GeezerSue

Me? I don't think I'd ever flame anyone for telling me what they believe. I'd flame someone for telling me that what they believe is the only possible way to think and that everyone else will be lost in an eternal micro-convection oven. And I'd also flame someone for making a statement that they seem to think is true when all the evidence in the world points to the opposite conclusion. And then, maybe I'd...well...at least we know why no one ever asks ME to be the moderator. Funniest (to me) part of all of this is that I used to be very quiet and very private about my regligious/areligious beliefs. Even my Army dogtags said "declines to state" under religion, instead of the more in-your-face "atheist." But then I went to this (nice, quiet, pacifist) Quaker school and , of all places, THAT's where I learned to speak up on this issue...essentially, a religious school made me an out-of-the-closet atheist. Strange, I think.

Beef is our national meat, but in certain areas, pork takes precedence. This is how I know: When my mom (west coaster) talks about "a roast," it is a beef roast she is discussing, and if she meant "pork," she'd say "pork roast." When my MIL said "roast," she was talking about pork roast and we knew that because she would otherwise say "beef roast." One was the dasughter of a butcher, the other was married to one...so they BOTH thought that THEIR way was the right one. LOL

We should have gone with Raytheon and Boeing... just kidding

I can't think of many places Christian missionaries haven't ventured forth...and yet, five out every six people on this planet are NOT Christians. (Give or take a million or so in either direction.) If we assume that a billion people have not yet received the word, that still leaves four billion people who are NOT going to make the team. It amazes me that a billion people (give or take) are so self-righteous in their belief that FOUR billion others have simply got it all wrong. If they are right...it's probably a party I'd rather not attend anyway. If they are wrong because their interpretation was wrong, I wonder how severely they'll be judged...relative to how they judge others. If they're wrong because all there REALLY is, is a guy behind a curtain, then it will all have been much ado about nothing. I wonder how so many people--especially the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, because to me, there IS no major difference--can so truly believe in things for which there is not now (nor has there ever been) a shred of proof to be had...but if that's what gets them through the cold winter nights.

Carlene grew up eating tuna sanwiches leaking from the wax paper wrapper in her lunch pail...NOT a Baptist. Oh, wait...that was me. I read here somewhere that she has Baptist friends! Maybe that's where the confusinon lies.

So, Pam, that definition of who cannot be pardoned would cover most of the world's population, right?

Holiday sales? You mean credit card purchases? Great for stockholders, but how about the poor schmucks who are hoping to find a way to pay for this later? Maybe they can get one of those minimum wage jobs at the mall...the ones with no insurance benefits. Home ownership is at record numbers...and so are foreclosures. http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2006/12/11/daily7.html?from_rss=1 I already SAID my stocks were doing fine. But I invested (small amounts) in companies that I felt would do well and they have paid out 85% in the last two or three years. I got VERY lucky. And, while the percentage is good...the amounts are tiny. I know a lot of people and I only know one day trader (he doesn't like that term) who really counts on his skill in stock trades to produce income. My GREAT results in investments netted us whopping 1% increase in income for the year.

Wheetsin, Back in the dark ages, when I attended Catholic school, the "party line" was that anyone who had been exposed to the truth (as defined by the Catholic Church) and rejected it would suffer eternal damnation and all, whereas the few remaining people on the planet who had NOT heard the truth (in those days, we spoke of the people in the Soviet Union who were not allowed access and as-yet-undiscovered jungle people) would not be considered sinners. But that was the olden times.

Please excuse the redundancy in the above two replies. While Carlene and I do not agree on everything, there are SOME issues that almost defy disagreement.

