marjon9

I know this point has been made before but it bears repeating here. Most of the people that Dr. K was involved with would have died long before if it were not for extreme acts of medical intervention. If you are really interested in having people wait until it is "god's time" for their death, then they should be let go, if they want to be. (The "family's" wished are irrelevant here. It is the wishes of the patient that matter.) If any of the people Dr. K helped were living, say, 100 years ago, they almost surely would not have survived as long as they did. What kept them alive was things like the most modern druges, respirator machines, chemotherapy, etc. These are human-made therapies, and have nothing to do with when a person has reached "god's time" to die. So, when people are against Dr. K's approach to assisted suicide, what they are really saying is: A person should be required to endure every possible life-extending technology and drug that human beings can invent, regardless their own wish to be free from these things, and regardless of any unspeakable pain or anything else they are going through, simply because a certain faction of individuals who likes to call themselves "christian" thinks it should be that way. This has nothing at all to do with someone reaching "god's time to die." This is about one group of people seeking to force others to live by their definition of morality. And in the case of assisted suicide the argument is particularly ludicrous. Very few of the people Dr. K helped would be alive at all if they were allowed to die in "god's time." They are alive only because of human intervention. Why is it that those opposing Dr. K are unwilling to see that obvious fact? Very hard to understand.

The reason it matters to me is that I feel that your answer to this question provides insight into the chances for ultimate victory of the pro-choice movement. You have the view that the pro-choice arguments are not the product of thoughtful, compassionate thinking, and not worthy of respect. That tells me that your views are so far out of the mainstream that you can't possibly win this debate in the long term. And it also tells me that your arguments will never change the minds of people who disagree with you. You can't win a debate with opponents while you are telling them at the same time that you do not respect their views. It's just never going to happen. Now, if you had said that you do respect the views of the pro-choice movement, and understand that thoughtful and compassionate people can hold such views, that would have told me that I might actually need to be worried about you. That would have told me that you might actually possess the insight necessary to win the argument in the long term. So, I hope that answers your question.

I am not debating about a selection of words. I am asking you a question that goes to the heart of this debate as far as I'm concerned. I'm not calling you names and I'm not relating to you in a hostile manner. I'm asking you a straightforward, simple question. The question "the hecK" you have refused to answer is this one: At this moment I say to you that I respect you and I believe that you have some arguments and points of view that deserve respect. I think you are a reasonable, thoughtful, compassionate person. I disagree with your arguments, but I respect them. Are you willing to say the same? That's a very simple question. Essentially it involves nothing more than a yes or no answer. Why not just answer it?

Why are you not willing to answer my question? You have stated repeatedly that you are always willing to answer any question that you are asked. What are you afraid of on this one? We've all been involved in this debate for quite some time. There is a difference of opinion here about what the "REAL" issue is. For me, the "REAL" issue is the question I asked you. Why are you afraid to answer my question? If the answer is no, it's no. Why not have the courage of your convictions? Why refuse to answer?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the discussion has gotten heated in the past. How about if we put that behind us and look forward. At this moment I say to you that I respect you and I believe that you have some arguments and points of view that deserve respect. I think you are a reasonable, thoughtful, compassionate person. I disagree with your arguments, but I respect them. Are you willing to say the same?

Exactly. I don't see how saying "I respect you and your point of view" is "calling someone names." Gadget will go to the absolute bitter end, changing the subject and ignoring the issue, and do anything she can possibly do in order to avoid admitting the fact that abortion is an issue with two sides, and that people in the pro-choice side of things have some reasonable arguments that are worthy of respect. Her argument will always boil down to the following: "Anyone who does not accept my view on abortion is an evil, blood-soaked baby killer." Like I say, in the final analysis I welcome that point of view. It pushes people away from the pro-life side, which ultimately protects women. So, really, her views are very welcome here.

I do understand how passionate gadgetlady is about her point of view, and I'm not trying to put her down for it. I know that she really feels like she is fighting to defend babies from a brutal painful death. I may disagree but I understand and respect her position. But I am also passionate about my point of view. I believe that if the pro-life camp is permitted to start making laws that everyone must follow, women of the United States will suffer greatly, and will, themselves, often face the prospect of a brutal, painful death for doing something that has been legal in this country for decades. I think it is outrageous that members of the pro-life camp are unwilling to acknowledge that reasonable, compassionate, thoughtful people could disagree with the pro-life position, and have a point of view that is worthy of understanding and respect. I'm not asking anyone to change their point of view. But to act like the pro-choice side is indisputably evil and utterly unworthy of respect is an outrageous point of view that makes it impossible to carry on a meaningful conversation. Fortunately, most people on all sides of the issue understand that, and properly discount and discredit the views of this faction of hysterical pro-life individuals.

