Carlene

Hey, jewelry is jewelry. And to think....I've wasted two perfectly good husbands via traditional burial.

But will you still respect me in the morning?

Carole... This is a recipe for disaster. Please do not ever allow yourself to be alone with this boy (and he is just a BOY - not yet a man). Remember that when he is your age, you will be 74. Think you'd be interested in a 74 year old partner? Probably not....and neither will he. My advice is to put a damper on it, grandma. PS....Lest you take offense, you may not be a grandmother yet, but you are certainly old enough. I was a grandmother at 42.

A power struggle between the sheriff and the sentencing judge...it should be a lot of fun to watch this play out. He (the sheriff) had to know this would cause a huge backlash from an indignant public. Whatever her excuse...a mysterious rash, a nervous breakdown in the making, or her inability to pee/poop in front of other people...the average citizen would get zero sympathy for the same condition. Besides, this is the same woman who participated in videotaped sex. I don't want to hear how modest she is. Crap like that just insults my intelligence.

I second that, Julie. I have been unfilled twice, once due to aspiration pneumonia (from being too tight) and once because of esophageal dilation (also from being too tight). If you are having reflux and can't control it with meds not eating late, etc then you need a slight unfill. Remember, better to let the doc take out a little than to hang on and end up losing it all. Once you have to be unfilled,you have to SLOWLY work your way back up to the "sweet spot". During those 2 or 3 months, you can gain a lot of weight.

Angie....I have experienced exactly what you are going thru. The tightness in your chest could be early signs of aspiration pneumonia. You want to avoid that like the plague. Other symptoms are chills (with or without fever) and body aches (feels like you have the flu). If you have reflux and did not have it before the band, you are too tight. Do not eat after 7 PM and take some OTC antacid, such as Prilosec. But you really need a slight unfill. I am recovering from an esophageal dilation, which meant being unfilled for almost 3 weeks and eating only liquids and mushies. I gained 7 pounds during those 3 weeks, then about 10 more sneaking up on the "sweet spot", so beware of getting yourself too tight. It can backfire and actually end up causing you to gain. If the reflux continues, get thee to thy doctor. If you develop pneumonia, they unfill you and slap your happy butt in the hospital for 3 or 4 days.

I have heard both the "rash" story and "psychological issues". One talking head said they were afraid she was having a nervous breakdown. Poor baby! This woman gives dumb blondes a bad name!

Am I missing something? I went to their site and the only options were "man seeking men" and "woman seeking women". Reverse discrimination is still discrimination, IMHO. Leveling the playing field is one thing, but giving unfair advantage is not the same thing. I do not support Affirmative Action or "quotas" for race, gender, etc. I do support civil rights, particularly the right to marry whomever you like, regardless of gender (or race). The thing that bothers me most about the Eharmony suit is that it targets a privately owned business, and I do not like to see government telling business owners how to run their own business, without regard to the effect on profit margin, viability, practicality, etc. It just does not fit my profile of American justice. And I don't think gay/lesbian individuals seriously want to join Eharmony's dating service. I think they are just trying to make a point. But on another level, I hate that guy who does Eharmony's commercials (and presumably started the whole site), so I wouldn't really be upset if they lost. Where I live they have a number of Christian singles groups, and some that are specific to one denomination (primarily Jews or Catholics). I don't think anyone has threatened to sue them for discrimination, but I guess it could happen. The group I belonged to when I met my DH was called "Mid Cities Catholic Singles". At some point they allowed people to join who were not Catholic, which was fine, but then some of those people started complaining about the name and wanting to change it to just plain "Mid Cities Singles". I thought that was rather presumptuous of them. So maybe my Eharmony opinion has been colored by that experience. PS...it annoys me sometimes that I have to drag my 87 year old MIL with me to stores that give a senior citizen discount because I'm not yet 62. So I guess it's human nature to want it all!

Is Eharmony the "biggest and best"? I thought the biggest was Match.com, which does allow gay searches, does it not? Also, I think AOL, MSN and Yahoo do, too. Those are all big name dating sites. What about the gay dating site....is it allowed to practice discrimination solely because it represents a minority group?

Dear Butterfly, I have 4 grown up children, all with families of their own. When the oldest went away to college (90 whole miles) it was one of the worst traumas of my life. When #2 son married a girl from Ohio and moved 1700 miles away, I thought my life would never be the same. Son #3 joined the Navy. I cried until my eyes swelled shut. My only daughter....my other self...has changed so drastically that I don't even know her anymore. She lives about 20 minutes from me and I am raising her oldest daughter, but we see her maybe once a month. She is none of the things I raised her to be. The older they get, the less they need us. It's the natural order of things. I know this all coincides with your divorce, but it was bound to happen, even if you had stayed married and miserable. Take it from someone who has been there (not divorced, but widowed with "big" kids): do not store all your tomorrows in that big box that says "Mom" on it. Make a life for yourself, because that's what they are beginning to do. Don't be afraid to make plans for the weekend on the off chance that they might want to see you. They need to learn that calling in advance is courteous and thoughtful. Don't push the new man in your life away just because the kids don't like him. They won't do the same for you....trust me. And if you're going to take a trip, don't make it a guilt trip. Your marriage failed, you did not. It's a sad thing, but it happens all the time and even very young children adjust. Yours will too.

