BJean

gotta hit the sack. hope you have a good rest of the night wherever you are.

OMG that has to be overwhelming to think about. I hope you have had lots of help with those medical costs. Who could be expected to pay those kinds of charges! I don't know what's going to happen and I haven't been researching or paying much attention to what's happening on Capitol Hill regarding medical care, but I hope that there are some improvements coming. The insurance companies have us all in a stranglehold.

Btw, you know one thing that always stumps me is that anti-choice folks seem to think that there's a night of consensual sex when the sperm travels up the birth canal and winds up joining up with an egg - after that, they act like it's just nine months out of a woman's life in order to produce a bouncing baby and that's that. Simple enough. But that is absolutely not real life. It's everything you mentioned and even more! Once a woman has a child, everything changes for the rest of her life. She has become a mother and that is forever. Most women don't give their babies up for adoption and thank God for that! I don't condemn anyone who does, but it is not the best choice. The best case scenario is when there is a willing man and woman who love each other and are committed to each other and then they decide to have a child. They are prepared and they are as committed to that child as they are to each other. They spend the rest of their lives being parents to that child. There are lots of those cases, but there are lots of other cases that are far from the best case scenario. Sometimes the child isn't necessarily planned, perhaps, but the parents are happy and willing to do whatever it takes to produce a healthy child. Even if it means adoption is necessary. And then there are horrendous circumstances where it is the worst possible scenario for a woman to bring a child into the world. There are many reasons why that could be the case. None of us has the right to say that every woman must bring every child into the world no matter what the circumstances. We just are not equipped to make that judgement call for others. It is between the woman and her mate and their God and their doctor. That's the best case scenario for handling the circumstances surrounding the worst case scenario.

Sorry I've been so busy. You're never alone here. I'm sure there are people who feel as we do, but they are lurking and not up to the task of jumping into the fray. Hope you had a good weekend. Things have been busier because we had a four-day weekend. Always play catch up after that. And tomorrow is payroll. Fortunately all I have to do is sign the checks in the morning and then here comes another weekend, YAY!

patty: "People do have to choose from right and wrong, but they shouldn't be given that choice when it comes to murder and other serious crimes." But people do have the choice of whether to commit serious crimes. Just because we have laws that make it illegal to commit serious crimes, it sure doesn't stop anyone from committing them and the laws aren't even necessarily a deterrent. What the anti-choice people want to do is to prevent people from making their own choices when it comes to someone being faced with the decision of whether or not to abort a fetus. (It is not a human being with a life of its' own, and it does not even have any guarantee that it will ever have a life of its' own when it is just a fetus.) Just because you have the belief that a fertilized egg is a whole person with all the rights of every other person on earth, doesn't mean that you are correct. Therein lies the rub. You are passing judgment and sentencing women based on your beliefs, and you are completely dismissing what they believe. You have no right to do that. You probably do not support gun control or the banning of guns - and yet, crimes are committed with guns. If all guns were off the streets and out of everyone's hands, there would be no crimes committed with guns. But is that right in a free country? Don't you think that people have the right to bear arms and make their own decisions with regard to how they choose to use a gun? People are killed each and every day because of the availability of guns in the United States. It is against the law to commit a crime with guns, but people do it anyway. And they are within their rights in the United States to make those choices. You can't legislate morality. And yet that is exactly what anti-choice people want to do. And the goodness of heart that we were speaking to earlier, is best if it is not simply a means to justify getting into heaven. It is more worthwhile if it is because it is the right thing for humankind - to "do unto others...." In other words, to be good for goodness sake.

Lydia, that's an interesting perspective. Do you believe that legalization would make it easier to hide human trafficking than it is now with prostitution illegal?

P.S. Thanks for sounding off.

How do you all feel about the president's first Supreme Court pick?

Jack wouldn't it be great if we really could look at the whole person, eh? No prejudice, no bias, just no-nonsense upholding of Constitutional law. That would be a treat! Since that rarely, if ever, happens we must choose the lesser of two weevils - or three or four weevils as the case may be. I jest. Honestly I believe that Sotomayor is at least as well qualified and certainly as fair as any of the men choosen lately.

patty, people who claim to have Jesus in their heart aren't necessarily good people. It may be good to have Jesus in one's heart, but it is no guarantee. The goodness must come from within - no matter how or by whom it is inspired. Many thousands, in fact no doubt millions, of people do not know Jesus and yet are good people, whom you could trust with your life; whom you could trust with the lives of your children. Jesus does not have a monopoly on goodness.