Laurend, I must say that I have a different view of gadgetlady's approach on this thread. Below is an example. ====================== Quote: Originally Posted by marjon9 We disagree with each other. I understand and respect your position. You seem unable to do the same with respect to my point of view. You are absolutely right. I cannot respect any opinion that holds it is acceptable to brutally rip the life away from another human being. Sorry 'bout that. =========================== To me this is an example of the hysterical pro-life position that says, "anyone who disagrees with the pro-life point of view is an evil, blood-soaked baby killer worthy of no respect and deserving of the shortest possible trip to eternal damnation." This extreme, hysterical faction of the pro-life movement holds the view that anyone who believes in a woman's right to choose is literally a human incarnation of satan. It is pretty difficult to have a conversation with such a person, and I find gadgetlady to fall within that camp. But, as I've said before, I welcome these people into the debate. They do more to help our side win the day than anything else I can think of.

I had pretty good restriction for a couple months after surgery even without a fill, so I did not get one. But when I lost the restriction I went right away for a fill. I'm going to get another one as soon as possible because the first one did not give me the restriction I need. The whole point of the band is to have a tool that allows you to feel full on smaller portions. Without restriction, that band doesn't work at all. If you are going around starving you should get a fill, or why get the band in the first place. The band is not about testing your will power to hold up against starvation. It's about having a tool to lose weight with little or no little or no starvation or will power. Getting the band and not getting a fill is like buying a gasoline lawn mower but still pushing it by hand when you mow the lawn. What's the point? Why spend the money? This is not meant to be a personal attack at all. Sorry if it comes across that way, I am just trying to make a point. I just think that someone gave you the wrong idea somewhere along the line of what the band is for and how to use it. If the band is working for you without a fill, and you are happy that way, obviously go with the method that you are happy with.

Of course you are exactly right, niecyrenee, but can't you keep it quiet? Daffodil and a few others on this forum are the most effective weapons we have in the pro-choice arsenal. Their words are obviously going to do nothing but push people away from a pro-life perspective. And we'd like to keep it that way. So, please, sssshhhhh.....

Probably 90% of the people who get the band have these exact types of thoughts and questions, especially just before surgery. One thing you might want to do, if you would like a lot of feedback quickly, is to run a search on this forum with search terms like "second thoughts." I'll try to give some short answers to your questions. As for "sticking to the diet," the purpose of the band is to help you lose weight without sticking to a diet. That's the point. With the band, you feel full with much smaller portions so you don't have to diet. You have to work with the band and not deliberately sabotage yourself by drinking McDonald's milkshakes all day. But if you just eat regular food, you will find that you are full on much smaller portions and you will lose weight without being hungry. We all have issues with controlling food. You don't need to solve all of those issues ahead of time for the band to work for you. The band helps you lose weight even if you still have issues with food. But again, there are limits. A person can find a way to gain weight even with the band, if they try hard enough. As for being nervous about the surgery, everyone is. Surgery is scary. But the fact is, the actual risks are quite low. And when you compare the risks to your health from obesity that will come from not having the surgery, the odds are good that you will conclude, like most of us here, that the risk of surgery is less than then risk of not having it. So, we do it. Ultimately, you will need to answer these questions for yourself. But most of us here have made the decision to get the band. And almost everyone is glad they did.

Then all I have to say to you is, please keep up the good work. The more people with your mindset continue to spew your bile, the less likely it is that the people of America will ever accept your way of thinking. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Keep it comin'!!

