Thursday, December 13, 2012

It doesn't have to be boring.

The Constitution, that is. When people and states blatantly violate it, it can be very interesting, in fact!  Case in point, Article VI, paragraph 3, which states that:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Sounds good, doesn't it?   Except for these Articles, found in different *state Constitutions :  

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Anyone have any thoughts on all this?  And please, feel free to discuss anything that interests you more, including what we were discussing in the old post.  :-)

188 comments:

Sonic said...

Sheesh, I have to think that if anybody were denied a position in the governments of those states would have a great basis for a big ol' lawsuit. Give it up, people! Freedom of religion! *sigh*

From the last thread:

"They say he stole the weapon and he only killed two because it jammed on him. Who knows why...God? Luck? Just a fluke? All I know about people like his is that either his parents missed a big step in teaching him about how very wrong it is to take a human life except in self-defense, or, alternately, he was a young man with a terrible mental illness. Either way, I always feel bad for the families of these shooters, too, since I have to believe they did the best they could to raise their child and they, too, have suffered the same loss as their son's victims' families, plus they have the shame and horror on top of it all. Sonic, I really think kids today feel like failures in many ways and I do think (I'm about to sound like an old fart, so be warned) that things like violent video games and movies have contributed by desensitizing kids to death. Hell, they've desensitized *me to it all. As a result, I think kids with issues of any sort can cross that line into doing what this young man did without it really even seeming real to them."

My son and I were talking about this today; he lives a lot closer to the mall than I do. I keep thinking there's got to be a desensitizing element to these types of crimes. Everybody gets depressed or blue or low or whatever; seeing and hearing about mass murders, shootings, the kind of scenario that played out at the mall the othe rnight -- whether video games, relentless news stories, whatever -- keeps those images in their psyches. When a kid gets to that low point and is driven to act out, is it easier to resort to that level of violence, because he's seen it so much, read about it as a part of his society, that it just feels natural for him?

Lisa said...

Basically, a "go big or go home" mentality? Very possible, yes. :-/

"Freedom of religion! *sigh*"

Or freedom *from...it should be both and just goes to show how screwed up we've made things in this country. religion has no place in law-making...it's perfectly fine to be a religious politician and, imo, even speak freely about your religion, or lack thereof. What isn't fine is to govern according to your religious beliefs, or lack thereof. That concept seems awfully difficult for many, though.

Sonic said...

"Basically, a "go big or go home" mentality?" Well, maybe more like a "this is how people react when they feel like this" mentality. No sense of proportion or balance, no experience with delayed gratification, not enough maturity to recognize that things pass, and if they don't you can get help or support. It's a product of our culture, I think.

Freedom FROM, yes. I also appreciate people living their faith. I'm disgusted and infuriated by those who think it's okay to take their personal beliefs and force them onto the rest of us. Gosh, kinda reminds me of the goodle days of the revolution...

Shannon said...

Another horrific day. For some reason this one has hit me pretty hard actually. I guess with like the mall shooting and even with high school shootings it is mentally different. More 'adult' victims maybe? Victims more able to get away or protect themselves? This? This is horrible. Those were just babies.

Lisa that stuff up there TERRIFIES ME!!! It shocks me how very often people forget that this nation was founded a lot by those escaping governments that were so wrapped up in religion that you would quite literally be put to death if you didnt believe the way you were told. How can we be that country that those before us died to escape from? I guess history does repeat itself.

People are posting on some of the news stories of how this is a sign of the times and what will continue to happen if our nation doesnt get right with God. That kind of shit pisses me off because essentially what they are saying is that God is doing this because we are being naughty. I bet you there were children killed at that school today that come from families that are so 'right with God' that you couldnt find dirt on them. People like to think that this kind of stuff doesnt happen every single day but the reality is that somewhere in the world this does happen. It is always sad and heartbreaking but I really wish people would leave God out of it because I have seen several friends who are in a good place with God question their faith and that also makes me sad.

And now I am just grumpy and emotional and rambling.

Sonic said...

I'm with you, Shannon. I was shocked and horrified over the mall shooting; when this news hit today I had all I could do to not jump in the car and drive to my grandgirls' school and hug them, make sure they're okay. Twenty little ones, sitting in their class reading Pat the Bunny one minute and the next minute, gone.