The irony is that she was originally appointed to the Second Circuit appeals court by a President Bush. So as you said, it is obvious that there would be Republican opposition no matter who President Obama selected. I'm finding it interesting that the usual suspects here at LBT haven't jumped on this thread and fired off a load of right wing claptrap. I'm with you KartMan, I hope President Obama has an opportunity to fill some additional Supreme Court Justice spots before his term(s) are up. We definitely need to have a diverse group of judges serving on the Supreme Court.

If I believe in anything it is that what's in your heart and soul count for everything.

My only real memory of his dad and Armenian food was that he liked to bargeque shish-ka-bobs and he claimed that he did it "Armenian -style" which meant made with lamb. That was my first encounter with lamb and my last for a very long time. (My family didn't care for lamb.) His shish-ka-bobs were incredible. He also made some kind of rice pilaf with interesting seasonings and vegetables. Yum. Dose your mom bring any Armenian foods to your table?

Just in case you're not familiar with her, here's some info: Ten Things To Know About Judge Sonia Sotomayor 1. Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the bench than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. Over her three-decade career, she has served in a wide variety of legal roles, including as a prosecutor, litigator, and judge. 2. Judge Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She was the first Latina to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was the youngest member of the court when appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. If confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. 3. While on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has consistently protected the rights of working Americans, ruling in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases. 4. Judge Sotomayor has shown strong support for First Amendment rights, including in cases of religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech. 5. Judge Sotomayor has a strong record on civil rights cases, ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, sex and race. 6. Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School. 7. In 1995, Judge Sotomayor "saved baseball" when she stopped the owners from illegally changing their bargaining agreement with the players, thereby ending the longest professional sports walk-out in history. 8. Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the environment in a case of protecting aquatic life in the vicinity of power plants in 2007, a decision that was overturned by the Roberts Supreme Court. 9. In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush. 10. Judge Sotomayor is a widely respected legal figure, having been described as "...an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind," "highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets," and "a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity." Sources for each of the 10 things: 1. White House Statement, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-11206599-KZIhC4x&t=1 2. White House Statement, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-11206599-KZIhC4x&t=2 3. Cases: Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) and Marcella v. Capital Dist. Physicians' Health Plan, Inc., 293 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2002). 4. Cases: Flamer v. White Plains, 841 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2003), and Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F. Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). 5a. "Sotomayor's Notable Court Opinions and Articles," The New York Times, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51454&id=16226-11206599-KZIhC4x&t=3 5b. Cases: Bartlett v. N.Y. State Board, 970 F. Supp. 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), Greenbaum v. Svenska Hendelsbanken, 67 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001), and Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999). 6. "Sonia Sotomayor: 10 Things You Should Know," The Huffington Post, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51452&id=16226-11206599-KZIhC4x&t=4 7. "How Sotomayor 'Saved' Baseball," Time, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51455&id=16226-11206599-KZIhC4x&t=5 8. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-11206599-KZIhC4x&t=6 9. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-11206599-KZIhC4x&t=7 10a. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-11206599-KZIhC4x&t=8 10b. "Sotomayor is Highly Qualified," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51456&id=16226-11206599-KZIhC4x&t=9 10c. Honorary Degree Citation, Pace University School of Law, 2003 Commencement.

That's interesting, rodriguez, Armenian Apostolic. My first boyfriend was half Armenian. His father was Armenian. He was a corporate attorney for a huge American Oil Company. His mother had her Ph.D. and was a social worker. They were as unlikely a pair as you'd ever see, I think. As it turned out, they divorced when my boyfriend was a senior in high school. He and I accompanied her a few times when she had to pick up children when there was abuse involved. His mother was a Methodist, as were my parents, and we went to church together for a while. He never mentioned anything about his father's religion or the religion of any of his family on his father's side.