Lauren... I know it wasn't your choice to be "outted" like this, and before the surgery, even, but what's done is done and at least you won't have to stress over what to do if you get something stuck at the dinner table, or how to explain that you are only having Soup for lunch (or half a sandwich, with no bread). And at least you will already have had the surgery when the reunion comes around, so people won't be trying to talk you out of it. Having everyone know isn't as bad as you think. I tell anyone who asks about my weight loss. It's just easier, in the long run. People who eat with you on a regular basis are going to know something is up anyway, especially once you get a few fills under your belt.

Watchband... Yes, it works....but it isn't magic. You have to make good food choices or it won't work very well, because "slider" foods will go right thru the band. Chocolate, cookies, chips, ice cream - anything that melts in your mouth will end up on your rear end, just like before. I did great for two years, then had some problems (from being over-filled). I had to be unfilled and am now struggling to lose the 18 pounds I gained back. I have just recently accepted the fact that whatever you do to lose the weight....you have to keep on doing it to keep it off.

Sunta.... I absolutely support gay/lesbian rights, including the right to marry, but I disagree that the eharmony policy is any more discriminatroy that the gay dating site (outinamerica???). They offer only "man looking for men" and "woman looking for women" options - no hetros allowed, one assumes. Also, there is a Lady USA Fitness club down the street from my house. It does not allow men. Is that ok? Another health club in my are is "Fit and 50", which restricts membershp to those 50 and over. AARP? You have to be 50 to join. I have insurance (auto and homeowners) thru AAA, but they won't sell you insurance unless you are a member of the AAA Auto Club. The list goes on and on and on. These are all businesses, but you can't purchase their services unless you meet their criteria. I don't see the difference, but please enlighten me if you think I am wrong.

I just thought I'd throw this into the mix... In the rare instance of conjoined twins, the decision of whether to separate them or not is generally left up to the parents, and often one of the twins is sacrificed to give the other a chance to live a normal life. To my knowledge, this matter has never been legislated - probably because it is such a rarity. But would you say those parents who opt for surgical separation, when there is a 100% chance that one of the children will die, are murderers? Or should they allow no intervention, even if it means that neither twin will survive? I realize this isn't the same thing as abortion, but it does parallel a bit the discussion of whether two people who cannot live as separate individuals have equal rights.

Dr K took no lives. He helped people end their lives with dignity. He was never the one who decided when they would die. They made that decision for themselves. When my father was dying (pancreatic cancer) he begged me to bring him a gun. Can you imagine how hard that was for me?

Actually, I have never met anyone who terminated a pregnancy for the sake of convenience, and I met many women when I was doing social work who had had abortions. Unless, of course, you consider "convenience" to include: no support system, no job/money, no place to live, etc. On the other hand, I would like to say that my oldest son is adopted and his birth mother was married, but not to his father. Her husband was in Vietnam when she got pregnant with Tommy. Abortion was illegal at the time, or she would most certainly have killed my child before he became my child. Knowing that just makes my blood run cold. And it makes me glad that abortion was not an option for her, as selfish as that may sound.

I don't think you can just lay that "evil" blanket on top of every woman who has ever terminated a pregnancy, without knowing them or their circumstances. It's just not rational. Besides, when you hear something like this after the fact, what do you suggest - that we beat these women over the head with the bloody bodies of aborted babies? If it's long over and done with, why not just be a little compassionate? You can't change what has already happened. As for the second scenario - the poor woman who kills her toddlers because she can't afford them - a woman near where I lived hanged herself and her 3 daughters last week (a 4th survived) because she was desperate and poor. Is she less "evil" because she took her own life, along with theirs? People from all over the world have offered all kinds of help and support to the surviving child. Donations poured in to bury the young mother and her little girls. Where were all these people BEFORE this tragedy? Desperate people do desperate things. Often those are not things they want to do...they just don't see any viable option.

I am a Christian - a practicing Catholic, in fact - and I am one of the people who "hover" on the fence regarding the issue of abortion. I must say, you ladies (Gadget and BJ, in particular) have presented very logical, very sound, very convincing arguments. I still don't feel entirely comfortable with either camp. I detest abortion. I have seen the videos and the photos and I know they don't lie. I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion causes the death of a human being as surely as a bullet to the brain of any adult. But I still can't bring myself to jump on the anti-abortion bandwagon. Because I am not the one who has to live with the consequences. And I have seen the consequences. I know women who had abortions and wish they had not, and women who didn't abort, but wish they had (or could have, legally). But most of the women I know who have had abortions do not regret their decision. They thought at the time, and still think, it was not necessarily the ideal choice, but that it was the best choice. They all have said they regret the circumstances, but not the abortion. I know only two women who have had multiple abortions. One of them terminated two pregnancies because her husband did not want any more children (they had two sons). When she fell pregnant once more, she refused to abort the child, and they now have a daughter. (She had her tubes tied, incidentally, when this last baby was born.) Kim says that it makes her sad to think of the two babies she aborted, but if she had delivered either of them, she would never have had Abby, so she is content with her decision. I think you have to consider that there are subsequent children walking around who would never have been born if their mothers had not had abortions. Who am I to say that those people should not exist? I am not in danger of becoming pregnant again (thank God), nor is my daughter or my three daughters-in-law. I do, however, have four granddaughters. One of them was conceived out of wedlock and her other grandparents urged their daughter to have a secret abortion, rather than risk friends/relatives reaction to an illicit pregnancy. Those people are fundamentalist Christians, and a prime example of how your opinions can change when an issue "comes home to roost", as my mother would say.

