Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Do you think all mothers would choose their life over their child's?

Posted By: Lydia on 2006-11-25
In Reply to: Your right - ExMQMT

A serious question.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Obama values life of babies AND their mothers.
I am not in the habit of debating with brick walls, but I will address your issue directly just as soon as you come up with something that will convince me that McCain's air quotes demontrate high regard for human life. Kill the mom, save the baby, then watch while it pulls itself up by its bootstraps, lest we turn our beloved country into a welfare state. P-U.
I am not brainwashed. I live my life the way I choose
to live and you are free to live yours the way you want to live.  If you don't believe in Christianity and salvation that is your choice.  I don't call you brainwashed by those who don't believe in God, so please don't call me brainwashed by my convictions and my belief in a Savior and eternal life.  Have a blessed day!
Reminded me of a real-life situation when I was a child -
My sister, cousin, and myself had a koolaid stand on the side of the country road where we lived. We spent the day selling koolaid to mostly family. Halfway through the day, my sister decided it was too hot and she quit. We divided the money up 3 ways at that point and started all over.

At the end of the day, my sister had come back and spent all her money at our koolaid stand. My cousin and myself divided the money up 2 ways at that point when we quit.

An hour later, my sister was complaining to my grandfather that she had no money, that we had all the money and did not give her any... My grandfather proceeded to count our money and give her the exact amount we ended the day with!

I just started comparing that story to the government when I saw this cartoon! Boy, that made me mad...!!!
Who in the world would want to give birth to a child a child conceived during rape?????..nm
Again:L How many children do you have?
hope a lot of these posters are not mothers
because they would be horrible role models for the younger generation.
Men and woman and mothers and fathers are speaking now. sm
Many of whom have fought in Iraq.  They are on television right now. But you won't watch it. It would be too hard for you.  YOu would be screaming obscenities at them.  Do you know, they had to bleep out part of the antiwar march yesterday in DC because of the obscenities and vulgar language.  That is what you are, obscene and vulgar and unpatriotic.
No, I didn't....it was in response to all the attacks about unwed mothers..
but i guess you feel that is okay, right?
Angry Mothers and Trembling Grizzlies: The Sheehan Effect







Angry Mothers and Trembling Grizzlies: The Sheehan Effect
by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst


"Sheehan has been involved in protests against Bush since last year. She founded Gold Star Families for Peace...She said she decided to seek another audience with Bush when she heard his comments about the war last week, after a spike in American deaths. The fallen men and women "died in a noble cause," Bush said Wednesday. "Their families can know that we will honor their loved ones' sacrifice by completing the mission."


"Sheehan said she wants to tell Bush not to use her son's death as a reason to continue the war, and to ask "why (Bush's twin daughters) Jenna and Barbara and the other children of the architects of this disastrous war are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble." ArmyTimes.com, August 8, 2005


For some, Cindy Sheehan's lonely journey through the shock and sorrow of her son Casey's death in Iraq is of no interest. What, they ask, is the big deal? One soldier killed, one mother grieving – so what? Mothers have no business meddling in the manly business of war, or expressing inconvenient, disloyal, unpatriotic feelings like grief or anger. Get over it, critics command, and think about "the mission" instead, a mission that "we should see through" so that other people can't make fun of us for "cutting and running."


Instead of focusing on one poor misguided woman, or on how many more Americans and innocent Iraqi families will be killed in this war, we're told to think about how great it will be when other people admire us for killing every terrorist and future terrorist in the whole wide world. Instead of thinking about the new fundamentalist Islamic "democracy" that Bush's war has ushered in for the poor girls and women of Iraq, think about "the good news" way, way down the road when they get used to wearing the burqa and live happily ever after. In short, Americans should focus on "the big picture."


But for mothers – even those who've tried valiantly to believe the president when he exclaims that the war on Iraq is a "noble cause" – there IS no big picture. For mothers of slain soldiers, there are only little pictures: their lost child smiling at 10 months in his high chair; riding his first bike without training wheels; opening Christmas presents (Hot Wheels, Transformers, or GI Joe); and making silly faces for the camera.


