BJean

Wow, I hadn't heard the high altitude theory. That would explain why I had so much trouble when we went to Scottsdale. I could hardly eat at all. I never once suspected altitude as playing a role. Thanks for the info. We plan a trip to Colorado in the fall. As I re-read your post I realize that your doc said that going FROM a high altitude to a lower one is when there could be a problem. The doctor didn't say that going from a low altitude to a higher one could also be a problem, did he? Doncha hate it when your spouse and your doc conspire?!

luluc: Thanks a lot for your input. You make a couple of very excellent points. I've had it too.

I never accused anyone of photoshopping or making stuff up when it comes to the grisly photos, etc. You're the one who's thinking that up, not me. I have seen photos and ultrasounds and read the literature and heard the talk. People demonize abortion, claim that they are only concerned with unborn babies. I do not need to constantly go to those sites that you keep posting. I am sure that many people do need those constant reminders when they are speaking with people who have had much needed abortions or who are contemplating them. That way you can continue to pass judgement, throw around the words like "inconvenience" and the rest of the propaganda that is generated to keep women under the firm hand of those people who think they know best. What is not mentioned often enough here are the women who are in such dire straits that they must consider something like abortion in order to themselves survive. You discount those women as if they are exactly what you mentioned in your last post: women who get implants, have sheep's urine injections, tatoos, piercings and other forms of changing their bodies. Unfortunately the vast majority of women who for many reasons, find themselves unable to bear an unwanted child, are just like you and me. They're just American women who need help. They find that they cannot, absolutely cannot, have a child. Those women should not be characterized as just some dumb women with no sense and only illicit sex on their minds. Nor should they be characterized as someone who did not use birth control. You cannot, must not, lump troubled women into one "likely" scenario that you conjure up to make a point. Women can and do need abortions from time to time. That is a fact. And They should never have to break a law to get one.

I think this whole discussion has become snarky. I didn't call gadget out on her remarks, but I did think that it sounded like she was sandbagging and waiting to pounce. That's getting personal. That's why discussions like this get non-productive. They become personal. When people offer up their personal experience to rebut something when someone has posted a broad or generalized statement that it begs for a rebuttal, the common response here is to get personal. That's not productive, doesn't add anything good to the debate and discourages lots of people to participate. Both sides of the argument are guilty of that. It happens. The anti-abortion/pro-choice debate seems to always wind up getting personal. Then everyone gets grossed out and jumps ship. The discussion dies off for a while and then it is opened up again with some big prounouncement that provokes readers to jump in. This has been going on for quite a long time. If people don't want abortions, don't believe that they are worthwhile for any reason, they should not have them. They have the ability to use their influence to convince others not to have abortions. That's the law, they have those rights. That is right and good. But that's not what many anti-abortion arguments are all about. They want the law changed. They want to make the choice for ALL WOMEN. They'll tell you that in extreme circumstances they would allow a woman and her doctor to decide what happens to the woman who has become impregnated without her consent. However what they truly want is to take away ALL women's rights to make decisions about their future and the future of their unwanted pregnancies. They tell you it's about all babies, but it is really about CONTROL. If it was really just about the babies, they would spend their time and all of their resources on all of the unwanted children in the world. They would be so busy they wouldn't have time to argue. But they don't do that. Their focus is on the law. They spend their time and resources on changing the law to take away women's rights to choose what happens to them. They spend their time composing grisly photographs and thinking up guilt laden arguments to try to convince you that you should want our government to pass laws that makes women's choice illegal. That's about CONTROL. They want to control YOU.

