Well we now officialy have a new president
I saw a statement on myspace that I liked
QuoteI may not agree with Obama but I will pray for him daily as a leader
What are your thougts on the new term
:clap:
So far, I'm actually hopeful. :sunny:
Taken from an online article titled
"Five technologies the Obama administration should (but won't or can't) adopt"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10145617-17.html
QuoteWhy shouldn't the White House staff be able to communicate with one another over AIM? I'm sure many of them use it in their daily lives and bringing it to the White House to communicate quickly is, in my estimation, a pretty good idea.
Instead of forcing his staff to walk back and forth between wings and offices, what if President Obama was able to instant message his staff from the Oval Office. I can see it now: PrezObama312: "Where's the dossier on the Russian spy we've been tracking?" WHStaffer35: "IDK. BRB." PrezObama312: "K. G2G. L8r."
Wouldn't that be great?
i was at wal-mart getting some stuff inbetween classes. they had the coverage playing on all the t.v's throughout the store.
i was appalled to hear someone say something to the effect of "what? he hasn't been shot yet?" really really ignorant.
Quote from: Chérie on January 20, 2009, 10:02:20 PM
i was at wal-mart getting some stuff inbetween classes. they had the coverage playing on all the t.v's throughout the store.
i was appalled to hear someone say something to the effect of "what? he hasn't been shot yet?" really really ignorant.
I would certainly hope that as we pray for Obama we pray no one shoots him. First of we should not wish that on anyone. Second of give him a chance. If he does do what he says great. If does not do what he says at least he should have the chance. He was elected and he is the President. I sure hope no one shoots him or any ill fate comes his way.
Here's a picture from the inauguration I liked
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20090120/capt.1c9a226fc6b8466f8ca8a1ea9d50c37d.aptopix_obama_inauguration_caps134.jpg?x=309&y=345&q=85&sig=N337VIp87JEoMcsh7E6bZQ--)
Can you imagine how those kids lives will change?
Quote from: RainbowJingles on January 20, 2009, 09:22:43 PM
Taken from an online article titled
"Five technologies the Obama administration should (but won't or can't) adopt"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10145617-17.html
QuoteWhy shouldn't the White House staff be able to communicate with one another over AIM? I'm sure many of them use it in their daily lives and bringing it to the White House to communicate quickly is, in my estimation, a pretty good idea.
Instead of forcing his staff to walk back and forth between wings and offices, what if President Obama was able to instant message his staff from the Oval Office. I can see it now: PrezObama312: "Where's the dossier on the Russian spy we've been tracking?" WHStaffer35: "IDK. BRB." PrezObama312: "K. G2G. L8r."
Wouldn't that be great?
The problem I see with something like AIM would be security leaks. The normal instant messengers run off of remote servers. Though I do see the point if they were to implement an in house IM system on a closed network.
Quote from: Tricia Lea on January 20, 2009, 10:36:34 PM
Here's a picture from the inauguration I liked
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20090120/capt.1c9a226fc6b8466f8ca8a1ea9d50c37d.aptopix_obama_inauguration_caps134.jpg?x=309&y=345&q=85&sig=N337VIp87JEoMcsh7E6bZQ--)
Can you imagine how those kids lives will change?
I'm waiting for some joker to alter the photo and change her thumbs up to a different gesture, like somebody did with Piper Palin... :smirk2:
I'd hate it if my dad was just elected president. If Obama is elected to two terms, they'll spend the toughest years of their childhood under constant media scrutiny. Hopefully they can retain a little bit of sanity with all of that going on. I don't think it's been easy on some of the past president's kids.
Certainly being the first black man to be elected to the White House is an accomplishment, and I wish our new President the best during his tenure. But I'm interested to see how quickly his worshippers become disillusioned when he doesn't fix their problems.
Quote from: Brother Dad on January 20, 2009, 10:13:00 PMIf he does do what he says great.
if he does what he says, THAT'S horrible not great! Partial birth abortions, gay marriage, just to start.
And he made a promise to Planned Parenthood last year they expect him to keep.
"
The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8&eurl=http://www.fightfoca.com/ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8&eurl=http://www.fightfoca.com/)
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide.
- FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
- FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
- FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.
If I remember right, it's up to pass tomorrow.
Quote from: dnr1128 on January 21, 2009, 12:37:46 AM
Certainly being the first black man to be elected to the White House is an accomplishment, and I wish our new President the best during his tenure. But I'm interested to see how quickly his worshippers become disillusioned when he doesn't fix their problems.
He's not fully black and if I remember right, his parents weren't even married. Is he legally president? Was he really born in Africa like his aunt says? Is that why suddenly she had to be shipped out of the country?
Quote from: Tricia Lea on January 20, 2009, 10:36:34 PM
Here's a picture from the inauguration I liked
(http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20090120/capt.1c9a226fc6b8466f8ca8a1ea9d50c37d.aptopix_obama_inauguration_caps134.jpg?x=309&y=345&q=85&sig=N337VIp87JEoMcsh7E6bZQ--)
Can you imagine how those kids lives will change?
Yep, instead of a Kardashians show in eight years, we will be watching the Obama girls on their own reality TV show.
Quote from: Sis on January 21, 2009, 03:11:36 AM
He's not fully black and if I remember right, his parents weren't even married. Is he legally president? Was he really born in Africa like his aunt says? Is that why suddenly she had to be shipped out of the country?
In the US, there are few purely black people. I said he's black because I think that the term "african-american" is racist, inaccurate, and un-American.
Is he legally President? Aparently it doesn't matter. I have my doubts.