Just heard a WTF? tidbit: 20 year old shooter, history of mental issues, at least three weapons purchased legally -- by his MOTHER, who is now dead. Somehow we've got to get a handle on at least a couple of issues: gun control and mental health services.

Somebody shoved a mike in Huckabee's face just in time for him to make the comment that this is happening because God isn't allowed in the classroom any more. STFU, Mike. Please, especially today.

Shannon said...

Sonic I bet you were ready to go just to love them and make sure they were OK. I think when things like this happen it doesnt matter how much distance there is from the incident it hits home.

There has to be something done. I mean seriously how many things like this happen and AFTER the fact people recognize the mental illness. I know it isnt a popular idea because we all believe in innocent until proven guilty but some people with some mental illnesses should be locked up in some kind of facility where tabs can be kept on them to a point.

In my heart I really really wish that the people that do these shootings could be studied somehow. I really hope the guy that did the Colorado shootings can shed some sort of light on what the trigger is, what the signs are, how to prevent future acts like this.

I would like to tell Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson and all those like them that because of the likes of them good faithful people question their faith. It really breaks my heart when friends I have online who are very faithful and believe in God question that faith. They dont understand how a God who is supposed to love us, especially the innocent children, let this happen. People like Pat and Mike enforce that feeling of doubt.

And to be totally political in this whole tragedy those screaming for absolute gun control need to remember that criminals dont care about the laws. We have proof positive today in our damn face that even if the law tells someone that they cannot have a weapon because of mental health issues, someone will still get them one.

And as we pour our hearts out for these innocent souls we need to also scream at our own government and military and tell them to STOP killing innocent children with blind missiles because there "might" be bad guys there.

KaytieJ said...

:::waving to Sonic across the Columbia:::

I am supremely rattled from the close to home Clackamas Mall shooter and then this horrific atrocity of a shooter in an elementary school.

Why? Too soon to tell. Columbine was blamed on Marlilyn Manson - which I think is utter BS. In the twisted mind of the Clorado theater shooter - it appears he had an obseesion with the Joker.



Lisa said...

I figured y'all would be talking over here.

You know, I'm still pissed over Columbine being blamed on Marilyn Manson. I actually liked Manson's stuff back then and he wrote an interesting piece back then that is relevant today, I think. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/columbine-whose-fault-is-it-19990624

Gun control is no answer if it means eliminating gun ownership...when someone wants to kill to prove a point, they will. They'll pull up the ol' internet and learn to make bombs or chemical weapons. They'll steal guns or buy stolen guns. They will find a way. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for guns being registered, I'm fine with requiring bullets be marked so the purchaser can be identified, and I'm good with longer waiting periods when you purchase a gun. I think the sale of guns via private individuals or gun shows should require the same background check and waiting period as a gun bought new. I'm not all willy-nilly saying there should be no restrictions at all and while I don't think the sale of semi-automatic or automatic weapons should be stopped, I do find myself wondering why a kindergarten teacher owned at least one. Just from a curiosity factor, I mean.

We can't overreact about mental illness, either...we can't lock someone up because we think they *could do something like this. That's wrong and so unfair to those who could but never would. We can't violate the rights of the innocent as a preventative measure. Where would you even draw the line there? Lock up all poor, black young men from single parent families? Would that be okay, too? We just...can't. And when you compare James Holmes (Batman killer) to Jacob Roberts (Clackamas killer), they don't seem to have much in common that I can find.

I also don't think it's practical or logical to think of this in terms of mental health and thinking we need to provide more services...by psychological standards, who among us couldn't be diagnosed with *something? What I *am interested to hear is if the Clackamas killer and this guy, Adam Lanza, were on any type of psychotropic medications for mental health issues. So far, that seems to be a common denominator among many of these mass killers and I think we need to look at the medications themselves, as opposed to the conditions that someone felt warranted them being medicated. Most all of these meds come with warnings that they can make a person suicidal or violent and I know when I took them for a period of time back in the 90's, they turned my incredibly non-violent self into a raging ball of "I'm going to beat the fucking shit out of you" and I would just snap into that mode in no time and over nothing. I never acted on it toward a person, I knew something was wrong and would tote myself off to another room, lock the door and just stand and scream until I was exhausted but if I'd had less self-control? I could easily have hurt someone. I spent many, many a day apologizing to Jake for my outbursts, which including throwing glass things at walls because, weirdly, the sound of glass breaking made me happy and I could calm down. One day I told his poor little 5 year old self that I thought my medicine made me do this and, with the brilliant innocence only kids can have, he asked why I didn't just stop taking it, then. Why not, indeed? So, I did and just like that, all the violent things stopped. I know this is long-winded, but I think that maybe, perhaps, this is where we really need to be looking with these killers...were they medicated?