Someone forgot to tell Paula Abdul how old she is. And funky gloves went out with Michael Jackson. I really, really hated to see Chekeezie go!! And Seyesha hasn't won me over yet either. I think she is stunningly beautiful and belongs on the big screen as a movie star. The way she sings is way too painful to watch. Michael Johns is awesome. I hope he figures out that his demeanor - insecurities, etc. - are unattractive to see. He needs to realize what a crowd pleaser he is and deliver the goods. He can do it. He's done is more than a couple of times. I'm rooting for him. David Archuleta got what was coming to him. He needs to consider his audience - just like everyone else does. I was very much with Simon on that one. It was a gaggy grade school rah-rah we are the world song. David Cook was amazing. I don't know how he came by that arrangement of Billie Jean, but they all need to find his source. And is it just me or is Carly kinds going downhill? Wonder what they'll cook up for them to sing next week. Anyone know?

Wonder why the babies can't talk? Anyway, I have no idea why you think that abortion is a convenience. You're way off base on that one. Abortion can and does save lives. I'm fine with you working your self in a tizzy if you choose to, in order to stop women from having abortions. Just don't think that you have a right to tell every woman in America (and her sperm implanted egg) that you have a right to speak for them. You have a right to speak for yourself. Keep it up. I'm all for that.

Yes, pregnant women can choose abortion or not, just like drug users can choose to use drugs or not. That is one reason why it is absolutely not for you to say what choices either of them absolutely should make. These are personal choices that certain persons in our society should not make for each other. You pointed it out when you said that abortion could be encouraged by society so that they don't have to pay the welfare bills for those who can't afford to take care of their own babies. That "can of worms" is a very real possibility. If people believe that they can make these kinds of choices for others, then they can certainly change their beliefs and change which people should get or do what. You could see the day when, as in some countries, the government decrees that all male babies must be aborted or that all female babies be aborted. Do you really want your government making these kinds of decisions in our so-called freedom filled democratic country? What's the matter with you people? Are you unaware that birth control methods are not 100% effective? and you believe that the woman who becomes pregnant should be penalized and that an unwanted child should be punished as well? How short-sighted and gross. Because in many cases that's what happens when you force pregnant women to bring unwanted children into this world. Our government should not be in that business. No matter how strongly you feel toward every fetus in every womb in this United States - it is not the choice or problem of the state - it's the choice and problem of the people involved.

Diane: That's a very interesting theory. It would certainly explain why after my most recent fill, with more restriction than ever before, I can eat anything! You may very well tighten up in a week or two. I'm thinking that may happen to me as well. That's what happened to me last summer. I was fine and then as the weeks went by, I wound up being so over restricted that I couldn't eat anything much at all. It was bad because the only thing that didn't hurt was ice cream - I could eat plenty of that which was not good! I think sometimes that we live with restriction that isn't right because we don't want to be pests and we want to be tough. We owe it to ourselves to be in control of our band if we want to do as well as possible. I think you and karey are way ahead of the game now with your surgeries. The rest of what you want to lose will come off. Just be patient. Try to be happy with small losses. They count just as much as 4 lbs. a week over the long haul. Congrats to both of you!

I begin my Body Bugg tomorrow. I'm having the telephone and online consult and I know I'll probably be shocked when I learn what I have to do to be in a calorie deficit situation. You should watch what you eat, of course, but don't beat yourself up too much. You need to just focus on the healing process and think positive thoughts. Besides, one chocolate bunny doesn't make you fat. Give him a carrot chaser and forget it.

Some anti-choice people seem to think that women who opt for abortions are ill-informed, naive or just plain stupid and that they just want to pretend that there is no tissue growing inside them. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no stats on it but I would be willing to bet that if a complete study were done (which is darned near impossible) there would be more well-educated and informed women who feel strongly about their responsibility as a potential mother than there are uninformed naive women seeking to make a choice. This characterization that women who have become pregnant against their wishes are promiscuous, irresponsible, uncaring, cold-hearted and selfish is completely unfounded and unfair and only serves those who choose to put down others for their own purposes.

P.S. These things that I have stated, above, are things that I have gleaned from my participation here as well as from my lifetime of experience and research on both sides of the question. I am sure that they will embrace the opportunity to correct me if they feel I am wrong.