Quote from: dnr1128 on January 21, 2009, 05:20:05 AM
Is he legally President? Aparently it doesn't matter. I have my doubts.
and when people were arguing this in 2000 about bush - they were just sore losers.
Quote from: Chérie on January 21, 2009, 05:58:56 AM
Quote from: dnr1128 on January 21, 2009, 05:20:05 AM
Is he legally President? Aparently it doesn't matter. I have my doubts.
and when people were arguing this in 2000 about bush - they were just sore losers.
Apples to oranges. In 2000, the Democratic camp was seeking recount after recount after recount, each time trying to disqualify ballots that, coincidently, were mostly for their opponent. The USSC merely put a stop to the nonsense. In this case, there is legitimate doubt as to whether or not Obama is a natural-born American, based upon eyewitness testimony that places his birth in Kenya, and historical evidence that HI issued birth certificates to those not born inside that state.
By every legal recount, Bush won the 2000 election. So he was legally president. The people who argued otherwise were doing so on unconstitutional, illegal grounds.
Quote from: Chérie on January 21, 2009, 05:58:56 AM
Quote from: dnr1128 on January 21, 2009, 05:20:05 AM
Is he legally President? Aparently it doesn't matter. I have my doubts.
and when people were arguing this in 2000 about bush - they were just sore losers.
Bush was born in the United States. He has a birth certificate. Obama doesn't.
QuoteBut I'm interested to see how quickly his worshippers become disillusioned when he doesn't fix their problems.
Quoteif he does what he says, THAT'S horrible not great! Partial birth abortions, gay marriage, just to start.
I agree.
Quote from: dnr1128 on January 21, 2009, 06:56:12 AM
Quote from: Chérie on January 21, 2009, 05:58:56 AM
Quote from: dnr1128 on January 21, 2009, 05:20:05 AM
Is he legally President? Aparently it doesn't matter. I have my doubts.
and when people were arguing this in 2000 about bush - they were just sore losers.
Apples to oranges. In 2000, the Democratic camp was seeking recount after recount after recount, each time trying to disqualify ballots that, coincidently, were mostly for their opponent. The USSC merely put a stop to the nonsense. In this case, there is legitimate doubt as to whether or not Obama is a natural-born American, based upon eyewitness testimony that places his birth in Kenya, and historical evidence that HI issued birth certificates to those not born inside that state.
i love how its only "apples and oranges" when you are the one doing the complaining.
i am postivie that if that were the case the powers that be would have done a through investigation. its funny that i am only just now hearing this information. where is your source? an internet chain letter?
anyway i snoped it. its false.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Quote from: MellowYellow on January 21, 2009, 12:44:44 AM
Quote from: Brother Dad on January 20, 2009, 10:13:00 PMIf he does do what he says great.
if he does what he says, THAT'S horrible not great! Partial birth abortions, gay marriage, just to start.
And he made a promise to Planned Parenthood last year they expect him to keep.
"The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8&eurl=http://www.fightfoca.com/ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8&eurl=http://www.fightfoca.com/)
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would eliminate every restriction on abortion nationwide.
- FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
- FOCA will compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
- FOCA will force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions.
If I remember right, it's up to pass tomorrow.
Excuse me let me rephrase it. If he does for the economy like some on here thinks he will then fine.
Quote from: Chérie on January 21, 2009, 05:07:58 PM
i love how its only "apples and oranges" when you are the one doing the complaining.
i am postivie that if that were the case the powers that be would have done a through investigation. its funny that i am only just now hearing this information. where is your source? an internet chain letter?
anyway i snoped it. its false.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
You're only now hearing about it because you most likely only get your information from the mainstream media, who have by any sane measurement been in the sack with Obama from the get-go. Anyone who pay attention to other news sources, like WorldNetDaily, AmericanThinker, and FrontPage has known about this for a while now. And for the "powers that be", they really have the best interest of the country at heart, and they're going to investigate their Messiah. Ok.
Snopes is your authoritative source? Hm. Sure.
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which state that by not responding to a accusation in writing within 30 days, the accused admits guilt. The Obama campaign has failed to respond to any questions regarding the location of his birth, and even statements from family members who say that they were present at his birth in Mombasa, Kenya. If the accusations were simply wrong, why hasn't he responded?
I'll have to check but I've heard now 2 radio interviews by the guy who is suing Obama about his birth certificate, he's a senator or congressman.
And he won't share his college papers. Plus his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and that she was there, of course she she's gone.
Now why wouldn't an American running for presidency not show this stuff, if even to shut up the idiots? And why not college forms? Unless, he applied for college as a foreign student and got aid because of it. THAT makes sense. With him not showing these things, he wouldn't even qualify to be his own body guard. It's pretty stupid if you ask me, why he would do the most basic of things... unless there's more to it. Which is why you don't hear from the Globama struck media flakes.
I don't know how you can have just now heard about this unless, like dnr said, you only listen to the mainstream puppets.
From what I heard, there wasn't a birth certificate. He got a replacement paper that's not exactly a birth certificate. It just says what he said about where he was born, and he swore to it. Which doesn't mean much.
He won't show his college papers because he doesn't want anyone to know where the money came from. He says he paid off his student loan, but there is no record of him ever HAVING a student loan.
And most of us are smarter than you think. We wouldn't go quoting some email forward unless it was in the humor section. *SIIIIIGHHH*
Hmm.. I'm just really interested in seeing how much fun it will be to hear presidential news now that there are two little ones in the house.
He's my president, and I'll pray for him. I wish him the best, and I pray that he turns to God for guidance. I know for certain that he cannot do this job on his own.. May God richly bless their family during this time!