The little picture encompasses all those times when parents stay up all night with their sick children, or protect them from bullies, or wipe away their tears after a friend's rejection. It's not just the happy times that mothers remember, it's the multitude of little moments, little pictures in a parent's mind, of time and love invested in one's offspring. When this enormous investment is squandered by reckless military adventures that zip kids into body bags, parents are owed great compensation. And they are owed the truth.


Do George and Laura Bush ever imagine how it would feel if all they had left of their beloved child was, as Cindy Sheehan has, a few snapshots and an abyss of sorrow in their hearts? Must they suppress their natural compassion in order to convince themselves of their own administration's spin – that it's "worth it" when American kids die far away from home for reasons that have consistently turned out to be false?


Do the Bushes feel the earth tremble beneath their feet at the mere thought that thousands of parents of slain soldiers are beginning to ask questions, to see the folly for which their children died…to find their voice?


Cindy remembers the little picture, which is why George has been hiding from her. She is his worst nightmare, for she is not just Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey. She is Every Mother. And, no matter how uncomfortable it gets, she's not going to dishonor her son by saying, "Well okay, if you say so, I guess this war was worth my boy's life."


Support Our Wars or Else


What does it really mean to "honor" a soldier's death…and life? To say that he or she willingly died "to end terrorism" (impossible), or "make Iraq a democracy" (ditto)? Unless they were suicidal when they enlisted (I know one boy who was), dying in Iraq is not the soldier's "sacrifice" because by definition, a sacrifice is something that we choose and willingly make. Most young people never imagined when they enlisted – often for reasons their recruiters understood but their parents didn't, such as finding a sense of belonging, or escaping bad neighborhoods or dead-end jobs, or finding a way to afford college some day – that they'd be dead within a matter of months.


To swallow ridiculous, ever-changing reasons for the futile war that has killed over 1800 idealistic youths with their whole lives ahead of them is to take the easy, socially acceptable way out. Pro-war pundits and politicians constantly threaten parents with social disapproval and even hatred if they dare to question those reasons – and it's worked for a long time. Parents have felt pressured to mouth the hawks' lines, lest their love for their child be called into question.


What a devilishly mean but perfect system for subduing the parents of fallen soldiers! Politicians and talk show hosts threaten: "Support our troops (the war), or we'll accuse you of dishonoring your dead child." The last thing that worried or grieving parents can bear is the suggestion that they're "dishonoring" the memory of the one they love. And so they have acquiesced. They have submitted. Archie Bunker would be pleased: Like Edith, they've learned to stifle themselves.


Until now.


Protective Fury: The Tipping Point


One day, back when Americans lived in peace and we'd never even heard of the Bush dynasty or the plotting neocons whose reckless ambitions it would serve, I was watching a nature show about grizzly bears in their natural habitat. I will never forget one particularly electrifying scene that comes to mind whenever I hear about Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside Mr. Bush's gated compound.


A large male grizzly came upon two adorable little grizzly cubs, who looked up at him with wonder and naivete; clearly, they didn't realize the danger they were in. To my great surprise, however, the male grizzly stood bolt upright as though startled, then starting running away from those harmless little cubs. Why on earth did he do that, I wondered. The narrator explained that the male knew instinctively that there's nothing more dangerous than a mother grizzly who senses that her cubs may be harmed.


As the huge male ran off into the woods, the narrator continued: "While the male grizzly is larger and could probably kill the female, he knows that in the process, her protective fury would leave him seriously, if not mortally, wounded. Mother grizzly bears will fight to the death for their young, ripping the flesh of any animal, no matter how large, that threatens their cubs. Coming upon the youngsters frightened the adult male so badly that he ran and hid because the mother, unseen but without a doubt somewhere near by, could at any moment sniff his presence and roar into action."


Human males can also sense danger, and know very well the hazards of facing protective mothers – particularly when other mothers are watching, too. This explains why the mainstream media has worked so hard to make antiwar parents of fallen soldiers look pitiful, and why George Bush is hiding inside his compound, hoping that Ms. Sheehan will lose interest and go away.


