gadgetlady

I wish it were. He's the First Born (caps intended) and knows more than anyone. So he dismisses his hypocrisy with a shrug, not to be discussed. I don't bother trying anymore.

My dear brother is an environmentalist wacko. Donates to Greenpeace, buys into it hook, line, and sinker. BUT when his daughters were babies, he used disposable diapers. Why? Because they were easier. It's so easy to point fingers except when it comes to our own convenience.

We've pretty much covered every controversial topic known to man in R&R. You just have to dig!

Glad to hear it. As for me, I haven't been sleeping well because it's so darn cold!! BTW, I do suggest reading the articles in case all you did was read the titles. There's some very interesting info in there.

I've read two interesting articles recently about climate change: Newsmax.com - Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

Regardless, 1.66% isn't "relatively common" at all. In a society that places a high value on men over women, you find that girl babies are chosen for abortion significantly more often than boys. This happens in other countries (such as India and many others) which haven't had such dramatic policies like China's on-child-per-family. Societal sex-selection in favor of female babies is virtually non-existent. You see, despite the claim that it's just a blob of tissue in the mother's womb, it's either a boy baby or a girl baby growing in there. And if sexist people can determine that it's a girl baby and therefore kill it, we continue to have more social issues develop. You'd think feminists would be concerned about the killing of so many innocent females . . . Equal rights for unborn women!

Aussiechik, I'm so sorry for what you've had to go through. Please know that no one wants you tormenting yourself and your family. I do, however, want to correct a few things: abortion is legal, at least in the US, up to 9 months of pregnancy. The baby has a beating heart at 21 days after conception, which is typically around the time a mother finds out she is pregnant. Within 6-7 weeks after conception, brain waves can be detected, all vital organs are present, and fingers and toes can be seen as the baby is moving his arms and legs around. At 9 weeks, the baby responds to touch and can grasp an object. The average abortion is done at between 8 and 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, the baby is fully formed and only needs to grow.

Interesting that China faces a serious shortage of women nowadays because of their forced abortion and strict one-child policies. Because sons are so valued and they can only have one child, many either abort their daughters (if they know they're having a girl) in the hopes of a son, or if they do have a daughter, they practice infanticide (a post-birth abortion, as it has the same effect). A Shortage of Girls From http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/omicinski/069.htm: In China, pre-natal testing has a more sinister purpose. Because sons are more prized than daughters in Chinese culture — and have been for centuries — an easily available, state-supplied abortion often puts daughters quickly out of the picture. When they feel it necessary, Chinese authorities take matters into their own hands. Last year, Canadian and British newspapers gave far more play than American dailies to the shocking story of how family planning officials in Hubei Province snatched away a child being hidden by a father with other children and drowned it in a nearby rice paddy. These practices are little different than the Aryanization and euthanasia programs of Adolf Hitler, which the world also ignored in the 1930s.

IF it is a danger to your health to carry a baby to term and you don't want any more children, wouldn't you prefer to not have to worry about birth control or accidental pregnancy? This doesn't seem like rocket science to me. I am 41 and don't want any more children so I am considering some form of permanent birth control so I don't have to think about it anymore. Not that I would kill my child should I accidentally become pregnant, but why not avoid the situation all together if I can? I am sorry for your friend and her family. To my knowledge there is no correlation between pregnancy and cervical cancer (I'm not sure if you were trying to imply that her unintended pregnancy was a contributing factor to her cancer). I don't know what your definition of "relatively common" is. The incidence of Down Syndrome in women age 40 is 1 in 60, or 1.66%. I don't consider that "relatively common" by any stretch of the imagination.

Why? Because you'd prefer that women still die in large numbers during childbirth? Or because you like to use the excuse that women die in large numbers to defend your argument?

That's not what you said. To clarify my feelings on the matter, I believe that there are consequences that go along with all of the actions we choose to take. One of the consequences of having sex is pregnancy. One of the consequences of gambling is losing your money. One of the consequences of driving your car is you may get into an accident. Now you can choose to use birth control, only play the penny-slots, and buy a car with airbags and always wear your seat belt, but you still have to recognize the fact that there is still a chance of the consequences happening. If you can't accept the consequences, you shouldn't choose to participate in the action. I have no desire to police anyone's activities -- certainly not yours! -- nor do I think sex is wrong. If it is dangerous to your health to be pregnant, then get yourself sterilized. It's really not a stretch of the imagination here. Did the government have the ultimate decision when, in pro-life laws prior to 1972, there was an exception for the life of the mother?

These are two different issues. A doctor nicking an artery during a c-section isn't a foreseeable situation, nor is it a pre-existing condition. What we were talking about is a mother choosing to abort because she has a health condition that would cause her to die if they carried the baby to term. THAT situation is what I said was extremely rare. You (and your brother) are absolutely right about women dying during childbirth pre-modern medicine. Thankfully, our world is very different with the advent of modern medical techniques. Which is precisely why there are precious few situations where a mother's life is physically threatened if she chooses to bring her baby to term.

That's what you're falling back on? That I don't like sex and I want people to abstain for the rest of their lives? Give me a break! Wasn't I the one who told green that it was unconscionable that she couldn't find a doctor to sterilize her? Just for the record: I don't think sex is "wrong", as you state I do above, and I don't think people need to "abstain from sex for the rest of [their] lives." Quite a red herring there.