The difference, Daffodil, is that society is virtually unanimous in its conclusion that rape, murder, car jacking, child abuse, etc, are horrible crimes that require vociferous condemnation. Abortion is not like that. Society is divided. Indeed, your view is in the minority. This makes a difference. As I understand it, your goal in this situation is to convince people that you are right. If that is your goal, you are simply not going to accomplish that goal by calling them murderers, and by refusing to acknowledge that thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate people do, in fact disagree with you. It's not about political correctness. It's about results. You should feel free to vociferously condemn abortion all you want. I don't think anyone is telling you that you should not. But if you want results, if you want fewer abortions, you are not going to accomplish that result with a style that basically tells everyone who disagrees with you that they are evil, insane, blood-soaked murdering baby killers. That is such an extreme position that it is going to have a tendency, if anything, to push people to the other side. I understand your position and respect you for it. I don't feel any need to call you a monster (even though I believe that the pro-life movement wants to cause changes in this country that would be unspeakably horrible for the women of America). Why is it that you are unable to respect people who disagree with you? I fully understand the passion you feel in your position, but I don't understand at all why you are unable to see that very compassionate and thoughtful people of good will truly do see things differently. I think it is a mistake for you to refuse to acknowledge that people who disagree with you deserve respect. No one is asking you to change your mind, but you should at least be willing to acknowlede that the majority of the population of the United States, who disagree with you, are not bloodthirsty monster baby killers.

My doctor was Dr. Kirshenbaum in Denver. $9950 for the procedure. He is a very experienced surgeon with quite a few people on this forum who are his patients. His web address is in my signature. I also think the Mexican option may be a good one for you, especially since you are in California. From where you are you could actually return to Mexico for aftercare if you needed to. Whatever you do, don't forget to make arrangements for your aftercare BEFORE you have the surgery. This is important. Make sure you know who you are going to go to for aftercare before you have the surgery. There are definitely options under $18,000.

I quit about 10 years ago and I don't think I could have done it cold turkey. I tried a lot of times without the nicotine gum and never got past a few, awful days. With the gum it was really doable (although still about the hardest thing I've ever done). Now I am one of those terribly obnoxious ex-smokers who can't even be in the same room with a lit cigarette. I don't know the answer to your ultimate question, but one thing for sure I don't understand a doctor who advises you to quit cold turkey. To me it just seems like being set up to fail. The last thing I want to say is that I think the dangers of cigarette smoking are worse than the dangers of obesity. I don't think it makes sense to think of quitting smoking as a minor detail you'll take care of easily on your way to getting the lap band. I think it's going to be really hard, and might involve additional relapses. My recommendation would be to put the surgery on hold for a little while and focus totally on quitting smoking. Once you have that really under control then think about the surgery. Quitting smoking is hard. Doing it two weeks before lap band surgery is, in my opinion, just piling too much difficult change on your poor self. I just think it is really asking a too much of yourself to try and do all that at the same time. Don't underestimate how hard it will be to quit smoking. I don't think you can easily commit to yourself that you'll quit smoking two weeks before surgery and definitely stay quit. That is a really, really hard thing to do.

As I have stated many times, I do not believe that this is something that is susceptible of scientific proof. We all see the same "facts," and we all see the same "science," but these things mean different things to different people. In my view (as you know I have stated repeatedly), the point where life begins is a matter of conscience, not science. Ah, but what about the different DNA, you argue. Again, that changes nothing at all. We all see the same facts, and we all see the same science. We simply interpret these things differently. No amount of "science" is going to change that. The "science" is there. We just disagree about what it means. The pro-choice people look at this scenario and say, "we respect you and your point of view, but we respectfully disagree." In contrast, the hysterical pro life bunch looks at this scenario and says "you are all a bunch of insincere, selfish liars who put your own convenience ahead of the life of a child, you will say anything to forward a political agenda. How can we respect a bunch of evil, blood-soaked baby killers...." etc. etc. Yes, gadget, like it or not, you and your ilk are, indeed, driving women to abortion clinics in droves with your arguments.

You don't display arrogance and disrespect at all when you bring up scientific facts. But you definitely do display arrogance and disrespect when you make the statement that all scientists who express a certain view are "lying to support a political agenda." Accusing a scientist of "lying" is not really a "scientific fact," now is it. But it does not surprise me at all that you refuse to actually confront the issue I raised, and instead seek to obscure it by changing the subject and making irrelevant comments in response to what I said. Actually, I welcome the relentless barrage of pro-life hysteria that some on this forum continue to spew. It is one of the best tools in the pro-choice arsenal to make sure that the fewest possible number of people will ever agree with your side. Keep it comin'!!

Now, there's an argument that is sure to change minds and bring people to your cause. Does arrogance and disrespect really get you where you want to go? Regardless of whether you are right or wrong about any point, do you really not see the value of an attractive presentation? Your presentation is so repellant that I think it is fair to say that you literally encourage abortions every time you speak.