Quote from: Nelle on January 22, 2009, 02:49:19 AM
He's my president, and I'll pray for him. I wish him the best, and I pray that he turns to God for guidance. I know for certain that he cannot do this job on his own.. May God richly bless their family during this time!
I agree with you. I don't agree with his campaign policies, but he's President, I don't forsee that changing, and if he has a failure as President, then the country would suffer as well, and I don't want to see that. So for the sake of our nation, I hope he does well.
For another perspective on maybe why we should NOT want him to succeed, view this video http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012209/content/01125108.guest.html (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012209/content/01125108.guest.html) and read this transcript http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html)
I also hope he fails, but not so badly he takes all of us down the drain with him.
I hope his policies, if socialist and/or unConstitutional, fail. But, who really knows. NOthing any of us do really matters at this point.
BTW, what is up with that picture of your feet? Everytime I see it I think it's a picture of somebodys rumpus laying on a bed. Julie thought the same thing too...
Quote from: dnr1128 on January 23, 2009, 02:57:21 AM
I hope his policies, if socialist and/or unConstitutional, fail. But, who really knows. NOthing any of us do really matters at this point.
BTW, what is up with that picture of your feet? Everytime I see it I think it's a picture of somebodys rumpus laying on a bed. Julie thought the same thing too...
Dem's my purple fuzzy slipper socks. I wanted to identify with the purple fuzzy.
Oh. Everytime I see it I think of the southern end of a northbound person laying over a bed. Hm.
:laughat: :rofl: :rofl: :laughat:
Quote from: dnr1128 on January 23, 2009, 05:05:03 AM
Oh. Everytime I see it I think of the southern end of a northbound person laying over a bed. Hm.
That's what I thought the first time I saw it...LOL...
Quote from: Sis on January 23, 2009, 02:14:34 AM
I also hope he fails, but not so badly he takes all of us down the drain with him.
Quote from: dnr1128 on January 23, 2009, 02:57:21 AM
I hope his policies, if socialist and/or unConstitutional, fail. But, who really knows. NOthing any of us do really matters at this point.
It's if he
succeeds in implementing those policies that we'll all be going down the drain - they will do immense damage to this nation.
In that sense, I agree with Limbaugh - even though I think he said what he did mostly to make headlines. (That's Limbaugh's way.)
True. The other day they were talking on the radio about how he was all appearances. Having flags around him for show, and those slogans on podiums.
I've found throughout my life that if you're all show, there's very little substance. But bubbleheads can cause damage, too. Just because they don't know what they're doing, they can throw monkey wrenches into the machinery.
Quote from: Chseeads on January 23, 2009, 04:37:01 PM
Quote from: dnr1128 on January 23, 2009, 05:05:03 AM
Oh. Everytime I see it I think of the southern end of a northbound person laying over a bed. Hm.
That's what I thought the first time I saw it...LOL...
Well, if it is, it's a skinny one.
I'm not really sure what I want from his administration. If he succeeds in implementing even half of the stuff he talked about during his campaign, he would succeed in changing this nation in such a manner as to make it impossible to rectify. I'm kinda starting to see some trends in the media that the honeymoon may be very shortlived. Really, I expect him to be a liberal, but not as radically liberal as some want him to be. Public opinion can change radically, and there's a fine line between love and hate; all the people who were worshipping him as their savior during the campaign could very easily turn against him if the bread and circuses stop.
I'm sooooo tempted to...................
QuoteSure! I'll treat Obama with the same respect as the liberals treated Bush!
The quote is from someplace else. Not here.
And Rush makes that point in the second of the two links I posted above; the liberals are telling conservatives that we should give him a chance, but they didn't get Bush a chance in 2001. But, I don't know of any realistic conservative that expects liberals to NOT hold a double standard.
US will now fund abortion clinics globally...
Obama lifts restrictions on abortion funding By Jeff Mason and Deborah Charles Jeff Mason And Deborah Charles – Fri Jan 23, 8:12 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Friday lifted restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, reversing a policy of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush.
The Democratic president's decision was a victory for advocates of abortion rights on an issue that in recent years has become a tit-for-tat policy change each time the White House shifts from one party to the other.
When the ban was in place, no U.S. government funding for family planning services could be given to clinics or groups that offered abortion services or counseling in other countries, even if the funds for those activities came from non-U.S. government sources.
"For the past eight years, (the restrictions) have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries," Obama said in a statement.
"It is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development."
In contrast to his executive order to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which he signed in a ceremony before journalists, the president issued this order quietly and the White House released a statement at 7 p.m. EST/2400 GMT.
The decision has been called the Mexico City Policy because it was unveiled at a United Nations conference there in 1984 and became one of the centerpiece social positions of the administration of then-President Ronald Reagan, a Republican.
Critics call it the "gag rule" because it cuts funds to groups that advocate lifting abortion restrictions, which critics say means it blocks free speech. They say it reduced healthcare for some of the world's poorest women.
Planned Parenthood, a health care provider and advocacy group for abortion rights, welcomed the move in a statement.
"No longer will health care providers be forced to choose between receiving family planning funding and restricting the health care services they provide to women," it said.
CRITICS ON BOTH SIDES
Anti-abortion activists criticized Obama.
"When we wake up every morning to a deepening financial crisis, it is an insult to the American people to bail out the abortion industry," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.
"Planned Parenthood is a billion-dollar company and they do not need additional resources to burden the American taxpayer."
Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, rescinded the rule when he took office in January 1993 and his successor, Republican George W. Bush, reinstated it in January 2001.
Obama said he wanted to depoliticize the topic and directed his staff to reach out to people on both sides to work on reducing unintended pregnancies.
