BJean

The question of a woman's right to choose would be settled, since we have a strong Bill of Rights and a great Constitution, except people with a personal agenda keep trying to get it outlawed for women to be able to take charge of their personal medical decisions. I understand your desire for there to be no governmental funding for abortions. However it is a medical problem and all people should be able to have access to the same kind of medical care in this country. The religious right have argued for decades that sex education should be left to the parents, that birth control should not be distributed to teenagers, and that everyone should insist that their children just abstain from having sex until they are married. What they won't admit is that those things don't work, except to ensure that there will be plenty of babies having babies. Obviously many of the religious right have less of a problem with young kids having babies than they do with their kids having unprotected sex.

Kat said: "There is more to having a good life than simply having more.....whether it be kids, or toys." Now that's a statement worth quoting!!

I totally agree with green, you have an exceptional attitude and your son is fortunate to have such a sharp mom!

gadget, that is an entirely different situation. It is in no way the same as far as I'm concerned. rodriguez: I did not mean to be insensitive! I had completely forgotten that you have a handicapped child. I want you to know that I think you are wonderful for being such a loving and caring mother. If I had a handicapped child or one who was damaged in any way, I would cherish him or her and would do everything I could for him, just like you do. I was only saying that if I had a choice of whether or not to prevent a handicapped child from being born in the first place, that I would choose not to do it for his or her sake. It is very personal and hard for some people to understand. But I am a very empathetic person and it is physically painful to watch someone suffer.

This is going to be a very unpopular rant, but I believe that one parent should stay home with preschool age children and that people really shouldn't consider having children if they are unable to take care of them themselves. My reasons are many but not the least of which is the fact that really great daycare workers are hard to find. Many of the good-sized institutions hire poorly educated and unskilled warm bodies to take care of the children, who are often given the minimum care and attention. I can follow this with horror stories but I won't bore you. On the other hand, mostly, my niece has 3 children and has never stayed home and never plans to stay home, nor does her husband. Their children seem to be great little beings, who seem to be well-adjusted and loved, but who do have colds and runny noses constantly. I know that I'm probably being thought of as a two-headed monster right now, but nobody can care for children like the parents. And I tend to think that we do, as a society, require too many material things at the expense of our babies. Btw, I was a single mother whose child spent long days with hired hands while I worked. (Until I married my second husband.)

So you have experience with one preemie. That hardly compares with Octomom's situation or the care that is involved with 8 preemies!!! We had twin preemies and until they were older, it required more than one person feeding and changing their diapers, about every 1.5 hours. It was only possible for one person to do it if the other baby is allowed to cry for the length of time a feeding and changing takes. And preemies take longer to feed than normal babies. I could never allow a tiny little baby to cry unattended for that long. When they get bigger it isn't so critical, but not when they're that small and dependent. Taking care of 6 children and 8 preemie babies is nearly unthinkable to me. It in no way compares to having 8 or 10 children who have some space between them. It is overwhelming just trying to calculate what will be required to see that the babies' physical needs are met, and the emotional side of it is a whole 'nuther ballgame. The fact that they know now how important it is for mother and baby to bond, and using aids like a piece of clothing and scented hand lotion is amazing!

There is no question in my mind what I would do if I were preggers with a handicapped child. It is unfair, in my estimation, to bring a child into the world who will have to deal with limitations of those kinds. It isn't at all about the convenience or inconvenience to me, or the love that I might have for one of my own offspring even though he/she were seriously handicapped. It is all about the child and the quality of his or her life. If we are to really consider what life will be like for the child, we shouldn't want anyone to suffer that way. For me, it would be very selfish of me to bring a handicapped child into the world if I could prevent it. Obviously a lot of people do not feel the way I do and this is another huge issue on which anti-choice people and I disagree.

Barbara, we're "just getting the journey started." Far from 2012.

The word spellings you refer to Patty are different in different countries. And yes, I certainly understand why you think it is righteous and wonderful to take away women's rights to make their own medical decisions with regard to their reproductive organs. But I was commending you on that portion of your post where you appear to understand that women can and must do what their conscience and their circumstances tell them to do. Women are quite willing, as are most people, to answer to their own higher power for their actions, rather than answering to yours or some other person who feels they are religiously superior.

Heh, heh, heh. Fair enough, plain!

