gadgetlady

Here's a link to something I just posted (in a different thread) that relates to the issue of abortion; more than that, though, it's a victory story for the relationships established on LBT: http://www.lapbandtalk.com/f7/lbt-changes-lives-non-weight-related-lbt-story-79207/#post1039816

I have an awesome story to share that has an LBT connection. As many of you know, I have been very vocal on the abortion thread. Back in March of this year we were debating about whether women understand fetal development and whether ultrasounds change mothers’ minds about abortion. One of the LBTers began PM'ing me about the issue and we developed a friendship off-LBT. Fast forward a few months, and I received an email from her indicating that fetal facts and ultrasounds do indeed change minds. It turns out the daughter of a co-worker of hers was faced with an unplanned pregnancy (her second; the first one was aborted). She went in for a pregnancy test and the nurse, mistaking her arrival with her boyfriend for a desire to be pregnant, gave her fetal information (what stage the baby was in, the beating heart, the development process, etc.) and showed her the ultrasound. She immediately realized what she was carrying and decided not to abort (and, sadly, regretted her first abortion). However, she didn’t want to keep the baby. So my LBT friend connected her with a couple who was looking to adopt. When she emailed me to tell me the story, I responded and told her that if anything like that ever happens again (not that it’s common, but it could happen), I have a dear friend who has been trying, unsuccessfully, to get pregnant for years (including failed IVF, a miscarriage, and currently a foray into the foster care system, which takes about 2 years); she’s turning 40 in November and has been very discouraged about ever being able to have a baby. Last week, my LBT friend emailed me that the adoptive parents had dropped out and they were looking for new adoptive parents, and was my friend still interested? Literally by the end of the day, my friend and the biological mother had connected (verbally and emotionally) and my friend is adopting the baby! Jack is due December 31st. So I wanted to share – out of a controversial thread with many differing opinions came a connection that allowed a baby to be placed for adoption with a loving and deserving couple – lives and families changed that would otherwise never have met had it not been for LBT. We never know how the connections we make will affect our futures and the futures of others! :grouphug:

Barney Frank: "There needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending" and "There are a lot of very rich people out there we can tax and recover some of this money." Incredible. "Deficit fear has to take a second seat." [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k]YouTube - Barney Frank: Plenty of rich people that we can tax[/ame]

This was posted after I presumably spewed my dogma, not after four people who agree with you spewed their dogma. So I still see it as directed at the pro-life position in general and me, specifically, because it was posted in response to something I said.

I'm still fuming. Four people who disagree with Sandy's post don't get attacked for posting their POV about the issue, but when I do I am spewing and driving people away? Sandy posted something. People responded. I was one of them. If you don't like it, don't read it.

I have a right to address issues in the thread in which they were posted. I wasn't planning on saying any more on the issue because there is another thread dedicated to it, but the issue was brought up here so I addressed it here. How dare you accuse me of spewing dogma which degrades people -- just because you disagree with me! There are plenty of people who have posted on both sides of the issue, but I'm the one spewing hourly dogma which degrades people and drives them away? I did not bring up abortion on this thread. So stop attacking me.

Wow. There was a discussion early on in the abortion thread about abortionists who had become pro-life. There was a HUGE misunderstanding and a lot of name calling because I was talking about the fact that some abortionists have changed their opinion and are now pro-life. What it boiled down to, after many days (possibly weeks, I don't recall) of ugly posts was that the person I was talking to misinterpreted the word "abortionist" -- he thought I meant those in favor of abortion, not those who performed abortions. The point of what I'm saying is that words matter, and how we say things matters as well. While I agree with Sandy on this issue (obviously), I don't think it's a good idea to call people who are pro-abortion, "baby killers." I believe they support abortion, but I don't believe they participate in the actual act (necessarily). The waters can get a little muddy when you have politicians that fight to legalize (or keep legal) the procedure, because one could make the claim that without them, there wouldn't be abortion (or it would be reduced). We call Hitler a killer, but do we know if he actually participated in the individual killing -- or just ordered it? I don't know. We hold Manson responsible for the deaths that weren't at his hand, but at the hand of his followers. There is something of a correlation there between these issues and those who believe abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life. Obama is, I think, an unusual case, because of his opposition to laws that would require babies born alive after botched abortions to not receive mandatory life-saving techniques. Some will argue that this is not what he did, but if you look at the voting record and the language of the bills he opposed, it's quite clear. His position on the born-alive infant protection bill in Illinois is why I think he inspires such vehement language on this matter.

This is a GREAT question, issue, discussion topic. I think negativity is in the eye of the beholder. Is it negative if something points out the truth but isn't very pretty? Because I believe both campaigns think they're not being negative, and both opponents believe the other campaign is being negative. Someone told me Sarah Palin hit this on the head the other day (I didn't hear it directly -- just heard about it) -- a reporter asked her about all of the GOP negative ads and her opinion of them, and she asked them to tell her which ads. They said, "the negative ones." She asked, "Which ones in particular? Because if it's true, can it be called negative?" According to the person I heard this from, the reporter couldn't name a specific ad that was negative.