He also promised to work with Congress to resume funding to the U.N. Population Fund.
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell expressed disapproval. "I have long supported the Mexico City Policy and believe this administration's decision to be counter to our nation's interests," he said in a statement.
The United States spends more than $400 million on overseas family planning assistance each year.
Critics of the funding ban say the anti-abortion restrictions have resulted in huge drops for funding worldwide to organizations that provide family-planning services and basic healthcare. They say this means many women are deprived of contraception and other health services in poor countries, leading to back-alley abortions and deaths.
The Center for Reproductive Rights says, for example, that in Ethiopia and Lesotho, some nongovernmental organizations are no longer able to offer comprehensive and integrated healthcare services to patients suffering from HIV/AIDS.
Abortion rights opponents and groups who support the Mexico City Policy dispute the view that it has led to an increase of illegal abortions or deaths overseas.
Unlike Clinton and Bush, Obama did not act on the rule on the January 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortions legal throughout the United States.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090124/ts_nm/us_obama_abortion (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090124/ts_nm/us_obama_abortion)
hopefully the next step will be medicaid extending the coverage of the cost of abortion for mothers who have nonviable pregnancies...
Quote from: Chérie on January 28, 2009, 03:44:50 AM
hopefully the next step will be medicaid extending the coverage of the cost of abortion for mothers who have nonviable pregnancies...
I am against our tax dollars been used for any type of abortion or capital punishment for that matter. I can not see how murder will help the economy.
as soon as FOCA has or does pass, the government will fund any abortion, reguardless of circumstances. The % of non-viable pregnancies is a drop in the horse trough of millions of healthy ones brutally terminated. And makes such a statement moot. It's sad that people buy into that.
As if the handful somehow validates the many murdered.
No, the next step is to be like China and kill the babies after their born full term because they don't fit the "family planning."
The next step will be to let medicaid pay for terminating our elderly so they will not be a burden on our welfare system. What keep paying for someone to have good health when they will no longer be able to work and contrite to society.
medicaid already pays for a type of partial birth abortion with nonviable pregnancies. what makes early termination any different?
Because I don't want our tax dollars used to kill babies. passed away babies aren't the same as partial birth abortions. They don't have to kill it when it's half way out of the body.
Taking a passed away baby isn't abortion.
what do you mean by passed away?
and if the baby is going to die in the end anyway why should the mother have to suffer 9 months of pregnancy knowing she is going to give birth to a baby that is just going to die and that is if the child even survives the labor?
i'm playing devils advocate of course, and if i could go back and do it all differently i probably would. i wish i had the mental capabilities to have carried hannah full term, but at the time i didn't. bottom line, it wasn't an elective procedure on my part. but medicaid had different ideas and apparently it was acceptable to end a pregnancy at 7 months but not at 4. that thinking is illogical to me.
basically my options were abortion clinic or thousands of dollars in hospital fees. i felt like my baby was worth the money.
I wanted to use the term stillborn but that wasn't right. Don't know how else to put it. Died in the womb and had to be surgically removed.
If a baby was really that sick, he might expel himself anyway.
I know a woman who was told that her baby only had 1/3 of a brain. That IF the baby lived it wouldn't ever be able to feel or know anything. She had the baby, worried the whole time, prayed a lot.
The baby was born normal, and not only that, he's at the top of his class and one of the brightest kids in his class.
Doctors don't always know, and God can step in at any time. Now, if she had aborted the baby like they were pressuring her, she would have never known this intelligent, friendly, cute little boy who is now about 10 or 11 years old without any health problems except normal childhood illnesses.
My wife and I have some friends who, with their second pregnancy, were told by the woman's doctor that the baby had a number of health issues - Turner's syndrome, heart problems, possible mental deficiencies. On several occasions they were offered the option to terminate the pregnancy.
A few months ago their beautiful baby girl was born. And yes, she has Turner's syndrome, but none of the other diagnoses were correct.
This sort of thing makes me wonder 1. how many expecting parents believe that a person is less valuable because he or she has a condition or disease, and 2. how many expecting parents have aborted their babies, healthy or unhealthy, because of this belief. We can marvel at the instances in which perfectly healthy children are born, despite the doctors' predictions, but the truth is that even if the doctors are correct the babies' lives are no less valuable, and do not deserve termination.
Quote from: titushome on January 28, 2009, 05:25:16 PM
My wife and I have some friends who, with their second pregnancy, were told by the woman's doctor that the baby had a number of health issues - Turner's syndrome, heart problems, possible mental deficiencies. On several occasions they were offered the option to terminate the pregnancy.
A few months ago their beautiful baby girl was born. And yes, she has Turner's syndrome, but none of the other diagnoses were correct.
This sort of thing makes me wonder 1. how many expecting parents believe that a person is less valuable because he or she has a condition or disease, and 2. how many expecting parents have aborted their babies, healthy or unhealthy, because of this belief. We can marvel at the instances in which perfectly healthy children are born, despite the doctors' predictions, but the truth is that even if the doctors are correct the babies' lives are no less valuable, and do not deserve termination.
I agree whole heartily. I have a brother that had a son born without anything wrong with him. At five months old he got meningitis. He went into a comma for a few days. When he came out his brain was damaged. He was never able to stand, walk or talk. He was severely mentally retarded. Michael lived to be fourteen years old. Never able to lead a normal life. But yet for fourteen years he brought joy to the family. For fourteen years he was cared for and loved. What would have been the difference in when he was five months old, saying he will never walk or talk. He will never have a chance to live a full life. We might as well end his life now and save all the trouble down the road. Is this not the same as aborting babies because they won't be healthy.