Sonic said...

Not in favor of banning all guns. I've been reading about Canada's process over the last few years regarding gun ownership. They've got it goin' on.

The reality is, funding for mental health services was drastically cut under Reagan, and resulted in people who should have been hospitalized (seriously psychotic, ill people, not frivolously committed for cutting their fingernails too close or something) were turned out onto the street, literally. And those since then who could have used early intervention didn't get it. I don't know of any "studies" correlating that reality to the increase in certain kinds of violence, but it certainly seems related. I will say that Jared Loughner (the Gabby Gifford shooter) was definitely a mentally ill person who had been identified as such for years and didn't get help. Coincidence?

Interesting point about medications -- so many of them these days say, not to be given to people under 18 or variations on that theme. It's a fact that young brains work differently than mature ones; could these powerful drugs be changing the way kids process their struggles and lead to violent outbursts like this? Lisa, your account of your experience sure sounds like that. I'll be interested to hear more about this latest shooter.

Lisa said...

I'll have to read up on Canada's gun ownership laws, Sonic...I'm not at all familiar with them.

As for funding mental health services, we've got to keep our heads about us and realize what a rare thing it is when these mass shootings happen. Even when we have two within just a few days, it's still rare compared to the number of people we have and the number of those who would probably be diagnosed with a mental illness. In fact, I think the trend has gone way too far into calling anything that deviates even a bit from societal-expected norms a mental illness when, instead, it's simply the person's personality. So many people seem to have a diagnosis these days and are being treated for it in one form or another when, perhaps, they're just having a normal emotional response to certain factors in their life.

I will tell you that being on psychotropic medication was bad for me...bad, bad, bad. I'll spare y'all more of a novel, but I'm not exaggerating when I say I easily could have killed people and even wanted to because I felt like that would release some of the rage. Maybe because I was older, in my early 30's, I was able to control it because I knew it was wrong. Maybe my brain was developed to the point I *could have a degree of rationality about it all over these younger people who are killing,; maybe they haven't fully developed that part of their brain yet...I don't know. I do know I used to pray someone would break into my house so I had a legitimate excuse to terrorize and kill them and would think about, fantasize about it, how good it would feel to do that. Pure insanity, no question, and soooo not me at all. It was all due to the medications. So, here's a question...if it should turn out that these shooters were medicated and that the medication contributed to their actions, if not downright caused them, do we still vilify these shooters? Are they still evil murderers? Or are they victims, too?

Shannon said...

There are certain types of mental illness though that we already know lead to violent actions on the part of the person yet they arent monitored in any sort of way. I totally get that the number of acts is minute in comparison to the numbers of mentally ill out there but there has to be some way to know which factors make some dangerous and others not.

Like you Lisa I dont agree with the way that things are diagnosed anymore because yes we all would be diagnosed with something. I just think there has to be some kind of common denominator in the brains of those that do this stuff.

Sonic also brings up a good point about how meds often have warnings about giving to kids. Now also take into account that it is rather proven that especially the male brain takes longer to develop and how many of these shooters/killers have been young. How many of them have been on some kind of meds since their teens that they probably shouldnt have? It totally could be the meds that are the common denominator.

Personally I have a nephew that I kind of worry about with this kind of stuff. He has been on so many meds because of his mental issues....from Adderal to psychotropics to what ever else the doctors think will help. Now keep in mind that he already has a lot of the mental capacity of a 10 year old when it comes to logical thought processes.....I would never want him to have access to weapons.

Anonymous said...

Shannon, I have brother that I worry about. He's 22 and has dealt with some serious life issues as a teenager and is extremely angry about those issues. He's been on psychotropic meds, along with ADHD meds. But what can we do now? Nothing much...you can't really point your finger at him, because he hasn't actually DONE anything that warrants doing anything. He's taking meds, or at least sometimes he's taking meds. But he's certainly not somebody that could be admitted against his will.