But what the president doesn't understand is this: She's not going to lose interest, and furthermore it isn't just Cindy Sheehan anymore. Parents of servicemen and women all over the country are beginning to see the little picture again. This is the tipping point, a showdown fueled by motherly devotion that will embolden other families to start questioning the integrity and fitness of this administration and this president: It's what I call the Sheehan Effect.


And that's the worst news ever for a man who can only see the "the mission," the big picture, and how noble it will look under "Bush, George W." in the history books.


British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
You're either with us, or you're with the babies.

British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.

Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.

Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.

The evidence?

The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide “very good cover” and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.

The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.

So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.

Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.

What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?

Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.

The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.

It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.

This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.

Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.

The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
The future of airport security?

Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?

In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.

In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.

What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?

The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?

If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!

I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.

Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!

Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.




If we are going to rule abortion wrong, then we must support these babies and mothers who cannot do
Everyone says that there is no circumstance where an abortion would be validated, and that may well be very true, but....if we then say no to social programs to pay for food, clothing, lodging, education, warmth, etc. that the baby and mother will be needing for years, money for daycare if the mom needs to work, money for work programs for more jobs, money for educational programs like CETA for job training so the mommy, and then her child, can affod to be trained in something they can use to be employable, and of course the money it takes to give prenatal care, postnatal care, hospititalization, NICU if needed, and pediatric and well care, ...... if a woman is not in the circumstance to do this and she has no family that can provide for her and the baby, then where is the money to come from, if we are not going to put our $$$ where our collective "mouths" are and find judicious, accountable social programs to fund this all???????
Just look at statistics on infant mortality rate for mothers without prenatal care - nm
z
I am not in your life....I am in the life of the baby...
and will continue to speak for the baby. Again, my right.
Please choose another name! SM
I have been using MT for a long time.  I don't need this headache!  Man!
How does he choose???
The same way the previous presidents chose which I am not privy to but I know he is indeed the only president who has ever not attended at least one funeral of an American soldier during war time.(He also is the only president who did not pitch the first ball on opening day of baseball season...not important but an interesting sidebar for a former baseball team owner - most think he did not want to deal with the dissent). Not appropriate????? are you kidding??? what is the difference between a 19-year-old losing his life to a lunatic or a 19-year-old losing his life in the service of his country. Both should be given the respect of presidential presence.
Who do we choose

I think this is the first time in my life I will not vote.  Neither candidate is capable in my opinion of running this country.  One doesn't care about the country and the other one just got lucky being the last man standing in his party.  Our country is "dumbdowning" in their presidential candidates. Just my opinion.


What right to choose act? We already have the
.
Now let's see. If I had to choose between
having a racist call me naive, sign me up for a barrel full of pot shots. Naive I am.
womans right to choose
what a woman chooses to do with her body, is her business..you are such a fanatic.  Worry about you and yours and leave others to deal with their own.  Worry about the kids already here that have no homes, worry about all the kids we are killing in Bush's immoral war.  Worry about the kids we are sending as soldiers to get maimed and die for nothing. 
I don't know why you would choose this fight anyway...sm
Bennetts words are right there for all to see/hear. This came out of his mouth, you can't make this stuff up.

If you can't see any wrong, hate, inappropriateness in what he said then that's on you.
Don't we pick and choose

Don't we pick which Bible adages we follow?  The Bible also says turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor as thyself, do unto others....yet many Christians in various venues (including these boards) chide others for being advocates of peace, tolerance and love for all citizens of the world. 


The Bible has contradictions, it was written by men, after all and seems incredibly subject to interpretation.


I think it is a woman's right to choose.


Only because you choose to make it so.
You are pro choice obviously, there is a choice to be made here too. There is nothing noble about using a 17-year-old for political fodder. What if the situation were reversed? What if Barack Obama had a pregnant teenage girl? Can you honestly say with a straight face you would have posted this same thing? Or are you suggesting that the left have no family values?
Tell me, who would you choose to interview him? nm


Well said. If we could only pick and choose who to help..
someone as yourself would be on top of my list!
Do you have a brain and just choose not to use it?
Are you seriously denying that Obama began his political career in the living room of an infamous domestic terrorist?