Rugman: I have learned that the suffering of human beings once out of the womb is not the concern of anti-abortionists. Their concern, their fight, revolves around just the undeveloped, implanted egg - the potential human being - because those cells cannot speak for themselves. They believe that they have the right and the need to scream out for the unborn so that they are allowed to develop and be brought into the world, no matter what the conditions are once they are born. I have argued several times about lives being much too important for this argument. Their argument, for me, is akin to establishing babies as a commodity. I believe that adoption can be an answer - but I believe it is not ALWAYS a good answer, and in fact, adoption can produce disasterous results for both mother and child. They argue that it is the best alternative. I disagree, but that being said, I am highly offended that one human being believes that he or she should control the uterus of another human being because they think they know what is always, in every case, right for the unborn baby.

The GhOst: My DIL ate hardly anything because she was afraid it would cause her to retain fluid and it was just over 6 months before she began to feel that she wasn't sore and swollen, especially if she overdid it. She thought she would begin to feel normal after 6 weeks! I kept telling her that it is amazing how long it takes to completely recover, but she didn't believe me. Now she does. I hope you won't give up hope and I sure hope you won't mentally punish yourself for anything you eat. It is just part of the price you pay for having that much done to your body. It's funny how they don't tell you how bad it's going to be and how long it's going to take. I guess no one would go through it if they knew how rough it was. It took me a year to be able to forget how much it hurt and to finally be really happy that I did it. My DIL's lower body looks like a model now. He lifted the tops of her legs and part of her lower back too. Was yours that extensive?

Am I the only one who gets nuts watching Remiele's hair fall in her face in a big glob? I like a "comb over" as much as the next person, but not when it is constantly having to be pushed back so the person can see. It's like she is hiding behind her hair. She needs to bust on out with her huge ole' voice, as Randy called it, and stop acting like a 10 year old. And all that bawling... come on...

karey: So great to hear from you. That swelling is truly the pits. And it takes the longest to get rid of. I think I didn't actually feel normal for about 8 months after surgery. Maybe even longer. One day I just realized that I was not puffy anymore and that I sure looked good. You'll get there, even though 6 or 8 months sounds like a really long time to you right now. And it will be worth it! You still have quite a while before your daughter's wedding and just think how lovely you're going to look in all those photos! Glad you're on the mend, girl! :wink:

Okay here we are - back to the same spot where we just have to agree to disagree. Neither of us will budge on what we believe is right and we both feel that our argument is not only correct, but supports the proper legal course for our government to take. As far as I'm concerned, for this go 'round, 'nuff said!

P.S. There is some debate about how culpable Planned Parenthood is regarding their "overcharging". Once the lawsuit has been decided, if they are shown to knowingly and with intent to have defrauded the government, then you can yell it to the rooftops. A lawsuit or accusation does not merit treating it as fact.

Of course women should be informed and knowledgable of every aspect of every choice that they make. They do not need to view mutilations and blood and guts in graphic and grisley photos in order to be informed and make an informed decision. You call it truth, I call it propaganda. Your memory notwithstanding, I have never been the one who has denied that a fertilized egg is life. I do argue that it is not a complete human being yet. But that is totally immaterial to the relevant debate. Be it a matter of conscience or unconscionable behavior, government/society has no right to impose their values or moralilty or religious fervor, regarding decisions about an an implanted sperm, into the uteruses of women. Once the bun is out of the oven, then they can get all het up about how it's treated by its' mother.