I also know of a preacher who has CP. The doctors told his family he would never walk or talk. He does both. They told them he would live but a few days. He is now 49 years old. It is amazing what God can do when people put their trust in Him and not what the doctors say.
Quote from: titushome on January 28, 2009, 05:25:16 PM
My wife and I have some friends who, with their second pregnancy, were told by the woman's doctor that the baby had a number of health issues - Turner's syndrome, heart problems, possible mental deficiencies. On several occasions they were offered the option to terminate the pregnancy.
A few months ago their beautiful baby girl was born. And yes, she has Turner's syndrome, but none of the other diagnoses were correct.
This sort of thing makes me wonder 1. how many expecting parents believe that a person is less valuable because he or she has a condition or disease, and 2. how many expecting parents have aborted their babies, healthy or unhealthy, because of this belief. We can marvel at the instances in which perfectly healthy children are born, despite the doctors' predictions, but the truth is that even if the doctors are correct the babies' lives are no less valuable, and do not deserve termination.
most people pray for a healthy baby. i was to the point i was praying she had anything that she could live with.
before i went into labor, i was talking to the nurses asking them what sort of situations they had seen. i was told that some babies were born with just a body - no head. they mentioned some babies just being born with an arm, no head, no torso an arm. in those situations - its not that the parent does not value the life of their baby - that absolutely was not the case for me - but asking the mother to continue carrying a child that she is going to have to bury after birth is mentally cruel.(and i'm talking about 0% chance of life expectancy, not situations where the child will be born with a birth defect or has a greater chance of life expectancy.)
i know in my situation i wasn't sleeping, and when i did manage to fall asleep i woke up screaming. i stopped eating. i was mourning the loss of my child. looking back now, i believe i probably could have continued the pregnancy but at the time it would have mentally broke me to the point that i probably would have been committed.
Quote from: Chérie on January 28, 2009, 06:37:24 PM
before i went into labor, i was talking to the nurses asking them what sort of situations they had seen. i was told that some babies were born with just a body - no head. they mentioned some babies just being born with an arm, no head, no torso an arm. in those situations - its not that the parent does not value the life of their baby - that absolutely was not the case for me - but asking the mother to continue carrying a child that she is going to have to bury after birth is mentally cruel.(and i'm talking about 0% chance of life expectancy, not situations where the child will be born with a birth defect or has a greater chance of life expectancy.)
I understand your situation, and I'm extremely sorry for your loss, and I agree that there's a world of difference - really there's not even a comparison - between a baby that has any kind of defect, and one that is already dead or is missing body parts such that life is impossible. In those rare cases, I agree that the baby's body should be removed from the mother's womb if she chooses.
thanks - and i'm not posting all this to gain sympathy.
i've always been a big supporter of women's rights. i remember three of four years ago on this forum saying that i could never have an abortion under any circumstances, but that i still supported a woman's right to choose....
i do believe that abortion is misused and abused, but i also think that the word abortion has been perverted by those who see it as an easy means of birth control and there is so much more to it... and its certainly not just an easy decision that anyone comes to.
9 times out of 10 i am going to argue that adoption is the best method, but a woman should still have that right to choose - mainly because i do not believe it is the right of the government to tell me what to do with my body.
Quote from: Chérie on January 28, 2009, 07:00:43 PM
9 times out of 10 i am going to argue that adoption is the best method, but a woman should still have that right to choose - mainly because i do not believe it is the right of the government to tell me what to do with my body.
I really appreciate your stance, but there's more than your body at stake. I agree that it's wrong for the government to tell a woman what she can do with her body, but I do believe the government should be able to prohibit a woman - with rare exceptions - from ending the life of a baby growing inside her. It's no different from the government prohibiting murder by any other means.
Quote from: Chérie on January 28, 2009, 07:00:43 PM
thanks - and i'm not posting all this to gain sympathy.
i've always been a big supporter of women's rights. i remember three of four years ago on this forum saying that i could never have an abortion under any circumstances, but that i still supported a woman's right to choose....
i do believe that abortion is misused and abused, but i also think that the word abortion has been perverted by those who see it as an easy means of birth control and there is so much more to it... and its certainly not just an easy decision that anyone comes to.
9 times out of 10 i am going to argue that adoption is the best method, but a woman should still have that right to choose - mainly because i do not believe it is the right of the government to tell me what to do with my body.
I would not argue with you about it not been the right of the government to tell a woman what she should do with her body. Nor will I argue with equal rights. What I do take offense to is the fact that tax dollars can be used for it. There are many medical needs that medicaid will not cover.
I don't understand the idea that aborting the child is somehow better than going full term and then having a funeral. As if somehow the loss is less. A life is a life. That's what the world is not getting. Abnormalities, diseases, etc. It's still a person.
and it was just established that where the doctors say "can't" God can and often does. So why cut God short on the, even if minute, possibility that He can do a miracle? To avoid more heartache? Isn't it heartache either way? Like Sis said, often times the body will pass the baby itself.
Seems all these reasons have one thing in common. They take God out. Because if they left God in, not just in prayers but in action, anything would be possible and more lives would be saved, and turn out far better than expected! And if the baby died, whether in or out of the womb, one thing would be certain... that it was God that took the life and not man.
I understand with Chérie here that this post may be insensitive, if it is, please delete it, for I am not really concerned with what is done and past and unchangeable as much as I am how many more babies are brutally killed under such perspectives.
And I contend continuously, that the non-viable pregnancies that cannot be passed naturally are so few and far between that it does not validate the support of a concept that is primarily and overwhelmingly used to justify vanity and selfishness with murder. It's not a fair trade off whatsoever.
