of having an abortion when she does. This part of the discussion is why citing stats is an exercise in futility. Unless of course you like the way the stats look and you can bend them to mean something that you feel supports your argument, and very importantly, that you can convince people to believe you. :thumbs_down:

You have to use logic and common sense when you read and quote stats. You can't just float stuff out there and claim that because one may be able to assume certain things from those stats, that an assumption is fact the truth. Snuffy has presented a good example of why this is true, and unless you are willing to give a complete background of your sources (who they are and what their background is), tell us exactly under what conditions those statistics were taken and reveal other full and complete defining information, citing statistics here is not very believable or conclusive. Hang around on the internet for a while and you will soon learn that people can and do claim just about anything you can think of on every topic under the sun and even about notable persons as well. It may be worthwhile to give links or cite stats here if people choose to believe whatever part and parcel you've decided to tell us or give us a link to. But we really should all take the time to reveal every factor of a study before we give links or cite them in a public forum. And personally I think that few readers are willing to wade through an especially lengthy post qualifying some study. Furthermore, many biased organizations who have done a particular research project to reveal percentages, have a vested interest and can sway the numbers by the way the study is structured. It's no different than how the media controls us on a daily basis. They tell us what they want us to hear and many of us buy it hook, line and sinker. And often, not only are they wrong, but sometimes they are a full 180 degrees off the real truth. But by the time they're willing to clarify it, we're off listening to and discussing some other talking point. :thumbs_down:

I completely agree with you all. Wonder if you can gauge the voting on our small sampling of viewers.

Excellent points, Tommy. For instance, there have been many books written and studies done on the fact that capital punishment is not actually a deterrent to murder. I reallly do think that there is an underlying belief that is revealed when people write such extreme posts and come up with outlandish conclusions which they think prove that pro-choice advocates are all a bunch of murdering, selfish people who cavalierishly choose to kill babies. And I agree with Tommy, if you want to sway the Surpreme Court, that isn't the way to do it. And it isn't the way to win intelligent people over to an anti-choice way of thinking. The general public in America just aren't that stupid. All this foolishness about women using abortion as birth control is also out of the mainstream and one or two cases of people you've "heard about" or know, doesn't prove that a large number of women use abortion as birth control. Citing an abuse of any medical procedure, or medication for that matter, doesn't offer proof that it is abused by all or even a lot of people. Relating a story about an extremely unfortunate event and using it to make an incorrect assumption about people with opposing beliefs from yours is offensive and frankly very unattractive.

I had a feeling that Brooke has a strong following. I knew that Jason Castro did. But I honestly thought he'd be out last night. It was almost as shocking as watching Michael Johns being voted off. Carly has the pipes, that's for sure. Syesha is beautiful and she has a charming way about her, even if her voice isn't the best. She's destined to be a star, although I still think she belongs in movies. Carly and Michael J. will go on to have big careers, I think. And am I the only one who thinks that David Cook has it in the bag at this point? I think he's awesome in the way he adapts every song he sings to his own voice. David A. does too, but it's just not a style that I care for. If he wins, I'll be very disappointed. He's cute and he's talented, and I think he has a very successful career ahead. But I think that David Cook can be as big or bigger than any of the previous winners. Especially if he keeps improving his look like he's been doing.

My Mom died from breast cancer and it warms my heart to hear a daughter say she appreciates her mother like you do! You sound like a great daughter. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think of Mom and miss her wit and wisdom. When I went to my class reunion a few years ago, they surprised me by my high school class dedicating our reunion to her. So many of my classmates took the time to tell me how much she meant to them when they were in highschool. It was wonderful to hear their sweet, poignant stories about her for the first time.

I'm glad we agree on the stages thing. But there are many forms of life. They aren't all necessarily babies. But this is a debate that is irrelevant. Women will choose whether you believe it is within their rights or not. Our real differences stem from that. You believe that a woman should not be able to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy that she cannot bear to go through. You have already decided that none of the extenuating circumstances matter at all. All that matters to you is that there is a law passed that agrees with your belief system.

I didn't know anyone was claiming that talking to their children should be the sole means of discipline. There are many, many forms of discipline that are effective that do not include hitting. I come from a long line of educators as well, trell. They sure can be bossy people, ya know? :glare:

You're right about the stages thing. You're wrong about creating babies. Babies aren't babies until they are babies. They're human tissue. If they were babies, we wouldn't be having this discussion. People absolutely do want to control women. Women are controlled in many ways as it is. The matter of choice of whether to have a baby should not be in the hands of anyone but them.

There is a big, big, big, vital difference between a fertilized egg and an infant, toddler, teenager, adult, old person or a human being dead and smoldering in the grave. If you use the terms human and life, it can describe all kinds of human life. It doesn't have to be limited to the entire human being, i.e., infant, but rather it can describe living tissue, as in skin, bones, organs, or even hearts. There are all kinds of human life as differentiated from other forms of life on this planet, such as dogs, cats, cows, horses, Hindu rats, etc. It really all boils down to whether one believes that a particular sect of people should force another group of people to, in each and every case of fertilized eggs, create babies.

Oh yeah. I remember the original rationale. I also get the mental picture that it conjurs up. It is wrong on so many levels that we could discuss it for a month. I am sorry that I even mentioned it again. I had told myself to give it as little play as possible and then I went and did it. Bad girl, no bone. :glare:

Ok thanks. Now I understand your earlier post.

Good analogy, Tommy and snuffy. Makes perfect sense to us because it jibes with our beliefs. To others, they'll continue to be obtuse about it, although I really I think they understand, they just don't like it because of their beliefs. Back to square one and your point that this is not a black and white issue. (All mention of slavery aside) There are many shades of grey and many different beliefs, none of which have anything to do with skin color. Slavery is used to provoke feelings of disgust and it definitely does. But to equate a clump of undeveloped cells to a person who has been enslaved is a very hurtful analogy as far as I'm concerned. Frankly that whole argument makes me extremely unhappy. There are too many ways that it can be misunderstood and misused. Besides, as far as many of us believe, it's back to what I said above, who owns and is responsible for a clump of undeveloped cells buried deep within a woman's body is not the same as one person owning another person and using a whip on them to instill fear and pain.

I agree that children who are not disciplined are more apt to be dishonest than ones who have a lot of oversight and a healthy amount of discipline. But we were talking about spanking in particular as a means of disciplining, right? Have you observed that children who are spanked seldom get into trouble? Or that they don't get into as much trouble as children who are disciplined in other ways? Or are you just addressing the issue of children who are never disciplined and how often they get into trouble? I'm wanting to understand your statement and your experience base.