Sunta....there are most likely smaller, grass roots organizations in your area that provide direct aid (including prescription assistance) to low-income people. I worked for one for 15 years and networked with many others in the Dallas/Ft Worth area. If you call the United Way in your city/county, they can hook you up. Just be forewarned that they will try and get your money for themselves, but hang tough and only give it to an agency that will positively use it for what you want.

Thank you, Metal Band and G Lady. That accounts for 3 out of 12 (since we know how 396 voted). We can now say that only 10 people are true "pro-lifers" (by Mark's standard). I'm betting that we will hear from many of the others and they will post similar thoughts. My only argument was with Mark's unnecessarily mean (I thought) choice of words....that the people who voted pro-life would "gladly let the mother die". I know a lot of pro-life people (no surprise, since I am a cradle Catholic) and they are not people who would "gladly" witness anyone's death. If you are in favor of the death penalty, does it follow that you are thrilled to hear of a convict's execution? Of course not. I'm not sure I should get to vote on this issue anyway, since I have never been personally impacted by a disasterous pregnancy. I have been unhappy to find myself pregnant (when I already had three sons, aged 5,2, and 3 months), but not so unhappy that I would have considered aborting my daughter. I'm not sure I think men should vote, either. After all, you are never going to walk a mile in those shoes, no matter which side you're on.

Silly Rabbit....the KKK is neither a culture nor a religion. It is just a club for weirdos....kind of like Rotarians gone wild. Seriously, though...I do not, of course, condone genocide anywhere, at any time, by anyone. I do not condone honor killings, either. But one can deplore those things from afar, without believing that it is up to us (the USA) to stop them. We cannot be all things to all people, nor should we try. If we have learned one thing from the current, ill-advised war in Iraq, that should certainly be it. The United Nations is where this (honor killings) should be addressed first, I believe. Sanctions should be placed on any country that does not police itself, with regard to civil rights violations. If they are receiving foreign aid, it should stop until the situation has been dealt with. The USA should never aid and abeit a government that will not protect the rights of half its population (meaning women). The KKK operates within our borders, so that's another matter.

I have to agree with you, Elizabeth. Add to that my respect for good old American commercialism. It's a business, folks, not a public service. Is it any different from the women-only gyms? For that matter, how about the DAR....they won't let me join because I don't have an ancestor who fought in the American Revolution. Ditto for the Daughters of the Confederacy and the Daughters of the Republic of Texas. My pedigree does not fit their membership criteria, so they are allowed to exclude me. How is E Harmony any different? I think we can carry civil rights, like everything else, to the extreme. And then we will find ourselves stepping on virtually everyone's toes.

I am not rationalizing anything. And properly referenced statistics, by the way, are a perfectly valid argument in any debate. Your arguments, however, always seem to be curiously lacking in that respect. You claim to enjoy debating on the forum, and that's peachy, but you don't get to define the rules. PS....I am not what is generally considered "pro-life". I do not support abortion on demand, but neither do I lobby against it, nor do I make political choices based on a candidates stand on that issue. I am a woman. I feel for my sisters who are faced with this decision, for it is only by the grace of God that I was never one of them. I am a mother. I feel for the babies whose lives are snuffed out for the sake of mere convenience. Moreover, I am the mother of an adopted child. I know firsthand that the fruits of an unplanned pregnancy can bring immeasurable joy to the life of another woman. I am a Christian, and I hold life sacred from the moment of conception. So you see, it's not as easy as you seem to think, to take a stand, to cast a vote, to make a choice. A little consideration, and a little less nastiness for the "other side" would be nice.

So you think those 11 people (and I was not one of them, by the way) gave no thought whatsoever to the possibility of whether there was any real and valid concern for the mother's life or not? In other words, you believe that if they were faced with a definite "either or" choice - the mother or the unborn, unviable, child, they would say "let them both die". Is that your position? Maybe we could hear from those 11 people, and what their mindset was when they voted. After all, only they know for sure.

Added here because the "Edit" function still does not work properly (DAMN,DAMN,DAMN).... The poll gives these choices: 1. For Pro Life 2. For Pro Choice 3. Pro Choice only for extreme cases (ie: mothers in danger of death) Voting for number 3 could just as easily mean, "I am pro-choice only when the mother's health is at risk, or the baby is apt to be born with severe birth defects." The "ie" means "an example of" (extreme cases). It does not limit the voter's reasons to "mothers in danger of death", but merely uses that as one criteria.