Yes, yes, yes. You're absolutely right. Since our beliefs are on opposite ends of the spectrum, we will never agree on this issue. That is why I totally agree with your statement below: "...I think that every woman needs to consider what their own conscience speaks to them, and do accordingly." With that one statement you have encapsulated the pro-choice position perfectly. Because the ONLY way every woman can consider with their own conscience what they should do, is if they are allowed, by law, to do so. Furthermore, I respect your beliefs and the feelings you expressed in your statement when you said: "I can only hope to convey the message that every individual life is worthy of respect, despite how it came into being. Because I feel strongly that life begins at conception, I will continue to share my views with those considering abortion, for the babys sake." And I am glad that you are free to do that at each and every opportunity you have. This has been a good dialogue. I believe that we actually have come to an understanding here, patty.

lellow- I think you're right on about Australia's support of the U.S. involvment in Iraq. And I believe that the other countries who sent troops were similarly motivated to back our government. Everyone was sympathetic because of 9/11. But it was all very political. The fact was that most countries did not feel that it was the right thing to do and that is why they refused to support Bush and refused to send their people into that war. It has been said that Bush and his peeps believed that there were WMD's and that's why he insisted on bringing his astonishing night of "shock and awe" down on the people of Bagdad. The fact of the matter is that good intelligence reports said that those weapons were not there. He just refused to accept those reports and saw to it that someone got him some data to support his WMD theory so that he could justify bombing the hell out of that country. It's interesting how some people like to re-write history. That may work after 30 or 40 years, but when you have so many people who were present when it took place, it is pretty hard to pull off.

Obama gets a A+ because I do not believe that any candidate in recent history could be doing a better job of handling the mess that has been left after the Bush administration's departure. It's like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We gotta rebuild and it isn't in just one area, it's EVERYWHERE!

plain you seem kinda silly claiming that those who support Obama and criticize Bush are spouting propaganda. But all the stuff you say is the God's honest truth, right? You've bought into the Republican spin just as thoroughly as any of us have the Democratic spin. And there is nothing that you've said that is convincing regarding Bush's intelligence (his personal or his government). We've listened to all the Republican explanations and denials and promises and we've lived through them. We've seen what has happened under the Bush administration. It's not something we've read about or assumed. We aren't guessing about what we're saying. So to argue it at this point is pointless. If you continue to believe what you're saying, then why argue with you? The evidence has come to bite you in the butt and you're still living on the lies and disinformation as far as we're concerned.

I wasn't paying close attention when she was on Dr. Phil's show, but I thought I heard her mention that she was using her student loan to live on and when Dr. Phil told her that she isn't supposed to be using a student loan to live on. She said oh, she didn't know that. You know she has gotten a heckofa lot of mileage out of saying she didn't know stuff. I don't think that Phil used the term fraud, but I got the impression from what he said that it could get her into trouble. At least like what someone else mentioned, I believe that they could up the interest rate and possibly demand a faster repayment schedule if she isn't using it for school.

Now I know why green started calling you battygreen. "Marriage" is a governmentally recognized and controlled institution. The laws apply differently to "married" people than to single people. For you to want to deny "marriage" to people just because you do not approve of their lifestyle, is gross discrimination. To want our government to exclude a segment of the population by denying them the right to be married is simply wrong. It is discrimination against people - people who are citizens just like you and me. Keep your religious marriage out of it, if you like. But until the government stops using the term "marriage" it is not solely a religious union in the United States, as you claim. Under the law, it can be just a civil marriage or it can be a civil and a religious marriage combined, but a religious ceremony by itself cannot be considered a legal marriage in the U.S. So with regard to the law - marriage should absolutely be legal between two consenting adults, gay, lesbian, heretosexual, black, white, yellow, red - and all of the above. If you want to make the term "marriage" exclusive to religion and certain churches, then your job is to go about changing that law. But,as it stands, you have no right to discriminate against human beings just because you believe that God, if he were here, would deny something or other that you say he doesn't like, to certain people in our society. And your attitude is exactly why all those laws that you want included or excluded based upon your religious beliefs, have absolutely no place in this country - land of the free, home of the brave. And trust me, all of us who voted for President Obama hope against hope that we get what we voted for. God Bless America!

Yes, I get that you believe that it isn't right. Science tells us that a fertilized egg does consist of living cells. Living cells represent life. But a few cells, living or not, are not a human being and they do not have all the rights and privileges that a human being has. That would be an implausible and impracticable scenario. You and I differ on two very important counts: 1) That God has decreed that every fertilized egg must come to fruition and 2) it does not matter what the circumstances are when a sperm penetrates an egg. Oh, and most importantly 3) that every woman has the right to make her own decisions when it comes to her reproductive organs.