Quote from: MellowYellow on January 28, 2009, 07:56:39 PM
I contend continuously, that the non-viable pregnancies that cannot be passed naturally are so few and far between that it does not validate the support of a concept that is primarily and overwhelmingly used to justify vanity and selfishness with murder. It's not a fair trade off whatsoever.
And for every such case where the mother chooses to abort the baby, there are others that have chosen to continue the pregnancy and let God make the decision. I know of one such case in my wife's family; the little baby was born with only part of her skull, and very little brain matter. The doctors said she wouldn't be born alive. She was, and lived for over a year, showed some signs of mental activity, and was a joy to her parents before she passed on.
Fact is, there aren't any cases that I can come up with where it is justifiable to kill your own baby. But, if worship of self is the point, then it's ok to sacrifice a child on the altar.
Quote from: dnr1128 on February 11, 2009, 04:07:36 PM
Fact is, there aren't any cases that I can come up with where it is justifiable to kill your own baby. But, if worship of self is the point, then it's ok to sacrifice a child on the altar.
The only cases in which I think it might be justifiable are those in which the mother's life is at stake. If it's literally a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, then, as much as I hate to say it, I don't think the government, the doctor or anyone else has the right to make that choice for the parents.
But with modern medical technology being the way it is, these sorts of cases are truly exceptionally rare. And I know that if my wife and I found ourselves in this position, we would do all we could to save the baby's life, and leave my wife in God's hands. But I don't think we can make this choice for everyone.
Quote from: dnr1128 on February 11, 2009, 04:07:36 PM
Fact is, there aren't any cases that I can come up with where it is justifiable to kill your own baby. But, if worship of self is the point, then it's ok to sacrifice a child on the altar.
it really saddens me that you're so ignorant to make such statements. i'm happy that the world is all black and white where you live.
Quote from: titushome on February 11, 2009, 09:48:01 PM
Quote from: dnr1128 on February 11, 2009, 04:07:36 PM
Fact is, there aren't any cases that I can come up with where it is justifiable to kill your own baby. But, if worship of self is the point, then it's ok to sacrifice a child on the altar.
The only cases in which I think it might be justifiable are those in which the mother's life is at stake. If it's literally a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, then, as much as I hate to say it, I don't think the government, the doctor or anyone else has the right to make that choice for the parents.
But with modern medical technology being the way it is, these sorts of cases are truly exceptionally rare. And I know that if my wife and I found ourselves in this position, we would do all we could to save the baby's life, and leave my wife in God's hands. But I don't think we can make this choice for everyone.
If the baby is big enough to cause that kind of problem, they can deliver it and try to keep it alive. Whether birth canal or C-section. They don't need to KILL it, they can do both, save the mother and the child.
Quote from: Chérie on February 11, 2009, 11:47:43 PM
Quote from: dnr1128 on February 11, 2009, 04:07:36 PM
Fact is, there aren't any cases that I can come up with where it is justifiable to kill your own baby. But, if worship of self is the point, then it's ok to sacrifice a child on the altar.
it really saddens me that you're so ignorant to make such statements. i'm happy that the world is all black and white where you live.
Under what circumstances IS it justified in your opinion to end the life of a baby? Don't just quote a bunch of rhetoric, but give me specific circumstances, accompanied by your reasoning, where it is permissible and acceptable to abort a living baby.
Quote from: dnr1128 on February 13, 2009, 03:15:44 AM
Quote from: Chérie on February 11, 2009, 11:47:43 PM
Quote from: dnr1128 on February 11, 2009, 04:07:36 PM
Fact is, there aren't any cases that I can come up with where it is justifiable to kill your own baby. But, if worship of self is the point, then it's ok to sacrifice a child on the altar.
it really saddens me that you're so ignorant to make such statements. i'm happy that the world is all black and white where you live.
Under what circumstances IS it justified in your opinion to end the life of a baby? Don't just quote a bunch of rhetoric, but give me specific circumstances, accompanied by your reasoning, where it is permissible and acceptable to abort a living baby.
my situation for one. my baby was given 0% chance of survival. no skull, no brain. the dr believed she would probably die in the womb. yes she had a heartbeat, but she couldn't even move. when i thought that i felt her kicking inside of me, it was the fluid in the uterus causing her to bump up against me. she is absolutely the most precious and perfect thing that i have ever done, but we made a decision at the time, based on our knowledge, based on what my family believed, his family believed, and with the support of the pastor of my parent's church and my church family. (and yes they are very much saved and prolife in most situations)
initially i was totally against the very idea. in my mind, i imagined an abortion being performed in some dirty clinic where they throw the babies in the trash afterwards. i had no idea that terminating a pregnancy thru induced labor was even possible. i was in labor for 2 days just so i could hold my baby, afterwards we had her cremated.
after seeing pictures (and i've posted a link from google - its somewhat graphic) i believe i made the right decision. Hannah was absolutely beautiful to us, but i know it would have been so much more difficult for everyone in my family to see her in this condition at 9 months gestation.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=anencephaly%20more%3Acondition_treatment&cx=disease_for_patients&ei=hIWVSaGaEIG4tweqk5mcCw&resnum=0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
had there been even a 1% chance for her survival the whole situation would have been completely different. you make it sound like abortion is such an easy decision to make. it was not a convenience on my part. i live with the guilt every day that i was not healthy enough when she was conceived.
so yes, i do very much take offense to your statement of "if worship of self is the point, then it's ok to sacrifice a child on the altar". i would have died for her and very much wanted to die.
i still love Hannah as much as much as you love your child, my only regret is that i did not get the time with her that other parents have been afforded.