I am not surprised in the least that there are people who will do anything and everything in their power to shut down Planned Parenthood. And by the way, a good friend of mine in Florida volunteered in a clinic that advertised that they were there to counsel and assist women with unwanted pregnancies. They absolutely did subject women who came to their clinic to all kinds of horrible, bloody visuals and very determined individuals whose job it was to make sure that each and every woman who came into their facility would leave so traumatized that they would not consider abortion as an option. That particular kind of "counseling" was my friend's job and she took it very seriously. Also, I never said that aborting a fetus wasn't killing a baby. It's just too bad that there are so many people who believe that the life of an undeveloped fetus trumps that of a woman. Furthermore because they've taken it upon themselves to speak for that fetus, they believe it is within their rights to take control of a woman and effectively exert control of her for the rest of her life. Because having a child that you do not want does not necessarily mean that you are willing to give it to someone else to raise. Even if a woman did choose to give up an unwanted child for adoption, her life will forever be changed and affected by the birth of that child. And what about the child? You personally seem to work toward helping those children who are unwanted yet brought into this world. But many, many people who are against abortion are certainly not willing to be responsible for someone else's child for the rest of their life. And they certainly don't want to assist the woman, who has been impregnated against her wishes, either economically or emotionally. Yes, there are lots of avenues our society could take and needs to take, to help women in trouble, as you said. But society cannot cause a woman's life to go unchanged or the baby to be unharmed by forcing a woman to have a child. Americans need to get over the idea that they can be the conscience and controller of women. They cannot affectively do that by making abortion illegal. They cannot do that, period.

Yep. It definitely makes sense about Amanda. She really did seem to try too hard to be a heavy rocker. She spent too much time sticking out her tongue and also trying to take a hard stance with the judges. That's why I don't think she ever had a chance at being the American Idol. But she got exposure and hopefully she will get a fun and profitable gig with a cool, rockin' band.

Pull the fork out, I guess I'm not done. Why do you think that the government does not support anti-abortion clinics? Why do you think that they have to be funded and run by private sources? Why do you think that Planned Parenthood is supported by tax dollars? It is because they offer UNBIASED information. They do not discriminate and make choices for women. Anti-abortion clinics DO make choices for women by ennundating them with extremely biased information - including graphic, ugly and extreme audio and visual means. They aren't just informing women about what a developing fetus looks like or that a heart beat can been detected very early in a pregnancy. They are preying on the often very fragile emotional state of women in trouble. As I said before, I have no argument with you or those individuals who make this their life work - to convince women to have unwanted children instead of aborting them. I do believe that it is within your rights to do it and if you save some lives in the process, that is great and wonderful! I really admire you for committing yourself and your time to such a worthwhile cause. However I believe that abortion is a relatively simple procedure, particularly if done very early in the pregnancy. It is not the wholly horrific experience that some people portray it to be. It absolutely does not always result in women being emotionally traumatized later by having had an abortion. It too, can save lives - those of women who absolutely have no intention or desire to bring an unwanted child into the world. But my real argument on this thread is not about any of the above. It is about CHOICE. Women should never be forced, by our laws, i.e., by extremely biased people, to have babies. Our government should not be in the business of controlling women's bodies in that way - not ever! Please go about your business of saving lives anyway you wish, but if you persist in trying to change the law so that all women are banned from making their own reproductive choices when faced with unwanted pregnancies, then I'm gonna fight you. I'm going to fight you tooth and nail. I won't play your game of dragging out photos of bloody bathtubs of women who have died trying to abort their babies themselves, or of women who hung themselves in their bedroom because they were faced with no other option when abortion was illegal. Nor will I sit in a tree and level my rifle on the people who work in anti-abortion clinics. But short of that, I will fight you.