You guys crack me up. You think by not saying my name but saying "some people" that you're not attacking the person but the idea? If you don't think I've participated in healthy debate, why don't you go back and review the many pages of this thread? I've asked questions, answered questions, and responded to every challenge posed. Yes, I think I'm right. But so do you.

And everyone on the opposite side of the fence thinks their interpretation of the Constitution is right and mine (and everyone on my side of the fence) is wrong. BTW, as I pointed out, Alan Dershowitz is a long-standing liberal abortion advocate and thinks Roe was poorly decided. So it's not just "me".

I'm not quite sure who you're talking to, but if you're talking to me please note that I did not call for the closure of this thread; I have also apologized for saying something that didn't need to be said.

Personally, I think closing threads is useless as the opinions (and personality conflicts) just erupt elsewhere. But it's up to everyone else.

When you have two groups who disagree vehemently on issues, you're bound to have conflict. It doesn't necessarily need to be negative unless people start getting personal -- or even if they start calling the politicians involved names -- and then it can ramp up very quickly, unfortunately. I've seen some doozies from both sides, and, as you know, I've been involved in some doozies as well. But you have to remember that while there are some who are entrenched in their position, such as myself and many others on this board, there are still "undecideds". Rhetoric doesn't often affect them, but maybe some of the facts that come through here and there will. I've been very happy to explain my position in logical, clearly though-out posts and PMs, to several LBTers. One of these days (hopefully soon -- I need to get permission first) I'm going to share a positive story about something terrific that came out of a very hotly debated issue and often name-calling thread on this board. You don't always know what's going on behind the scenes :Dancing_biggrin:

THAT was a typo (I started to type "I shouldn't have taken the bait"). Sorry. I meant I should have ignored. I would go back and fix but with your quote immortalizing my typo :party: the thread wouldn't make sense if I did. Thank you for wanting to believe in positive intentions :Dancing_biggrin:

You're right, KYBandChick. I shouldn't have ignored the attacks and not said anything at all. I do apologize to anyone I offended, including BJean.

And hers weren't? Just stating the truth. I do rarely read her posts. Sorry if I offended you.

I understand that some people may disagree with the interpretation that many people, including me, have about the 14th Amendment. But I can't imagine what you're referring to that are "big made up lies." I can tell you it's a fact that Norma McCorvey says she was not gang-raped but that the sex with her boyfriend was consensual (if you care to read her testimony to a Senate Subcommittee, here it is: norma2.98.html). I can tell you it's a fact that Doe v. Bolton guaranteed abortion on demand through 9 months of pregnancy for any reason. I don't know what else you might be referring to. I am not a casual observer to this debate. My graduate school thesis was on the political and legal aspects of Roe and Doe and how Griswold affected the two. I don't willfully post inaccurate information here or anywhere, and I attempt to back everything I say up with references and facts. When someone does post inaccurate or questionable information, I ask for documentation (and rarely get it). The Supreme Court doesn't always get things right. Sometimes they are wrong on right-wing issues, and sometimes they are wrong on left-wing issues. That's not a question; it's a fact. I believe anyone would be hard-pressed to tell me that Dred Scott was properly decided.

Not really. I rarely read yours.

That's quite a statistic. Wow.

My cause for concern comes from his support of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which opposes parental rights. I agree that banning homeschooling would be a difficult task; it is not my only concern about Obama and certainly not my biggest concern, but it is a concern nevertheless. Devana asked me what I was concerned about, and this is one of 'em.

The opinions of many at the New York Times are often biased. But direct quotes from people aren't an opinion; they're fact. In case you doubt that his quote ''I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough" actually means he doesn't regret setting bombs and feels they didn't do enough, how about this: So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said. You can continue to wear blinders and believe this really means he's repentant about what he did, when he said he doesn't want to "discount the possibility" of doing it again, the "it" he was referring to is something other than terrorist activities, and that he was really talking about a discount at the local mall in his wife's favorite shoe store, but, again, I will take the man at his word. After all, he's exhibited in the past that he means what he says and he says what he means.

Jack posted some videos which you didn't watch but criticized as being diversionary tactics. You stated that diversionary tactics are lies and misrepresentations meant to divert people away from honest issues. I stated that the videos weren't a diversionary tactic, had good information, and weren't lies and misrepresentations -- but you wouldn't know that because you didn't watch them. I think I read both posts quite well.

Here's the direct quote, on September 11, 2001 (the date is significant as well): ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' (see No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen - New York Times for reference) I did get it right.

He speaks very much to honest issues. I have no doubt that you will disagree with his position on those issues, but his background and his arguments are very insightful (regardless of whether you agree with him or not). I don't see how you can call this a "diversion" (meaning, in your words, lies or misrepresentations) when you didn't even listen to it.

You should listen. Sometimes it helps to get another POV.