Those things are not for you to decide for everyone else. I believe in women's rights and that means that they have the right to their bodies, to do whatever is the right thing for them in their lives. I do not believe that women are murdering or killing or refuting God's will. I believe that they are saving their own lives and doing as God directs them to do in their particular situations.

gadget: "Once the mother is pregnant, they have become parents whether they like it or not. It is no longer a choice." And that is where you are completely mistaken. Your argument is based on the idea that all women choose to have the sexual encounter that has made them pregnant and that pregnancy is the consequence to their choosing to have sexual contact. That argument is false. Many women have sexual contact without their consent. And pregnancy should not be a life-long penalty for a woman who has already been penalized just because she is a woman and because she was weaker than the man who impregnanted her. It is bizzare that you have stated that if a woman has become pregnant she is destined in each and every case to have a baby. You know that is totally wrong. I brought up spontaneous abortions because they happen very frequently. There are miriad other reasons why fertilized eggs do not have the capability to produce viable babies. All of your focus and sympathies lie within a teeny, tiny blob of tissue that you believe that you know what its' destiny is. You do not know what the long-term destiny is of every fertilized egg. And only the women involved can know whether it is within their power to bring a baby to term, especially in the cases where they were not given a choice whether or not they wanted to become pregnant and especially in the cases where they were forced to have sexual contact.

If there is a spontaneous abortion, it is also included in the natural order of things. If there is a surgical abortion, then there is still nothing you can do to stop a woman who is ill-equipped, for whatever reason, to continue the development of that fertilized egg. I would much rather a woman would choose to have a procedure (that is simple and relatively painless to everyone involved) to stop the development of a fertilized egg, if the woman so ill-equipped, either emotionally or physically, that she is unable to support the development of a baby. You think adoption is the answer. I think adoption could be the answer, but I believe that it is not the answer for everyone.

fod-her. You know, fod her. Unlike mud her. Guess mud her sounds a little nastier now that you bring it up.

gadget: "Absolutely right. Mothers should not be making death decisions for other people -- in this case, their offspring. " So at least we agree on one thing - offspring belong to "their" parents. They are not products of the world. They have creators and those who are charged with the responsibility of literally bringing them to life, if they so choose. It's the natural order of things. You can't change it by intervening in some way. You can be there to catch any unwanted babies to give them a home, once they are born. But you can't police every uterus in the world and demand that a fertilized egg be developed into a baby. You just can't. Even if you make a convincing argument that you should be able to decide what every woman should choose in every case of pregnancy in the world, you can't change mother nature. Mother nature says the woman is the decider, that's why she gave her the sole responsibility to take care of this business. You're trying to take that away from women, but you can't, no matter what you do. (Short of imprisoning women and monitoring them 24/7.)

Heh, heh, heh, you said "fodder"...

It's unfortunate that babies must be conceived, grow and be nurtured inside a woman's womb? I find that to be a very strange statement and one that sounds very self-serving in this debate. What would your ultimate wish list include? That all fertilized eggs and all frozen embryos be turned over to you to ensure that they survive gestation and become living, breathing fully developed babies? That would make you happy in your perfect world? In a perfect world, there would be no rape. In a perfect world, there would be no incest. In a perfect world, there would be no deformities or malfunctioning female anatomical parts. There would be no women who are too fragile, either physically or mentally to carry a baby to term. In a perfect world, every woman would be a fully-equipped baby making machine, turning them out on a regular basis. At least in your perfect world. Well, this is the furthest thing from a perfect world. And women are not perfect. And there are rapists and there are abusers and there are hideous deformities and genetic disorders. In a perfect world, we wouldn't be having this debate. You'd be taking care of your brood and I'd be tending to mine and we'd be wishing each other the highest order of peace, happiness and tranquility. This is the furthest thing from a perfect world. You're not perfect and neither am I. Neither of us is perfect enough to make life and death decisions for other people. Please know that no matter how many times you declare that a woman is a killer if she has an abortion, I will rebut that with as much strength as I have. You are not a perfect person with all the undisputable truths that are needed to make a declaration like that.

As for the baby bartering business, it is hardly a delusional concept. And if you really are as involved in the anti-choice movement and involved in helping to place unwanted babies, then you know as well as I that there are people who are in the baby selling business. For you to pretend otherwise is assinine.

gadget: "That says it all. You're damned right about that. I am the only person who has the rights to my body and every cell that my body produces. Who else has the rights to my cellular structure and everything within its' walls? And I think I know your answer and that would make you a very mistaken person.

gadget: "If you abuse or try to kill your child at any point during his or her post-uterine life, the government will intervene, and rightfully so, to protect the basic rights of that child." Right on! Relevant phrase being "post-uterine life". I have no quarrel with the government getting involved in the protection of a child. But I do have a quarrel with the government getting its' grubby little hands on my uterus and anything contained within that package of MINE.