But you are one person. 99% of abortions are to get rid of evidence of wrong-doing. You can't apply YOUR circumstance to the other people out there making decisions to get rid of good, healthy babies for convenience sake.
i'm not. i'm appalled that women still use it as a form of birth control, especially with all the methods of preventing pregnancy that we have available today. i believe abortion is a vile practice, but there is a time when it is acceptable. and yes i agree, those situations are few and far between but they still happen.
dnr however does not believe that there is ever a time or circumstance that abortion is a viable medical procedure, and i am contesting that, and his theory that all women who have abortions are sacrificing their children on an alter of love for self.
Quote from: Chérie on February 13, 2009, 08:43:49 PM
dnr however does not believe that there is ever a time or circumstance that abortion is a viable medical procedure, and i am contesting that, and his theory that all women who have abortions are sacrificing their children on an alter of love for self.
And I stand by both statements. In your account, you make the following statement: "...The doctor believed she would probably die in the womb..." So what is the just cause for abortion? Simply let nature terminate the pregnancy, or let God handle it.
The VAST majority of abortions are indeed done by women who are seeking either to cover up their bad decisions, or to get rid of a child that they simply don't want. The very few exceptions, such as yours, should be solved by letting God handle things. He created the life, let Him end it.
Even with your story, you haven't given any justifications for abortion.
Quote from: dnr1128 on February 14, 2009, 12:12:57 AM
And I stand by both statements. In your account, you make the following statement: "...The doctor believed she would probably die in the womb..." So what is the just cause for abortion? Simply let nature terminate the pregnancy, or let God handle it.
It's easy to
say "simply let nature terminate the pregnancy." It's far more difficult, I imagine, for a woman to carry a dead or non-viable baby in her womb. I think Danni made the right decision (not that she needs my consent).
Not to be judgemental, but that's about what my friends were told about their baby. He only had 1/3 of a brain. They kept trying to get the mother to abort. She left it in God's hands. The boy was born whole, healthy and smarter than most kids his age.
I know God doesn't do it in every instance, but ...............
I don't think anybody is saying that carrying a baby who has 0% chance of survival is easy; but what we are saying is that it's better to leave the situation in God's hands than to opt for aborting a living child. If the baby has already died, the mother can have a DNC to remove the body. But, to abort a baby based purely upon a doctors assessment that the baby would probably not survive the pregnancy or not last long outside the womb isn't morally justified.
Tell me if I'm wrong, I do believe she was saying, not that the baby was aborted, but they put her into early labor and not sure, live birth? Did the baby die afterward?
If that was the case, I woud in NO WAY call that an abortion.
yes sis, i was induced.
she was still born, due to the stress of labor.
No way would I even think of that as abortion.
It is and it isn't. I did some research on it, and its the rarest type of abortion used. I think if abortion is needed to be performed inducing labor is the only way to do it. Abortion clinics do not use this method, but if they did abortion rates would not be nearly as high.
After I lost Hannah, I had a coworker compare her grief over losing her baby that she had aborted in a clinic a few months earlier to mine and I was just completely appalled.
First of all, she had aborted a perfectly healthy baby, because it wasn't the right time with her boyfriend of 2 years. When Travis and I found out we were expecting, it was most certainly not the right time and had Hannah had any other sort of condition abortion would have never been an option. Secondly with her abortion she was more less put under, and didn't feel a thing. Simple easy and quick.
We were given the choice to go to a clinic and it certainly would have been less expensive, but I chose to have her in a hospital with my OBGYN because I wanted to hold Hannah and have her buried, and I felt like she deserved as much dignity as possible. It was the single most physically emotionally painful experience of my life, and totally worth it.
I still wouldn't call it an abortion. You shouldn't be carrying the same stigma that others who just get rid of healthy babies.
I think doctors would like to think of it as an abortion so they can justify the others. Calling it a therapeutic abortion eases their conscious but leaves the mother with a stigma for the world to think she's heartless. *Shakes head*
If I were you, I wouldn't use the term anymore. I'd just say that she was stillborn, or only that you lost her.
I never really discuss it in depth with anyone except for my friends and family. I think with a forum there is still that sense of anonymity that just makes talking about it easier, but we would never discuss this in reality. We had a discussion in my rhetoric and compostion class last week about abortion vs women's rights, I couldn't bring myself to discuss it, nor would I want to in that type of situation. The experience is too sacred to discuss like that. Every once in a while someone will ask Travis about his tattoo, which is Hannah's name and her tiny foot prints, and we just tell them that we miscarried her.
The only reason I really argue it here, is there is a stigma that is associated with it especially among christian conservatives. As horrible as it is there are some cases where abortion is a necessary medical procedure to be used with sobriety and discretion. Roe vs Wade, abortion clinics, feminists, as well as lot of liberal lefties have hijacked a medical term and made it something ugly, that it wasn't supposed to be. The bottom line is abortion should never have been used as a form of birth control.
How far along were you when you had this done??
I was just curious
Quote from: Sis on February 17, 2009, 06:46:51 AM
I still wouldn't call it an abortion. You shouldn't be carrying the same stigma that others who just get rid of healthy babies.
I think doctors would like to think of it as an abortion so they can justify the others. Calling it a therapeutic abortion eases their conscious but leaves the mother with a stigma for the world to think she's heartless. *Shakes head*
If I were you, I wouldn't use the term anymore. I'd just say that she was stillborn, or only that you lost her.