Oh, my... Well, you're certainly in a minority there...history will judge him as one of the worst...in contention with Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. No. Almost anyone with a brain bigger than his ego could have done a better job. Bush DID NOT LISTEN TO HIS OWN EXPERTS. He had his own agenda. HE IS SURE THAT GOD IS TELLING HIM WHAT TO DO...so were the guys flying those planes into the Pentagon and WTC. I have to guess you have missed some of the finer points of the facts about the war. So, for the record...IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. SADDAM HUSSIEN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Bush kept SAYING they were related, and, judging by your comments, some people STILL believe that to be the case, even though Bush has now stated that IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, and SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. The ONLY people who believed that Iraq and Saddam had anything to do with the terrorists attacks here are the people who believed Dubya. The intelligence community did to believe it nor did Bush himself. He just lied and the naive believed and some apparently still believe him. But a poorly planned war, isn't it? How will YOU know that we "won?" I mean, before you go to war, you set a goal..."we'll take over the capital" or "we'll destroy the city" or "we'll kill the king," kind of thing. So when you declare "war" on terrorism (or evil or sins or crime or poverty or drugs, etc)...what event happens that allows you to decalre a victory? In other words...this "war" has been unwinnable from the get-go. Osama bin Laden is a God fearing Muslim who prays regularly and ask God's guidance for his decisions. (You see any parallels there?) Okay, now this is just BIZARRE! When Clinton left office, we had a SURPLUS. Bush took that SURPLUS, blew it and has now landed your grandchildren in debt. No matter who is in office for the next several decades, taxpayers will be paying for this mess. Have my stocks gone up? Yes, they have. Considerably. Maybe I got lucky. Is the local Greek fast food place advertising for "Happy Help Wanted?" You bet...and they probably pay a full time person about $325 a week, at best. According to realtor dot com, the cheapest house for rent in this zip code is $3000 per month and the cheapest house for sale is listed at $675,000. I don't see how Bush's part time fast-food jobs are going to keep this ocuntry afloat.

When I was in HS, we were the first folks in the neighborhood to get a real-live in-ground swimming pool. Our neighbor girl--age 14--used to put on her two piece bathing suit, wrap a towel around herself and walk across the fairly small residential street to go swimming with us. Her grandmother--age 90--used to stand in the living room screaming that the child was a tramp and going outside naked. Grandma finally got moved "to the home."

Are you credentialed in some counseling profession? And do you also "work with" the women who endured unwanted pregnancies?

Pam... man-woman relationships in the middle east 2000 years ago were quite foreign to what we, in the US, understand today. Some of what we call rape, certainly was NOT considered rape in that time and in that place. I don't know how old you are, but I remember when the "does a man have the right to have sex with his wife when she doesn't feel like it" stuff first went to court in this country. So, it's only been a few years since that was NOT considered rape. "domestic violence" is also a relatively new term. Until quite recently, and even today in some parts of the world, a man OWNED his wife and could take liberties with any other woman, unless she belonged to some other man. So, while we may WANT TO BELIEVE that our version of right and wrong is an eternal truth, it's all pretty new. Women were property. They were given in marriage (sometimes traded) to whomever their father decided should have them. Then they had to have sex with the man chosen for them. Was that rape? To me it is. But we would have been laughed out of town--probably stoned and raped first--if we had suggested that 2000 years ago in the Middle East. In fact, if we had suggested that to my grandfather, who was paid some kind of dowry to marry my grandmother, back around 1912. She didn't love him or know him or have any choice in the matter at all. Her family transferred ownership from themselves to my grandfather. Was she raped? She probably thought so. So, did Jesus approve of "rape?" He certainly didn't do much in the equal rights arena...so we don't know. But we know that it didn't bother him enough to speak about it "on the record." I'm just suggesting that you might be assuming 21st Century western values were held by people who were NOT a part of our culture. I SAID that the early church called abortion wrong...and then okay...and then wrong and then okay. If I wanted to know what Christ said, however, I'd look to the Bible...and he said nothing. In fact the ONLY reference to induced abortion that I know of in the entire Bible is in Num 5: 11-27, wherein we are told that a woman suspected of adultery must drink a potion that will cause her belly to swell and bring about "the curse" and that if she wasn't unfaithful to her husband, no permanent harm will ensue...but if she was unfaithful, she will be rendered infertile. Deal is, this passage outlines a forced theraputic abortion to make sure she isn't carrying some other man's child. God's orders, or so they say. Please note, I did not say that Jesus was pro-abortion. I don't know of anyone, who is pro-abortion. I'm just saying that of all the things he spoke of and was quoted about...abortion (and rape) aren't mentioned. Othr things appear to have been far more worthy of discussion.