In the 1980's, former US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, "The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent." Realistically, with medical technology advanced to the state it is and with babies being able to survive outside the womb as early as they do, this is a non-issue. Where or when it is an issue, pro-life laws wouldn't prevent abortion in this case as they would consider it trading one physical life for another. No, the bottom line on this entire issue is that we should not kill innocent people because of one person's mental state of mind or her socio-economic issues.

No, I said we go off and kill people like criminals who are guilty of heinous crimes, soldiers kill people during war, and people are accidentally killed in accidents. There is no circumstance that I can think of where we deliberately kill an innocent person to get them out of our way. We don't kill the homeless guy on the street because we don't like him. We don't kill to solve social problems. Women don't have abortions because they're concerned they're going to die if they bring the baby to term. In cases where the mother's physical life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy, no law would prevent an abortion. These cases are virtually nil.

Of course it's impossible for everyone to be equal here on earth. That doesn't mean we go off killing the ones we perceive to have less value. Neither life "trumps" the other. The mother won't die by bringing the baby to term.

I understand the reasoning about comparative value, but it doesn't hold water with me. The baby hasn't done anything to warrant the death penalty, he or she is not a combatant in a war, and his or her death is not due to an accident. It is a premeditated action on the part of one human being. It is the decision by one person that another person's life, and a 100% innocent person at that, is just too inconvenient for the person in power to allow the innocent person to live. Now I understand there are varying degrees of convenience and hardship in the situation of an unplanned pregnancy. But the bottom line is we as a society and we as individual human beings should not be killing innocent people simply because they are in our way. And we shouldn't be killing innocent people to solve social problems.

The problem is once a woman is pregnant, she is a mother and the baby exists. The only choice she has at that point is the choice between a live baby and a dead baby.

Wow. Children aren't commodities we buy or sell, or pets we keep or put down. They are human beings. You have a right to do whatever you want with your body. But when your rights infringe on those of another, in this case the child, then others should have the right to step in and protect the child -- especially since he or she can't speak for himself or herself.

I agree with you. I never said it would solve those problems. A good marriage is more than just monogamy. It requires many other components. I was simply talking about the benefits of virginity until marriage and monogamy afterwards would garner. That being said, I think there actually is some dysfunction rooted in loose sexual practices. These practices can cause disharmony, distrust, jealousy, and many other dysfunctional feelings -- which can lead to dysfunctional behaviors. Please understand: I am not saying this is a cure-all. I do believe, however, that the practice of virginity until marriage and monogamy afterwards can not only solve many social (e.g. single parent families) and physical (e.g. STDs) issues but it can also have an impact on the success of marriage.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that the benefits of virginity until marriage and then monogamy afterwards dramatically outweigh the alternative. If everyone lived this way, we'd have no (or minuscully few) STD's, no children born out of wedlock, dramatically fewer abortions, children raised in two-parent nuclear homes, no extra-marital affairs, minimal sexual attachment between unmarried people (and therefore less heartbreak), the list can go on. Now you may argue people have the right to do whatever, sleep with whoever they want, there's nothing wrong with it, why are they flawed because of it, etc., but it is obvious to me that the standard is vastly superior. Why do you have to sleep with someone other than your spouse to "live your life as a normal human being"? It works for plenty of people. Are they abnormal?

I meant sexual purity, or virginity, until marriage. I assumed everyone would know what I meant. "Sexual purity" and "virginity" are less elegant terms for the same thing.

Ain't that the truth. I wrote that quick post in response to a very sad situation with some friends of ours. We had met them on a vacation, became fast friends a year ago, and were in their town last week. When we went to visit with them, he didn't show up. Turns out he had an affair and left his gorgeous wife (literally) and two darling children (girl age 9 and boy age 14, charming and responsible kids). I was reeling all night. He absolutely destroyed a perfectly good family for a self-admitted mid-life crisis. That being said, while some people may think I live in a fantasy world for saying what I said (purity until marriage, monogamy afterwards), I can tell you from personal experience that while it IS the (an?) ideal, it CAN certainly work and I believe in my heart it is the goal to shoot for. Just because the mark is often missed doesn't mean we shouldn't shoot for it. I wholeheartedly agree. If people didn't enter into marriage with the idea that it's a disposable institution, maybe both parties would behave a little more responsibly. My dh and I are marriage mentors at our church, and we teach the kiddos (sheesh, they're young!) to enter the marriage with the mindset that divorce is not a possibility; from there, build a great marriage with what you enter the relationship with. We also have them take a good hard look at things like personality mesh, finances, expectations, etc. so as to dispel as many romantic notions as possible. That is not to say that some people just "go south", as in the disheartening example of our friends above. Although I applaud you for your responsibility in this area, I believe you have sold yourself short. I understand, based on some of your posts about your childhood, how you would never want to be a parent. But, quite honestly, I think you would have made a terrific one. The crap we go through has the potential to make us stronger and more responsible and I believe you would have surprised yourself had you opted to be a parent.

OK, I have a solution: purity until marriage, monogamy afterwards. Parentage and child support issues never rear their ugly heads. Problem solved!

The country will never be unified under anyone. The goals and values of the two groups are so diametrically opposed that it is, IMO, impossible. And the greed runs on both sides