I agree. by your own words Cherie, you said you were induced and she was stillborn. What Sis said about making the terms technical to justify others makes so much sense. But had you started the conversation with that info, I don't think you would feel defensive for you or anyone else in your position because it's a completely different situation. One that people would not consider as abortion in the first place. Feel bad and defensive for those who have still born babies, not the ones like your friend.
charlene, i was almost 20 weeks.
mellowyellow - i appreciate your views and of course it is a different situation, but only because i could afford it. i had the means to opt for a more "ethical procedure", but what about the mothers who cannot afford that luxury? which brings me back to my orignial statement - medicaid should pay for the termination of a nonviable pregnancy.
QuoteThe only reason I really argue it here, is there is a stigma that is associated with it especially among christian conservatives. As horrible as it is there are some cases where abortion is a necessary medical procedure to be used with sobriety and discretion. Roe vs Wade, abortion clinics, feminists, as well as lot of liberal lefties have hijacked a medical term and made it something ugly, that it wasn't supposed to be. The bottom line is abortion should never have been used as a form of birth control.
Actually you have that a bit backwards. I was around before Roe V Wade and they haven't "hijacked" a medical term. That term was only used when the baby self-aborted. Actually just before Rov V Wade there was a large amount of leftist and feminist propaganda via movies and such talking about back street abortion. That's actually the first time most housewives heard the term.
Medical people didn't use it much at all. They used a myrid of other terms depending on exactly what the medical problems behind the intervention was. The word abortion was started to be used publically and flaunted by the liberals who wanted to use it as a political platform. The term was there but rarely used by anyone, medical or nonmedical people. As a matter of fact, most of the time, doctors only used the term D & C in reference to an interrupted pregnancy for valid medical reasons.
Most girls didn't go to back streets to get rid of a baby. They would try to self-induce by doing things like riding horses, falling, etc.
Also the numbers of girls getting pregnant in the first place weren't nearly as high as they are now. Sex education without values taught in the schools have had a lot to do with the boom in kids having sex and getting pregnant. I graduated in a class of around 470-480 students. Only one girl graduated pregnant. None of my friends were sexually active. As a matter of fact, girls were shunned when we heard they WERE sexually active.
Quote from: Chérie on February 17, 2009, 09:36:48 PM
charlene, i was almost 20 weeks.
mellowyellow - i appreciate your views and of course it is a different situation, but only because i could afford it. i had the means to opt for a more "ethical procedure", but what about the mothers who cannot afford that luxury? which brings me back to my orignial statement - medicaid should pay for the termination of a nonviable pregnancy.
Been on welfare. Medicade pays much more than any insurance. If the doctor deems it necessary, it will be done in the hospital and paid for. What you're suggesting is, medicade should pay for 99 vanity abortions so the one serious situation won't be left out. The one will be taken care of. There's absolutely NO reason that abortions should be free to those who want one.
Having labor induced and the baby dying during that process isn't what I could call an "abortion."
Quote from: Sis on February 17, 2009, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: Chérie on February 17, 2009, 09:36:48 PM
charlene, i was almost 20 weeks.
mellowyellow - i appreciate your views and of course it is a different situation, but only because i could afford it. i had the means to opt for a more "ethical procedure", but what about the mothers who cannot afford that luxury? which brings me back to my orignial statement - medicaid should pay for the termination of a nonviable pregnancy.
Been on welfare. Medicade pays much more than any insurance. If the doctor deems it necessary, it will be done in the hospital and paid for. What you're suggesting is, medicaid should pay for 99 vanity abortions so the one serious situation won't be left out. The one will be taken care of. There's absolutely NO reason that abortions should be free to those who want one.
no that's not what i am suggesting =) i believe medicaid should pay for 100% of the cost for aborting an unborn child with conditions that make their survival rate 0% chance.
and no, medicaid does not pay for it. i was on medicaid with Hannah, when i found i was pregnant i did not have health insurance. even though my doctor believed that carrying Hannah full term was risky for me, medicaid would not cover the cost of the procedure until i was at least 7 months pregnant. where is the logic in that? its not ok to end the life of baby at 3 months gestation, but it is ok to do so at 7 months?
needless to say i am still paying medical bills for my hosptial care.
Quote from: dnr1128 on February 17, 2009, 11:59:31 PM
Having labor induced and the baby dying during that process isn't what I could call an "abortion."
the procedure is rare, i've been doing more research on it, and the percentage rates are low. its a form of d&e. sometimes the doctor puts your under, mine however did not. he also fully encouraged the idea of us seeing and holding our baby - which i was going to do no matter what. there are so many different methods, this one is the most humane. i'm guessing that only a doctor who takes his credentials seriously performs this type of operation. its not done in your average abortion clinics for sure.
The only criteria under which I would consider said procedure to be an abortion is if it is done with the expressed purpose and intent to cause the baby to die.
well thats the whole purpose of the procedure. they didn't know if my baby would be still born, or born alive, but we all knew what the outcome would be. and if you're inducing labor on a woman is just about to go into her second trimester, i can't imagine there being another outcome....
An abortion is taking action knowing that the action will cause the child to die when, had the actions not been taken, the child would have continued living.
I cannot come up with any viable circumstances under which such actions are justified. The cases where the decision is between the life of the child and the life of the mother constitute such a small percentage of abortions as to be completely irrelevant for this argument. Even by the admission of the abortion advocates, such cases are "...hardly ever necessary..." (Dr. Alan Guttmacher, leader of Planned Parenthood, 1967). In 1980, C. Everett Koop stated that in his thirty-six years of practicing pediatric surgery he had never seen even one instance where abortion was necessary to save the mother's life.
If aborting a child based simply on the opinion that the child would not survive after birth is morally acceptable, where are the lines? What are acceptable conditions, and what aren't?
Fact is, abortion is not justified, either morally or medically.
:lurk: