BJean

You're wrong! There has been a lot of criticism of movie stars selling their kids in that way. And just because you CAN make a buck, or someone else does it, doesn't make it correct to do it if it is unethical or detrimental to those who are being used. The public argument the stars make for allowing their children to be photographed and exposing them to all kinds of media coverage is that the paparazzi is going to get pictures anyway, so why not profit from it. People can shelter their children from things that can hurt them in the long run and there are a lot of famous people who do not choose to use their children to make a few bucks. (Definition of a few bucks is relative, of course.)

I confess I did not watch the 911 video. But if she truly said she was going to kill heself over and over, it is very hard to believe that the woman isn't crazy. What type of person threatens to kill herself when she is distressed? Do you know anyone who says that openly and so often? Seriously, do you have a friend who says that? What would you do if your friend or family member said that? There are lots of ways to convince a 911 operator that you are desperate and afraid and distressed because your child is missing - threatening to kill yourself is not normal in that situation. If you threaten to kill yourself more often than not, people take it seriously. They seek psychiatric help for you. It seems that the woman needs to be committed, evaluated and treated. Obviously there are many lives at stake here; hers and her babies.

The Congress is expected to wise up and make changes in campaign funding and establish some kind of term limits on their length of time in office? That's like putting the dog in charge of his feeding bowl. Yes, I will admit that I have been very surprised at some of Obama's appointments and I am distressed that he wants to expand our presence in Afghanistan. Tell me that you Republicans weren't a bit surprised and disapointed in some of the things that your president did while he was in office over the past 8 years. If you weren't, that's shocking to me. On a positive note regarding our current president, I believe that he actually does care about this country - for gosh sakes it's his country too! And some of his choices have been made because he is trying very hard to reunite people in this country and to limit, at least to some extent, the very partisan way we have been controlled for so long. It would be great if we could get away from the 2 party system. The Republican party is so fractured at this point that maybe it could happen. Of course we all thought that the Democratic party was going to fall apart and create another choice for us, but it didn't. So it's hard to be optimistic about the possibility of changing from a strictly 2 party system. But best case senario, Obama leads us out of this horrible slump and we get on a course that takes us all in a better direction - one that creates jobs and better schools and better medical care, and one that is fairer to the majority of Americans. If that happens we can all regain our sense of pride about what we thought our country stands for.

I really think all the B.S. about having children to fulfill something that was lacking in her childhood is just a line she thought up to try to justify what she's done. And even if it were true in some way, (who ever claims to have a perfect childhood?) she's being very hurtful to her parents in stating something like that publically. Her real motives are to get lots of personal attention and making money off her babies. The more outrageous she is, the bigger the opportunity to have her face on People magazine and have wealthy folks come to her rescue financially. I can't imagine that anyone is surprised that she would turn down the care and feeding of those infants if it meant she had to promise not to use them in her quest for attention and wealth.

Obama promised to end the war in Iraq. He did not promise that it would be ended within the first few months or even the first year. What he did promise was a well thought out withdrawal of our troops. He never intended to just bring everybody and everything home immediately. That would be practically impossible and not in our best interests. Having read a lot of your posts during the election process Plain, I am pleased to read your posts here now and to know that you are one of the people who is trying to wait and see and to possibly consider that change is what we need. Not more of the same, which is what the Republicans promised during their campaign. I agree that the spending package is scary to think about. It may not be the answer. But it may also be the only answer. The U.S. isn't the only country trying to stimulate their economy in this way. Obama is a very intelligent man and he has done his homework. Hopefully the plan has merit and it will get the job done. We tried not taxing the rich so that they would employ Americans and invest in improving this country. But giving the wealthy all the breaks that we did, obviously did not work the way Bush and Reagan and others have always promised that it would. The rich just kept trying to find ways to get richer and our country is in one heck of a mess due primarily to greed. So yeah Obama wants to upset the apple cart. What other new better plan was ever on the table?

OMG!!! 8 eggs and no sausage!!!! *snort, honk, snort* ROFLMAO!! I'm afraid PG is right - the whole world wants them to put her on TV. It's like viewing a train wreck. You're horrified at what you see but it's hard to look away. What Octomom has done probably stems from the same mindset of the Catholic Church which preaches to all their parishoners that they should go forth and multiply. It brings more warm bodies to the flock and more bodies bring in more money and more money helps pay the light bill at the Vatican. It is a very selfish and self-serving philosophy to those of us who value the lives of babies more than perpetuating our own legacy or paying the light bill.

You notice the article didn't say that manslauter charges WERE brought, just that the District Attorney might possibly consider something like that or maybe even something else. For all we know the person quoted is anti-choice and the journalist is trying to sensationalize it for his/her own purposes. These are the kinds of things that anti-choice people love to trot out. They just don't hold water and their credibility suffers. Even if some D.A. somewhere thought it was justifiable to charge someone with murder or manslaughter in the case of a woman who was into a 4 month pregnancy, it doesn't mean that the case would hold up in court or that the D.A. is even right. It's like Mindy said so directly and to the point, this is a crock of manure.

No one is saying that they want to make picketing (quietly or otherwise) outside a Planned Parenthood office illegal. But women have the right to choose whatever they believe is the proper course of action for them. They may choose to have an unwanted child and keep it or they may choose to have it and then give it up for adoption. They may find themselves in a situation where having a child is simply impossible and they choose to have a procedure that will terminate the pregnancy. Every case is different, every circumstance is different and the health of every pregnant woman is different. That is why it is necesssary for us to allow women to make these decisions for themselves. What a woman does not have a right to do is to force another woman to have an unwanted child and then give it up for adoption.

That's a very heartwarming story. You made the right choice! I am very, very happy that things worked out perfectly for you. I'm also glad that you were able to make your own choice and that no one made you do anything against your wishes. I am also very sorry that whatever Planned Parenthood person that you spoke with made the mistake of not advising you of all the alternatives that are possible in a case like yours. I can't help but wonder though if you went to them to ask specifically about abortion. I wonder if you knew that you could keep the baby OR get an abortion and so when you went there, the thing you were trying to find out about was abortion and so that is why the person at Planned Parenthood gave you that counsel. Planned Parenthood is not in the adoption business but I am surprised that they didn't tell you that keeping your baby was an alternative. But in any case, thank goodness they offered to help you get on birth control.

Don't believe all the how many Americans are for and how many Americans are against abortion stats posted above. Read it thoroughly and you will see how it is another case of playing with the numbers to further the anti-choice agenda.

People support Roe v. Wade because they do not want to make abortion illegal. People believe that unwanted, unplanned pregnancies should not be controlled by the government. People believe that thie issue of unplanned pregnancies is far too important than to clump it into one database and claim that every situation is the same and can be treated the same way under the law. Did you read the link that was posted debunking some of the propaganda that the anti-choice people trash our world with everyday? It makes claims that are legitimate, although to be sure there will be 3 or 4 counterclaims posted by the anti-choice folks. Trust me, their ducks are all in a row even though they are filled with misstatements and exaggerations. Their propaganda are so shocking that people decide that they must be real and so they are scared into joining the anti-choice movement. That is, until they or someone they know finds themselves at a point where they need to be able to make a choice for themselves. Then they understand the truth and they understand the reason why they need to be pro-choice and proud to say it. One of the most important issues is that Planned Parenthood is portrayed as being pro-abortion, which is absolutely not true. The anti-choice people have said that Planned Parenthood is pro-abortion for so long in so many ways that people now are buying it. They even picket outside Planned Parenthood offices to further negatively influence the public. These demonstrations make it so difficult for women who actually need contraceptives and education that they are often prevented from getting any help at all. Which only goes to encourage unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. Planned Parenthood works very hard to educated people about birth control and they not only offer counseling about abortion and adoption, they do everything they can to help women who become pregnant without their intent to do so. The anti-choice people have made every effort to demonize Planned Parenthood, but if there weren't organizations like it available to women, there would be many more abortions and unwanted children brought into the world. How many more studies does it take for anti-choice people to understand that preaching abstinence, telling our children that sex is verboten to any person who isn't married, are concepts that do not work to reduce unplanned pregnancies? Education about anatony and reproduction and contraceptive methods and making controceptives available to people will reduce the number of abortions. Half-truths, exaggerations or sticking our heads in the sand and distribution of information designed to further the anti-abortion cause, only creates more unplanned pregnancies and the need, in some cases, for abortions. President Obama undertands all of this and hopefully he will make it a priority to educate Americans about unplanned pregnancies by naming a council that will distribute correct information and demonstrate why women should not be kicked to the curb and condemned, but should be embraced and given choices when they have been impregnated against their wishes. If he does that, I believe the number of abortions will fall rapidly. In fact I believe that life for women in America will improve all the way around.

Carrie I hope you're right. And I also hope that his position on this particular issue doesn't cost him his life.

Deeming a fertilized egg, i.e., a clump of cells, the responsibility of "personhood" is an absolutely exteme concept that opens such a can of worms that it is not to be believed. It just shows us how nutty the anti-choice people are in their zeal to make abortion illegal again. Making abortion illegal, or claiming that a 3 day old clump of cells deserves to be recognized as a "personhood" is never going to work. Just as making abortion illegal did mot work. The reason a woman isn't charged with murder is because it is her clump of cells and she's responsible for providing an environmental anatomy capable and ready to allow a sperm to penetrate her egg and then allowing or even encouraging that fertlized egg to be nurtured and developed into a fetus and then providing the nourishment that allows the fetus to continue in its' development until it is full-term and subsequently she delivers a baby, however if at any point in that development she is unable or even unwilling to allow these physical changes to occur in her body, she cannot be charged with murder. Only after a live child is delivered and she physically murders it, is there a possiblity of her being procesuted for murder. In other words, when a murder actually occurs. If this "personhood" thing were adopted, when, where and how would they determine if the woman was a murderer if for some reason, the development during any point in this process were to cease? People are absolutely insane when it comes to the abortion issue. Fortunately most people are not so extreme and outrageous; they are much more intelligent and practical when it comes to issues of these kinds. They know that there are some things, some very personal things, that should never be legislated. Many years ago abortion was illegal and at the same time there were states where certain sexual acts between two consenting adults (including married adults) were illegal. It was a time when certain people in society annointed themselves the morality police. They thought that the Bible told them that God didn't want people to participate in certain sexual activties and so they decided that it was within their rights to pass laws making those sex acts illegal and to prosecute people who did them. Lets' not take any giant steps backward. We have learned from our mistakes. Lets' not listen to the extremists who want to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot do with our bodies because it is absolutely no one's business but our own. In other words religious, God-fearing, extremists may believe that devient sexual activities between two consenting adults is not what God intended for sexual partners and abortion may not be what God intended for women, but it is not smart or practical for those people to pass laws gainst those activities because there is an entire segment of society (the majority) who have different beliefs and are on just as high a moral ground, whether the extremists believe that or not.

I'm afraid to ask (addictive person that I am) but what are funyuns? If they're not ice cream, it's probably okay for me to know about 'em.

"I believe that most who have an abortion don't do it with an evil intent as murderers do. But I still must say that you and others who choose abortions still don't have a right to "rid a fetus from society causing its life to end" whether your intent is evil or not. God is the author of life and only He can make that choice on whether a life he started ends or not." Let's get this straight: God authors all lives, right? If that is true, why would it be okay to end any life (as in capital punishment) just because that person has made mistakes? Perhaps this dichotomy is why so many people cannot embrace fundamentalist religions that swear that they know the proper interpretation of the Bible. Many, many, many fertilized eggs never make it into the 3rd month of gestation, beating heart or not. Life at that point is extremely fragile and it is the best time for a mistake that has been made (an unwanted pregnancy, by rape, incest or whatever the reason) to be corrected. Yes, you heard that right - a mistake. Rant all you want, there is no way that God is present when a woman is brutally raped and at that moment God chooses to impregnate the woman. Or in other cases where a woman gets pregnant against her wises. It makes absolutely no sense. As was pointed out earlier, people are fallible and God does not judge harshly those who have been taken advantage of or those who make mistakes. Abortion is just as acceptible and legitimate a medical procedure as IVF. It SAVES lives. Granted, not the ones you care about. And research that may save lives, like stem cell research, is also an acceptible procedure. Some people fail to realize that we're not living in the time when the Bible was written. Life progresses, the entire earth and its' inhabitants have changed drastically in the past 2000 years. Churches have changed. Sermons have changed. Interpretations of the Bible have changed. Why doesn't God update the Bible? He's left that up to man? And yet men are wrong so much of the time as has always been true throughout the ages. Makes it tough on the fundamentalists who depend on their single-minded interpretation of a compliation of books that may have been inspired by God but that has been written by mere mortals.

OneHotMama, yeah she not only wants to look like Angelina Jolie, she wants to "act" like her too! I heard Dr. Phil tell her something like student loans aren't designed for people to use as a primary source of income. She seemed to think it was okay as long as she was aware that she had to pay it back.

plain in America we try not to allow children to starve, suffer from malnutrition and go uneducated. Yeah, it costs us. Have you seen "Slumdog Millionaire"?

Ah but there's an order of magnitude's difference between a simple fertilized egg, a teeny tiny clump of cells, and a living, breathing human being. Anti-choice folks like to say that there's no difference (except when they've decided they should be able to kill someone they believe is a murderer), but in fact the differences are incredibly obvious and the choice that a woman makes in one case vs. the decision of an adult jury in the other case are also enormous and obvious. It isn't as simple as anti-choice people would like for us to believe. And they should not be put in charge of making the choice for all women regarding their reproductive decisions. In fact, I also believe that they should not be given the choice to kill convicts. But that's just my humble opinion.

If we're going to be realistic we know somebody has to foot the bill for those children. And good people should want to help. But the cornerstone of any plan for their future should include the mother getting psychiatric help. It would be irresponsible to simply send her money and expect her to make the best decisions for the babies future. I thought that someone's post who said that the hospital cannot arbitrarily withhold the children from their mother is interesting and is the right thing. If they have doubts about her ability to care for them, they should call the proper authorities and have an assessment done. I do know that the NICU where my twin grandsons were born, refused to release the babies until someone from the hospital physically inspected and approved the car seats and until the parents had been instructed about how to care for preemies.

Yup you get a toaster because burnt toast is about the only way you're gonna get bread down! No I'm not criticizing your diet... I'm disgusted with myself that any mention of Cheetos makes me want to run up to the Q.T. and grab a bag. And I'm not talking them puny 100 cal bags. So far I haven't given into it, thank goodness. But I gotta say that I was relieved when Little Debbie Nutty Bars weren't recalled. Can't keep those in the house either, but you never know when you might really need one. I haven't seen those commericals. Does anyone besides me remember when Roseanne Barr first started with stand up, she would carry around a big bag of puffy cheetos and gnaw on them during the show?

I missed Dr. Phil yesterday but caught the last half of it. Then there was a sort of epilogue by Phil - and I'd swear that the entire production was simply a plea to get people to send money. Of course Dr. Phil sez it is all about the babies. And I don't doubt that he's concerned about them. But I think his biggest concern is about his ratings. I'm sure that these interviews made his ratings soar. It's always all about the money isn't it!

The problem I have with capital punishment is that people are fallible. Who among us is perfect? No one. So how can we ever intentionally decide that someone must die at a given time and place? Statistics from other countries just don't hold water. There are too many variables between them and us. The people who threw together those stats are probably the same people who toss around some of the way out abortion stats. I know that the people who are for the death penalty use the argument that we are having to house, clothe and feed murderers (killers). That rates right up there with people who think they should never have to pay taxes. Sure they want public works including police and firemen. Sure they think that prisons are necessary. But they think the government is too big and we pay too much in taxes so it's okay to put sick people to death and get them off the dole. Jeffrey Dahlmer was a very sick man. I ertainly can't argue against the fact that his behavior was utterly abhorrent. But he wasn't a normal person. He was a devient and should never have been able to have freedom to walk among us. But what about the man who is falsely accused and convicted and put to death? How do you feel about that? Just a series of unfortunate events?

gadget I do not disguise anything! What I am doing is arguing a point or an idea. I am not wrapping myself up in the condemnation of a person just because I disagree with something they've said. When you figuratively stand in front of a person, call out their name, and then dress them down by telling them how wrong they are, it is very personal and you are attacking them personally. When you think in terms of ideas and beliefs, it isn't important who said it. Unless you are trying to make it personal. And I just do not understand why you and others like you, who think you are so right, believe it is perfectly acceptable to make it personal. It reveals a very obvious lack of respect for people who disagree with you. Don't get me wrong. I don't want you to change. It helps the cause.

WHY would you eat a fruit roll up? *gag* Now Cheetos, that's another thing... can't bring those greasy cheesy things into the house.

Killing is killing. Pure and simple. You can separate a criminal from society to keep him from committing another crime. Capital punishment is not a deterrent to rape or murder so that is not a valid reason for us to kill people. I don't believe that God "thinks" that capital punishment - or killing people - is right. If he says that all you have to do is ask for forgiveness and believe in him and that Jesus died for you on the cross, then we are compelled to give every person their entire lives to accept Jesus as their personal savior and ask for forgiveness and thereby be able to go to heaven. Who are we to take that opportunity away from them? Killing killers is still killing in God's eyes. You're saying that he's creating a person when he joins an egg and a sperm, so people who say they are against abortion for that reason, but who believe in capital punishment, must be killers at heart. Isn't that what you've been telling us about people who get abortions? That's why it is such a paradox. If you value life and you believe in God and you believe in redemption, it seems to go against everything you believe in to support killing another human being whether it is a fertilized egg, a fetus or a full-grown human being. Trust me I get the distinction you make and I fully understand your argument about a fetus being an innocent, but it falls flat when you argue that killing is acceptable in another situation.