Uh...Pam? Just because you never considered something doesn't mean it is impossible. Think about it for a minute or two...last I heard, Christ was born and raised a Jew. In traditional Judaism, life begins when the child is born alive and takes its first breath. Just like the rest of the Jewish community in which he was raised, Christ probably thought nothing of the practice because IF HE HAD, it might be mentioned SOMEWHERE in the New Testament. We know he didn't like the money thing in the temple...or people casting stones at others, but there is not a word written about abortion...because it was just "women's business" and men mostly steered clear. In the early Catholic Church, as well, abortion was not just ignored...there were rules about how far into the pregnancy an abortion was permitted. There were different timelines for male or female fetuses...because the religious powers-that-be thought then (not unlike now) that they knew everything, they thought they knew how to determine the gender of the fetus. Whether abortion was right or wrong was debated in the early church...allowed, not allowed, allowed again...for centuries. For a while, it was "a little bad," as the penance for oral sex was seven years and the penance for abortion was 120 days. That was about 700 years after Christ died. In the 800's, Pope Steven said abortion is murder. But by the 1200's, the pope ruled that the monk who got his girlfriend an abortion wasn't guilty of anything because the fetus was not "animated." Then it moved to the "quickening" test. Then it was no abortions allowed. Then it was back to the quickening thing. Here's some information on abortion and Judaism: http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_abortion_religion.html

Gee, that's not what the SCIENTISTS say. Again: http://www.medpagetoday.com/StateRequiredCME/PainManagement/tb/3099

i know that we have a local church in our neighborhood where a Respite Care Program is hosted. Sometimes, just an afternoon is like a lifetime! Do you have a local Agency for the Aging or Senior Place that can provide a break for you now and then?

Carlene, I appreciate that they BELIEVE that they are helping. I just continue to point out that--in MY opinion--they are NOT, and they don't even have "standing" in someone else's decision. I don't suppose this will provide MUCH consolation, but this article discusses the "pain" part of the violence issue for the first two trimesters, anyway: http://www.medpagetoday.com/StateRequiredCME/PainManagement/tb/3099 In part: BIRMINGHAM, England, April 14 - Fetuses are physically incapable of feeling pain until the end of the second trimester, and unlike newborn children have not developed the processes that would allow them to recognize pain as a signal of a harmful encounter, a researcher here asserted. "An absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or should be legal," wrote Stuart W.G. Derbyshire, Ph.D., a senior psychologist at the University of Birmingham, in the April 15 issue of the BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal. "Nevertheless, proposals to inform women seeking abortions of the potential for pain in fetuses are not supported by evidence."

I'll be 60 in a couple of weeks and my mom was getting to the point where she needed 24/7 supervision and aid. We moved her to an assisted living facility back in July. She (finally) loves it. It is NOT a nursing home or a hospice. No sick people. Just the frail and elderly. She has her own apartment, her own cat, company for meals, someone to assist with showers, someone to make the bed and clean the apartment and 24/7 medication management. If she falls or becomes ill, there is a nurse on hand to determine if medical care is needed...or just first aid. Although I WANTED to yell at her yesterday, because she kept counting five things and "getting" six and because she gave one of the food service people a tip (not allowed, but he took it) there is usually a lot less stress. I have NO idea how people do this at home. I just want to say that there is no shame in getting help. WITH the assisted living, I am still (mostly) her daughter and not (mostly) her caregiver. And we both like it better that way. If nothing else, there may be respite care available to give you some mental health time. Good luck with Mom and with the weight loss.