I hated to see Amanda go. I think she's pretty entertaining and since she's so different, kind of a nice change of pace. I'd love to hear her do some really gritty songs that suit her style. She obviously doesn't fit in the same pocket as the rest of the group though, so her departure was inevitable. Kristie should have been the first to go from the group IMHO. She has a pleasant enough voice and I love her background and personality when she's talking, but she just doesn't have command of the stage and her performance. She reminds me of a pretty 9th grader trying out for a talent show. Maybe someone will get hold of her, help her kick it up a couple of notches and she'll blossom into a real entertainer. Several of our friends and family absolutely love Michael Johns. He has seemed uncomfortable and a little out of his element, but he has a very interesting voice, kicked the you-know-what out of Bohemian Rapsody and a couple of other songs and I just know he has what it takes to become a real star. Poor David Archuleta. Well, he's really talented voice-wise. What a nice tone he has and his stage presence is fine too. He's just in the wrong place. He needs to be taken in by some wonderfully talented producer and get him the right material and he'll be off and running. He's not suited to be an American Idol - he's more a potential all-around popular entertainer like Sinatra. Carly has the pipes! She really does, and I'm sure she's going places. But I don't think she has the fan base she needs to win American Idol. I could definitely be wrong. During her performance, I thought her close up camera shots were awesome. Brooke is the next Carly Simon/James Taylor. Surely there's a market for her. We think she's great to listen to as well as watch. Obviously very bright. David Cook is on his way! He just needs some really talented guys to back him up. Ramiele is amazing. At the same time, she has some real weaknesses. I think someone is going to get hold of her and exploit her talent and beauty like they have Pickler. Ok. That's my assessment. What's yours? :wink2:

I must not have expressed myself well. I spoke to the numbers for those women known to have full knowledge of what the development of the fetus looks like. And I am not surprised that the women coming into the facilities, whose studies you mentioned, had no idea that the facility doesn't provide abortions. I am familiar with yellow pages ads all over the country where clinics entice women to come to their facility for pregnancy tests and "counseling" - which counseling turns out to be not just pregnancy tests and sometimes ultrasounds, but a thorough bombardment, endoctrination if you will, of anti-abortion propaganda. The places where you work(ed) may not be anti-abortion clinics, but there are many out there that actually disguise themselves as unbiased counselors, when in fact, they are anything but unbiased. That's why I question the broad generalization of the numbers - not the numbers of the facilities' studies you cite (as I said, I believe you know those numbers) - but for the numbers of ALL women who have peculiar knowledge of fetal development, which you inferred with your statement that 90% of, never get abortions. Yep, I just wanted to clear that up. I'll catch up with you on the anti-Bush site. (THAT'S A JOKE! :biggrin2: ) Stick a fork in me...

If the study is in such a controlled situation, i.e., clinics where they do not counsel that abortion is a reasonable option to an unwanted pregnancy, that couldn't possibly tell the whole story for the majority or 90% of the entire population who faces an unwanted pregnancy. I have no doubt that your numbers are correct gadget, for that facility. I have no doubt that endoctrination of any kind can and does change the minds of people who are faced with making a huge decision in their lives. However I have a problem when such a generalization is used to entice people into believing that it is true in 90% of ALL cases where a woman is known to have full knowledge of what a developing fetus looks like in all the various stages of gestation. I know you all are having a field day encouraging each other and patting each other on the back for the wisdom you're posting here about how bad abortion is for everyone on the planet. So I will bow out now and allow you to flood the space with your links to anti-abortion videos, grisley, bloody scenes and biased statistics all without any interference from me. I know when I'm outnumbered and when it is wiser to just shut up. (I know you didn't tell me specifically to shut up in those words, but I got the point.)

L8BloomR: You got my whole point. Yes, if that person had had an opposing view to mine, it would have bothered me more. That was exactly my point. Likewise, if that person had been on your side of the debate, it might not have bothered you nearly as much. My other point was not to criticize you, but only to point out that it really isn't in the best interests of encouraging people to participate here if we jump on them because we don't like what they post. gadget I know that you are privy to lots and lots of anti-abortion material (which you so generously share with all of us here), but for the life of me I cannot fathom where you get statistics that are all but impossible to gather data on. I'm referring to your stats that 90% of "abortion-minded" women (does that mean women who are considering abortion, or women who once thought they may consider an abortion?), who are shown ultrasounds change their minds and decide to carry their babies to term. There is no way that you can have that kind of data. You may be privy to data from the practices of a certain amount of doctors who have done controlled studies on a topic like that. But to claim that you know that 90% of abortion minded women change their minds after an ultrasound is so far out that I am astounded to have read it here.