NObody's that stupid, gourdpainter. Not even you!
Right to choose........no matter what? sm
Then by the same token, it is a woman's right to choose (or choice) to have sex in the first place, apart from incest and/or rape. In those 2 instances, the woman truly has no choice. However, I still do not believe that murdering a child is the answer. And I'm paying for children born out of wedlock anyway through my taxes.

"Just because someone adopts a child does not mean they are good parents." True, but there are also children in this world whose natural parents are not good parents.

Finally....I think you misunderstood my stance on doctors refusing to do abortions. In order to treat STDs, a doctor does not have to murder someone. In order to treat AIDS, a doctor does not have to murder someone. These are diseases which REQUIRE treatment in order for the patient to live. Conversely, in order to treat an unwanted pregnancy through abortion, a doctor MUST PERFORM MURDER, regardless of the gestational age of the baby. If a doctor does not believe that murder is right, then I believe he is within his God-given right to refuse to perform an abortion. I believe nurses and scrub techs and other support staff are also within their right to refuse to participate in such a procedure based on their religious beliefs/moral convictions.


You can't pick and choose WHEN you
want majority rule to count. The people have spoken, they don't want it, try again next time.
Allowing us to choose

which charities to support gives us too much control.  Much better for government to grab our money and distribute it ''fairly'' to causes and individuals we would never approve of on our own.  It goes right along with plans to eliminate individual choice in health care, eliminate school vouchers, bailouts, millions to ACORN, proposed limitations on first and second amendment rights.


Do you remember Peter Falk as Columbo?  ''Oh, and just one more thing....''  In an interview, Falk said that being investigated by Columbo was ''like being nibbled to death by ducks.''  Pretty good analogy to what's happening in our government.


But we are losing our ability to choose every day.
Can't have a fast food place in low income neighborhoods in California anymore because someone has decided because people have low incomes, they obviously can't make their own choices.

Can't have trans fat because someone has decided we can't decide for ourselves what those are.

Businessowners can no longer decide to allow smoking in their bars where majority of patrons are smokers in many places because someone else has decided it's for the greater good if they don't.

I could go on. It isn't Democrat or Republican, it's WE THE PEOPLE allowing these things to happen, allowing ourselves to be duped by studies, doctors, and scientists who think they know what is best for everyone and that we aren't capable of making choices on our own. If we don't stop it in its tracks, it won't matter which party or who is in office. It will continue to spin out of control until we no longer have the choices of which you speak! But in order to make any difference, we have to be united and stop turning on each other.
Rs and Ds will choose which polls to hear...
You cannot overlook 13% undecided which gives neither candidate a bounce over the 50 mark, no matter how hard you try to make it fly. You can have your 3-day whoop, no problem. Convention bounce has a tendency to fade quickly in the face of unaddressed issues.
Look....if liberals can pick and choose...
statements of what someone said once and once they say now...so can conservatives. You can't have it both ways.
Obama didn't choose this man..
He had this man chosen for him and probably had to be kicked pulling and screaming to this VP pick. If you have ever watched Biden speak, he has nothing but rave reviews of McCain. Sure, he's now running against him but he didn't suddenly change his feelings about him. He hasn't towards Obama either; he's just going through the motions in hopes of getting to the White House VP slot where he can make another run in 2012.
I can't, because they choose to remain nameless
x
ya'll all said he should choose better acquaintances! nm
x
They choose to ignore that fact
Becauuse it would be much harder to scare people if they told the truth.
You choose who you CARE to hear
Still, you are lumping everyone together. I AM a Christian AND a Republican and while I personally am definitely pro-life, I understand you cannot legislate morality. I definitely believe in sex education for our children and have no problem with birth control.

So where does that put me in your narrow mind?

why did you choose the word Wonderful?
nm
Why don't women have a right to choose suicide?
Why is it a woman can chose to murder an unborn child because it's "her body" - a scientific impossibility...

But if that woman decided to kill HERSELF - when it actually IS her body - it's a crime.

You promote abortion. The fact that you don't want to admit it proves that somewhere in your dank, shriveled-up little soul, there's at least one ounce of decency that knows what you're professing is wrong.