It is true that it's a good idea to be careful before the surgery. But there is also another reason why this is not a bad thing. That is, if you have apnea, it can be quite a serious problem, and it can really put a hit on your quality of life. I had it for years and never knew it, I just knew that I was tired a lot and had a hard time concentrating. To honest, I felt like crap most of the time. My wife made me get a sleep test because I stopped breathing at night and snored like a cement mixer with a broken gear. Being a moron, I resisted getting the test for quite a while, but finally had the test. Of course, I had apnea, and got the CPAP. I started feeling much better almost immediately, stopped snoring completely, and now I would not consider sleeping without the CPAP. Of course, if I lose enough weight, I may some day no longer need the CPAP. But that is a different question.

The thing that you and daffodil and funnyduddies don't understand is how much damage your do to the pro-life movement with your endless bitterness, disrespect, and hostility. I know you think you are doing god's work, but what you are actually doing is hurting your cause. Of course you won't be able to see that.

I'm not deluding myself or trying to fool anyone. If your theories hold up at all, they apply every bit as much to a dividing embryo with 4 cells as a fetus at 12 or 16 weeks. If you acknowledge that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is not a "human being," then your argument is not worth the electrons in cyberspace. I focus on the early stages of development because it emphasizes the point that reasonable people can disagree that a fetus is a human being. Feel free to disagree, but this accusation that I am deluding myself and trying to fool people is just worthless hostility that doesn't advance the argument or prove anything. Are you just going to keep doing that with every post for all eternity? It was fun for a while but it is really getting boring now. Gadget, the bottom line is, we understand each other's positions pretty well now. We disagree with each other. I understand and respect your position. You seem unable to do the same with respect to my point of view. I accept that. Can we leave it there? If you have something else you'd like to talk about, I'm willing. But I'm not up for the hostility and sarcasm any more. It was fun for a while, but it's gotten boring now.

I don't think that this is something that is capable of proof. I think that this is a question of conscience, not science. We all see the same facts. We all know what stages a fetus goes through, etc. When you look at these facts, you see that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is a human being. You can't imagine how anyone could see it any other way. I understand your point of view and respect it. But I disagree with it. When I look at a dividing embryo with 4 cells, residing inside another person, I do not see a human being. I see something that may or may not eventually become a human being. But each person is entitled to their own opinion. I don't feel any need to change anyone's view to agree with me. But I certainly can't "prove" to you that this is or is not a human being. I don't think this is something that can possibly be proved one way or another, it is a matter or conscience, not science. And when I ask gadget to "prove" that an embryo is "life," my point is that she can't prove it. I don't expect her to actually prove it, because I don't believe that this is something that can be proved one way or another.

To me, there are differences between any person, black or otherwise, and a dividing embryo consisting of 4 cells that resides inside another person. And those differences go beyond whether the embryo is "inside another person." The "4 cells" part, and total lack of viability, etc. also play into the picture. I understand that you cannot understand how anyone could look at those 4 cells and not see a human being. I fully understand that this is your point of view. I respect that opinion. But it's not mine. I don't see a human being. Why are you unable to respect that? Just to play your game a little bit, I would explain to the slave owner that an African American is a human being because human beings have language skills unlike any other animal, human beings have highly developed imagination that can be used to create practical things like buildings as well as art, etc. I think it would be fair to say that a dividing embryo with 4 cells that is living inside another person does not have any of those characteristics. It may some day, just like it may some day develop into a human being. But I do not believe that it is a human being now. There is no game that is going to change any of this. We still disagree in just exactly the same ways about the same things. I understand and respect your point of view. You cannot do the same. I think I'm the winner here.

Whatever a human being may be, a dividing embryo consisting of 4 cells that is currently residing inside another person is not necessarily a human being to me. It may be, it may not be, I'm not really sure. But in my view, this is really a matter of conscience and not a matter of science. There is no definitive "proof" that could be possible on this issue one way or another. We all have the facts about what an embryo is and what a fetus is. When some people look at these facts they see a human being. Other people do not. There is no final correct answer. You seem to be looking for some sort of "gotcha" moment here, where the answer to the time machine game "proves" that you are right in some way. But I don't get it at all. I'd be interested in hearing your point if you'd like to share it. I see real differences between an living, breathing, independently viable African American person and a dividing embryo consisting of 4 cells that is residing inside the body of another person. If you don't see any differences, well, you have the right to that opinion.

What in the world are you talking about. I have no idea. If you want to put aside the sarcasm and meanness and actually present an idea or a question I'd be happy to respond. I'm really not in the mood to play time machine games but if you have an actual issue you'd like to discuss please let me know.