I totally understand your viewpoint, Kat! I agree that he very often does sound condescending. As I get older, I've found that I prefer honesty to people trying to sugarcoat everything. I happen to agree with his assessment of people and relationships fairly often so it isn't too surprising that he doesn't get under my skin that much. Besides, to tell the truth he played football for Tulsa U. and I'm from the Tulsa area so I admit that I cut him some slack on that basis alone. Seriously though I do think that watching someone be so brutally honest with people can be a good thing for us to see these days. (If we can get over our anger at the messinger.)

Patty sez: "The main focus is on the embryo more so than the mother simply because the embryo can not defend himself and the mother is the one who is doing the deed." (Emphasis mine) After all you have read here, you still can't understand that a pregnancy is not always because the mother chose to have sex? An embryo is what it is. There is nothing to learn that would change people's minds who believe in a woman's right to choose. We actually KNOW what a fertilized egg is. We are not bringing up a question about it or debating it because we are unsure of what a fertilized egg is. Anti-choice folks are making a claim that an embryo is a living, breathing human being with all the rights of a fully developed person. All of science and medicine tells us exactly what a fertilized egg is. And it is not a separate human being. What you're talking about is your belief that a fertilized egg, or an embryo, should have the right to stay in a woman's womb (or that a fertilized egg should be allowed to continue its' development with no interference from the woman) until the baby is delivered after it is fully developed. I respect your right to believe that if you choose to. I am not suggesting that anyone should have an abortion. I'm suggesting that it is not you who should decide whether a woman can terminate a pregnancy or not. Your beliefs are different than many other women's (and men's). Everyone has every right to their own beliefs and everything in medicine and science and mother nature tells us that a woman has the right to determine whether she will be a mother or not. Today's woman didn't invent abortion. And she didn't invent birth control. Those things were invented thousands of years ago. And they were invented for many very, very good reasons.

No obesity doesn't ALWAYS affect anyone else. What Octomom did will ALWAYS affect those poor, innocent children. I understand why you made the analogy. I just disagree that it makes any sense. You are trying to make the people who post here see that they aren't perfect and that they shouldn't be calling Octomom names and saying that she's nuts. I think Octomom has set herself up to be called names, like irresponsible and reality deprived, and I dont understand how you can continue to argue that she just made a mistake or that she can't understand the consequences of her actions. If she can't or didn't understand the consequences of her actions - from day one of her first IVF - then she is out of touch with reality and she has no business bringing an innocent little being into the world. The truth is that she is a self-centered, unbalanced, freak of nature. That's why she's getting all the publicity. It sure isn't because she just happened to mother 14 children!

I think you're right on too, Beth! And everybody wants to blame everyone else for their problems. Maybe it's because we've become such a litigious society that everyone is afraid to take responsibility for their own actions these days. Don't know what caused it, but it sure has gotten out of hand.

I totally agree luluc!

Anybody want to put money on whether Nadya's mother's divorce was influenced by Nadya's "activities"? And I get a little tired of people trashing Dr. Phil. He doesn't force anyone to come on that show. And he puts them through at least one interview before the show. They know what is going to happen before they ever walk on that set. Dr. Phil is a very straightforward guy. He tells it like it is. He does more for people through his show than most psychologists do in months or even years of counseling. Yeah, they are put in an uncomfortable position when he points out what their behavior is all about. But the reason so many people with problems agree to go on there is because he gets the job done. I think that few of us and very few psychologists are equipped with the brain power to cut to the chase like he does. I agree that he can be very abrasive, but what's more important figuring out what's wrong and how to fix it, or skirting the issues and being gratuitous and patronizing?

An analogy between becoming fat and having kids is an analogy that doesn't hold up. When you eat and gain weight, you harm yourself. When you bring 6 children in the world using IVF, you certainly understand that having IVF doesn't just affect you. It affects all the lives that are as a result of the IVF. And furthermore, once you've had one child (much less 6) you understand the needs of those children. To have 6 children with no father, no gainful employment, no means to give the children the kind of care they need and deserve is irresponsible and obsessive, at best. To have 7 or 8 more is just plain nuts. To become obese could be considered obsessive and irresponsible but it only harms the individual therefore it isn't an proper analogy to what Octomom did by harming 14 sweet, innocent little babies.

rodriquezequal: the people who oppose women's rights with regard to abortion are not as concerned with the woman as they are with the fertilized egg or tissue that has been implanted in her, against her will. They may claim that they are, but their very actions and assertions point to their main focus being the embryo. And you're very right. Not everyone who chooses an abortion thinks of the fertilized egg as a blob. She probably said that because I characterized it in that fashion in one of my posts. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone's fertilized egg, but up to a certain point in development, I believe that it is a blob of tissue. Human tissue, yes, potential for life, yes, full human being with all the rights that are guaranteed by our government, absolutely no way - not in the very early stages of embryonic development.