You are pro-abortion. You're just in denial about it. LIke every other "proud Liberal" lunatic.
Excuse me but what do you mean by pick and choose?
Obama has NO right to 'pick and choose.' He cannot interfere in Iran's sovereignty and internal affairs only with the justification that he supports and defends democracy. I wished he could! But he cannot, this would have been a grave mistake, a bigger mistake than Iraq.

The Iranian government's reaction would have been to tell Obama 'Mind your own business.'
All this proves is that liberals pick and choose...
freedom of religion? Like ANY of you ascribe to that? Lemme seee----go back to your church. Ummm...bible-thumpin gun moll...I would have to search, but you get my drift. Yes, i know what choice is. Me, and some like me, also believe the infant should have a choice, but you certainly jumped right in and circumvented that one didn't you?
No big surprise here....you pick and choose the facts you want...sm
to read and hear. I'm tired of trying to educate you.



Meanwhile, Barry Obama can do no wrong, and the facts are spun in the media to his direction, making him look like the poster boy for "poor me" they're trying to "smear me" ....

No matter that it is all TRUE!!!!!


Well, boo hoo.

Barry worked for ACORN, was and is, friends with terrorists and racists and liberal democratic former CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, people who hate this country and all it stands for are his so called "friends" that he has thrown under the bus.


Watch, if he wins, they'll all pop out of the woodwork again.


That man lies and rewrites his life story, and you all believe him.


That old saying that goes: Show me a person's friends and those he surrounds himself with, and it will show you who he is.


Well, I certainly don't like and trust what and who Barry Obama.



Gee, how come there is NO ONE from Barry's former or current life, that are friends that can stand up for his character?




The street is always one-way for the democrats, the biggest spin doctors around.



I'll take SP over O any day.


Roe vs Wade gave us the right to choose years ago. nm
.
Yep. And I will certainly abide by what the american people choose....
be it obama or McCain. But I know one thing...I won't have been a part of putting Obama or anymore Democrats in government. No way. No how. Happy voting!
Exactly, is it fair to infringe on the caregiver's right to choose? sm
So the woman choosing whether to have an abortion should have the right to choose what she does with her body but the medical person she goes to does not have a right to choose what they do with their body? I don't think one person's rights should infringe upon another's.
Really, I am smart and one has to choose wisely on what to use one's braincells.....
I think I stop for now with my postings. I do not want to get into flaming and I feel that it might come just to that, if you start questioning my intelligence if I do not read pagelong, useless links put on this board.

Another thing - I for one am so tired of these women who CHOOSE
to have extramarital affairs with these politicians be looked up as 'victims'..there are women in this world who are truly exploited yet Monica, Gennifer, et AL have sat and cried 'foul' when they decided to make their bedroom exploits public and made money off of that behavior in the process.  Victims indeed.
Yes, freedom works for everyone, right to choose applies....sm
to individual doctors, nurses, and even pharmacists, as well as the woman; as you said, there are enough providers who will happily oblige and do the procedures for compensation and not have a problem with it. I used to be a surgical tech, I never had to assist in one, my docs were general surgeons, but I could never be in the room, myself, while an abortion was being performed, I would get sick. I am sorry, I believe in the freedom for others, but personally I could not be there, and would not want to be forced, could not! JMHO
I do not have evil thoughts. Satan exists whether you choose to
believe he does.  Finally, the woman who prayed before she voted is not like me.  She allowed herself to be deceived. 
oh yea... not a child...
even though before most know they are pregnant the heart is already beating...

I haven't seen the video, I don't think I need to because I myself will never have an abortion, but just like any procedure I would have done I would think I would want to know what it involves so you maybe someone having it should watch it!
I bet your child gives you

great joy. I am happy that you found a career where you can be home with your child.  The anti-choice people seem to think as long as every child is BORN things are okay.  It is the caring for them after they are born that does not seem too important to them.


 


If your child goes to an OB/GYN
or planned parenthood and does not want you to even know about the visit, she only has to fill out a small amount of paperwork and the state will pay for the visit--in California, anyway.