marjon9

I just want to weigh in here by saying that I agree we should enforce our immigration laws and we need to strengthen them as well. We need to protect ourselves and we can't take care of all the world's poor. We already allow many to enter legally. But, I also have to be honest and say, if I saw my family suffering I would cross the border illegally, and do it over and over again if that's what it took. And I feel confident that everyone on this forum would do the same if they were faced with that situation and had a way. So, I think it is very important here not to lay the blame at the feet of people who are trying to find a decent life. It's fine to call them illegal and all that. But the truth is, every one of us would do the same if our child was hungry. I think it is important to remember that.

I'm a little unclear about what your husband does not understand. Is it that you want the band, or that you want your sister to take you to your surgery?

One long journey ends and another begins. Great news. This may call for the use of an all too overused term: Woo Hoo! :clap2:

I am quite law abiding in general, and I agree that one should generally have a mindset of always obeying the law. BUT - I do believe that there are situations where obeying the law conflicts with a persons values to a degree that is intolerable, and the person needs to be true to their own values before being true to the law. I believe that people who went to Canada to escape the draft were law breakers, but I would have done the same in a second if I had found myself in that position. There have always been examples of what is known as "civil disobedience." Does the "Boston Tea Party" ring a bell? How about the lifetime acts of Mahatma Gandi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. So for me, I do believe that there are situations where the law must go out the window. With respect to immigration, I understand everyone's frustration, and I am for tighter immigration laws. But I can also say this without the slightest hesitation: If I saw my family suffering I would have crossed the border illegally in a Nuevo York minute. And I would have done it over and over and over again, no matter what it took. Think what you want of me, but there is no question but that is what I would have done. And to be honest, I think the same is true of every one of you. Which, by the way, is a sign of my respect for you.

Wow, your surgery is tomorrow and you are nervous? That is so weird. I don't think I've heard of that happening before. NOT!!!! Just kidding with you. I think everyone goes through exactly the same thing. If you have time, try running a couple searches on the forum with terms like "second thoughts." You'll see that you are not alone. Just try and remember that you thought about this decision for a long time and considered it very carefully at times when you were "cool, calm, and collected" as the saying goes. If it made sense to you during all those times, then it is probably the right thing to do. There is no magic answer to get through this nervous time. Just try and remember that it will all be over very soon now, and you'll be starting your bandster journey. As for the pain, some people have some pain for a few days, but they give you pain meds and it's not bad for most people. If you have not done so already, you might want to get some Gas-x strips, or something like that. Apparently some people have gas pains for a while (they fill you up with air during surgery, I hear). Beyond that, walk a lot as soon as you can. And be sure to stick with the post op diet. I'm sure you've heard all this before. Good luck tomorrow.

What does F @#!%^%K mean? Is there a possible typo in there?

I'm 6'2", but I doubt if that makes me the longest.

Sanjaya!!!!

No, unfortunately it's not real. I just had a little too much free time yesterday. I might explain by saying that I grew up in California in the '60s and '70s, and I still have the occassional hallucination. :hippie: :faint: :eek: :heh: :hippie:

Rachel Ray is the first white woman to cross the Sahara Dessert on an all terrain vehicle. She organized small choral singing groups every 100 kilometers or so, writing four-part harmony arrangements of the local folk songs. She often survived on camel milk when there was no food or Water, and is best known today for making a tart but sweet camel milk cheese that is used in salad dressings across Africa.

You make my point for me very well. Your total lack of compassion for the woman in this picture is breathtaking. As I mentioned earlier, there is no way to avoid the reality that the abortion issue involves two entities that are intertwined. Choices made for the benefit of one will affect the rights of the other. Your single minded laser focus on the rights of the unborn child, (even one that is gravely abnormal) with absolutely zero compassion for the woman, is very hard for me to understand. I know you will come back with some snappy answer that does not respond to what I just said, but still, your views are really hard for me to understand.

In this statement you demonstrate how far removed you are from compassion for the woman involved. The question is not whether a woman "can" drop it off like drycleaning. The issue is whether it is right to force a woman to go through the emotional nightmare of doing so if she chooses not to. I know, I know, you will point out that the baby will have an even worse nightmare if it is dead. I know you think that. But when we are talking about a gravely abnormal child, the woman should have the choice of avoiding the horror of dropping off her gravely abnormal child to the dry cleaner. In your mind, the horror should be worse for the woman to have the abortion. I understand that you think that. But it is not your life, and not your choice to make if a woman feels differently.

That's an interesting concept, and you should feel free to argue for it to everyone who will listen to you. But the question is, who gets to make the decision, the woman or the legislature? That's the issue. No matter how much you think that the woman should "give it a freaking chance," it is not your decision to make. That is the whole issue with respect to abortion. We all know people disagree, there is nothing new there. The issue is, who gets to decide, the woman or the legislature.

That may be true, but those are the ones we are talking about now. I can understand why you would not want to continue with the discussion, because your position on the matter is impossible to sustain. But changing the subject does not support your point of view. Your suggestion that it would be so easy to put these unfortunate malformed children up for adoption is just not valid. For some reason, the position that you maintain leaves no room for compassion for a woman faced with the sure knowledge that she is going to deliver a child that is, for one reason or another, gravely abnormal. Your response always favors the "rights" of the "child," and seems to contain no compassion at all for the position of the woman. You suggest that it would be as easy as dropping off the dry cleaning to put such a baby up for adoption. That is really quite ridiculous. Your next response is to point out that most abortions don't involve gravely abnormal children. But that is clearly beside the point. When there is a gravely abnormal child, the woman must have the choice to do what she believes is the right thing to do. She must have that choice without legislative interference from people who believe, like you, that the woman's rights in such a situation are worth nothing at all, and the only thing that matters is the "rights" of the deformed, suffering infant with half a brain that nobody wants.

I think it's partly a "Pavlovian Dog" type of thing. Meaning, if you get "stuck" and "PB" every time you eat a chocolate chip cookie, you might find that you just stop wanting them. From the sound of things, they are still going down fine for you. In that case, your cravings may stay the same. Glad to hear that you only want 1 or 2.

You talk about this fetus in the 9th month as if it were normal and healthy. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about an infant that is provably severely abnormal for one reason or another. Sorry, not everyone agrees that a happy little adoption is in the cards for such a baby. And again, thank our lucky stars, it is not your decision to make.

Clearly there is no way we will see eye to eye on this point, but the bottom line in all of this (which you don't like to talk about) is that it is not your decision to make. You might believe that it is just a minor inconvenience for a woman to give birth to a deformed, suffering infant with half a brain and then just drop it off somewhere for somebody else to take care of for the next twenty years. But, actually, this might be something that would cause quite a bit of distress, don't you think? I know, I know, you will argue that "whatever inconvenience it is for the mother, death is an even greater inconvenience for the 'baby.'" Yeah, whatever. But the bottom line, again, is THIS IS NOT YOUR DECISION TO MAKE. And so many women out there are so very greatful that this is true.

There are several reasons for avoiding pasta. One of them is the one you mentioned: "it's a good diet thing." But the reason your doctor probably mentioned it is because these types of white flour and refined starchy things get stuck quite frequently. When the band is adjusted so that it is actually working as it is designed, many people find that they simply cannot eat bread, pasta, rice, etc. But here's the secret that the doctor did not tell you: Most people find that their tastes change with the band, and they actually stop wanting to eat may of the things that they "should not" eat. It's hard to explain how or why that happens, but many people find that this is true. The band is not about a lifetime of deprivation. You will almost surely not find that you sit there craving pasta. More likely you will find that you just stop wanting it. And finally, during those times when the band is a bit loose, where you really should be going in for a fill, during those times you'll probably find that you can still eat some pasta. When the band is properly adjusted, though, you will probably not want to be eating pasta and bread. After getting "stuck" a few times, bread just ain't what it used to be, if you see what I mean.

So, what you are saying is that a woman must have a child who is very likely to be deformed or retarded or worse, and spend the rest of her life taking care of that child, and sacrificing every dream she had for her own life, in order to protect the small chance that the baby will have a better life than most doctors would expect. Sorry, that is just not your decision to make. People speak about how abortion is killing babies, but no matter how hard you try you can't get away from the fact that abortion is a unique situation where the fate of two entities is intertwined. There is simply no way around the fact that choices made on behalf of one are going to effect the other. This is an inescapable reality. So, choices have to be made. You cannot escape making the choice. Doing nothing and having the baby is also a choice. One way or another, the choice is going to have to be made. You take the position regarding that choice that in every single possible situation, no matter how sick the baby appears to be, or whether an x-ray shows that it has no brain, or whatever, the tiny shred of a chance that the baby will have some sort of a life must, in every single case, override every need of the mother. Sorry, FunnyDuddies, this is simply not your choice to make. It is inconceivable to me why you can't see that.

A child being born with a paralyzed arm does not even come close to the type of condition I am talking about that would justify a late term abortion. And of course I can't set out every possible scenario in this post as the final answer in all situations. There will certainly be difficult choices that have to be made to establish the standards, but difficult choices are made all the time in the law. I think it would be possible to establish standards that cover 98% of all situations with relative certainty. And in general, when it comes to close calls, in my view the rules should err on the side of the mother's choice. But I think you can establish rules that cover 98% of the circumstances with a good degree of clarity. And as for the life or health of the mother never being an issue, I have not studied the question but I do know that a very large number of people believe that there is an issue here. I am not ready to accept your explanation that there is no difference to the mother between late term abortion and full childbirth. It is hard for me to believe that so many would believe otherwise if it really were all that simple. Remember, I do not agree with your view that all pro-choice people are callous, frivolous, heartless baby killers. I feel quite confident that the vast majority of pro-choice individuals are caring, thoughtful and compassionate human beings. That is why I cannot simply accept at face value your description that the whole "heath of the mother" issue is false.

My own personal view on late term abortions is that they should not be allowed once the fetus is viable - BUT, there must be an exception where the life of the mother is at risk. I also believe that a late term abortion should be permitted where it can be demonstrated to a medical certainty that the fetus is in a condition where it faces a life of pain, or a life with no brain, or a terminal illness, or something of that nature. I have not studied the issue, but my understanding of the current ruling is that there are no exceptions, regardless of the risk to the mother or the health of the fetus. If that is true I can't support that.

I agree that the thread started out as being about partial birth abortion, but you have to admit many pro-lifer types are discussing abortion in general. I think that BJean was addressing those comments. This is not directed to you Carlene, but in general I believe it clouds the issue, in the abortion debate in general, to make reference to the tiny percentage of women who might have an abortion to fit into a bikini. Yes, there are such examples, but that is not what this debate is about. When pro-life people focus on these types of unusual examples, they seem to be attempting to win their argument by claiming that pro-choice women, in general, are callous, frivolous, heartless baby killers. But that is simply not true. And when that approach is taken over and over again it diminished the pro-life position, and it detracts from the many good arguments pro-life people actually have. The truth is, the vast majority of women and men on both sides of the question agree on 99% of the abortion issue. Virtually everyone agrees that abortion is a very unfortunate and often tragic event that should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. The disagreement comes in the final 1%, which is, if a woman finds herself in the position where abortion is the choice she feels that she must make, who gets to make that final decision? The woman herself along with her doctor? Or the state or federal legislature. This is the only real issue here. The issue is not about the few examples of women who get abortions to fit into a bikini. The pro-life types on this thread can (and I'm sure will) continue to focus on the rare exceptions of women take actions that almost everyone would agree are improper. And that is too bad. It turns this debate into a freak show instead of serious discussion. If only pro-lifers could see how badly their argument is weakened by focusing on the freaks, instead of by focusing on the really good, solid, mainstream arguments that exist on the pro-life side. I disagree with the serious pro-life arguments, but I understand them and respect them. I do not respect the freak show.

That's true, but I've been saving up for a while. The mice that live in my house are, shall we say, the quiet type, if you catch my meaning. :heh: :heh: :heh:

All I can say is, that is possibly the best thread title I've seen yet. It makes me want to light up the old cauldron and toss in a quarter cup of newt bile and a pound of mouse tongues.

Who could have forseen what was to become of "smilies"?