What's with the "WE?" Any definition of the meaning of "life" or "death" would inherently contain philosophical and /or religious and/or societal values...often even for those writing the defintions which are found in books or online. That's why decisions based on such issues--abortions...Terri Schivo's electrical supply...whether the US or Saddam should be killing Iraqis--are never going to have consensus. Never. So, lose the "WE." Your position on this issue is reflective of the values of your other beliefs--the mega-church you mentioned, for example. My position is reflective of differing beliefs...maybe I subscribe to something akin to the OLD Catholic Church position on abortion...maybe the traditional Jewish position. Maybe just my own position developed as a conglomerate of those influences. Whatever their origin, my definitions are value-laden. And so are yours. You want everyone else on the planet to live by YOUR values...and you don't even begin to see how presumptuous that is. I want people to think things over and--in concert with their doctors and advisors--make the best decision they can. And, for reasons known only to those who share your beliefs, you find that my desire to make my decisions without your guidance somehow negatively impacts your life. So, I'll try again. I don't care about your God...or your Fairy Godmother or your Tooth Fairy or any other belief you have. I don't care about your mega-church--in spite of the fact that they seem to maintain a "classifieds" page where they feel quite free to violate several laws and advertise for Christian employees and Christian work environments and Christian tenants. And, BTW, abortions happened during Christ's time on the planet. How come he took offense at the money-changers in the temple but not at the women having abortions? (Uh...don't ask that one at the mega-church with its $7 million annual budget, okay?) Kindly consider that your desire to cause the behavior of others to align with your beliefs is intrusive and presumptuous and really, really arrogant. WWJD? He'd have some wine at the wedding, hang with the hooker and NOT align himself with the money-dudes at the temple.

Wrong, again. The procedure was developed to prevent having fetal remains left inside the woman's body post-abortion (see the earlier post about the woman with the fetal remains in her body for months...same thing when it's less than an entire fetus) and because it was SAFER for the woman (you know, the "PERSON" in this scenario.)

If you were a fifteen-year-old who had never heard of a fetus, I'd have to assume you were being home-schooled by religious fanatics who keep calling a fetus "a baby." If you were a "foreigner," you'd probably be able to educate me on the topic because in most other countries, science curricula is left to the scientists and not the religious-political fervor of the moment. I WOULD tell you that a library--and not a church--is your best bet for locating that information and point you in that direction.

From the AMA: H-5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques (1) The term 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term "intact dilatation and extraction"(or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. This procedure is distinct from dilatation and evacuation (D&E) procedures more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester. Because 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term it will not be used by the AMA. (2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient. (3) The viability of the fetus and the time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy. In the second-trimester when viability may be in question, it is the physician who should determine the viability of a specific fetus, using the latest available diagnostic technology. (4) In recognition of the constitutional principles regarding the right to an abortion articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and in keeping with the science and values of medicine, the AMA recommends that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery. (5) The AMA urges the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as state health department officials to develop expanded, ongoing data surveillance systems of induced abortion. This would include but not be limited to: a more detailed breakdown of the prevalence of abortion by gestational age as well as the type of procedure used to induce abortion at each gestational age, and maternal and fetal indications for the procedure. Abortion-related maternal morbidity and mortality statistics should include reports on the type and severity of both short- and long-term complications, type of procedure, gestational age, maternal age, and type of facility. Data collection procedures should ensure the anonymity of the physician, the facility, and the patient. (6) The AMA will work with appropriate medical specialty societies, government agencies, private foundations, and other interested groups to educate the public regarding pregnancy prevention strategies, with special attention to at-risk populations, which would minimize or preclude the need for abortions. The demand for abortions, with the exception of those indicated by serious fetal anomalies or conditions which threaten the life or health of the pregnant woman, represent failures in the social environment, education, and contraceptive methods. (BOT Rep. 26, A-97) Source: http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM

Oh, good...a puzzle!

NOW we're gettin' somewhere. It's not a baby. It's a fetus. THERE'S your bottom line. So, now everone can go back to basing their decisions on what THEY should do on what THEY believe is the right thing to do regarding the fetus in THEIR womb and leave everyone else's womb the hell alone.

Their AIRFARE is free; that's an airline policy. However the government charges every PERSON--including those children--the tax. So, now we have the IRS and the FAA saying that a fetus is not a person. What do you want to bet we can find more branches of our federal government which agree?