Lisa asked an interesting question about whether these gunmen are victims themselves. I don't know how to answer that. I see my brother, and I know that the "real" him is not the kind of kid that could inflict violence. But then there's this "other" side of him that could. Somebody like Jared Loughner...is he an animal? Or is he sick and unable to help himself? Can I feel hatred towards somebody that is not mentally capable of controlling himself?

This Adam Lanza kid...there were some initial reports that he may have been on the Autism Spectrum. Apparently his brother indicated he was autistic, possibly Aspergers. Does that absolve him of the hatred people feel towards him?

No easy answers. I just know that I've been having a hard time dealing with what happened yesterday. My kids are in the age range of the children murdered. It's Christmas. All of it is just too much.

--AWAGN

Shannon said...

I guess I dont really want to see them locked up because that isnt right and isnt even really what I am wanting to see happen. I guess maybe just more monitoring or even help with dealing with what the rest of us do everyday.

Another friend of mine really did put it a lot better then I seem to be able to today. Basically saying that wiht the way that mental illness is treated in this country is either throw a pill at it or throw the person away. I dont know that meds are even really the answer and I know that so often for family members there is only so much that they can do.

With my nephew he spent his whole life in school with those there to help with his needs....they made sure to push him on every year even though he was learning nothing. Why cant there be a way to teach coping mechanics and give more for families to recognize when they need to call for help and really actually get help before something bad happens?

StringOfRandomLetters said...

It seems that so many families seek help and receive -- not enough. Often a family is ill-prepared to assess or process the insidious progressions continually.
Our systems changed both in response to funding, and in response to inhumane confinement in institutions, both in terms of treatment, and length of time that people were confined.
The repercussions of those policies have not been dealt with, even though they have been obvious (to families of the mentally ill, to those who work with homeless people, etc.) for many, many years now.

When people speak of this perpetrator and try to sort the mental illness/autism pieces (without enough real information, it should be noted), nobody seems to consider how those two *separate* issues may play out together. Think of a mentally ill person, and then add in the lack of empathy that *can* go with autism. In my work I have noticed how peoples' strengths and weaknesses work together - every combination is different, and gel together in different ways.

Shannon said...

So during a discussion with some friends, some who arent in the US, I had a bit of an epiphany on the gun control issue.

Let people own what they want. So long as they are the legally registered owner of the gun then they are responsible for that gun. If they sell the gun they are responsible for making sure that everything required by law (background check, registration, etc) is taken care of before handing over the gun. If the gun is stolen then they are required to go to the police station and file a report and have a copy of that report as proof. If they loan the gun to someone else then they are taking responsibility for the actions that person takes while in possession.

Impose a fine. Make it big enough that the normal joe is going to actually care. Such as if the gun is used in the commission of a crime but there are no injuries they are fined like 5K, if the gun is used during the crime and someone is injured it is 25K, for anyone killed it is 50K per person injured.

I think it would cause gun owners to be more aware of their guns and such and perhaps make it much harder to get weapons on the streets. I know it wouldnt have mattered in the case of yesterday necessarily but perhaps knowing that such fines were possible maybe the mom would not have had those weapons in her home?

Lisa said...

Shannon, yes! This is what I've said for years! Same with drugs...legalize them, but making the penalties for misbehavior for actions *concerning them far stiffer. It probably wouldn't have stopped this shooting because, if his mom was like me, she would have immediately reported the guns stolen as soon as she knew, even if she knew it was her own son who stole them. Also, loaning a gun to someone? Nope, sorry...ain't happening here. Ever. I'll help someone buy their own if I feel they have a real need and are responsible and capable of handling it but loaning mine? Hell, no. I'll even go as far as to say that I think registering guns isn't enough and a person should be required to pass tests on shooting accurately and on general gun safety in order to own one legally, much like getting a driver's license. We can't just go register our car and legally use it...we have to prove we know how to use it safely and then we have to re-prove it over the years. As much as I'm not a fan of government involvement, sometimes it *is needed.

I know we've all seen the stats floating around FB about the numbers of gun deaths here compared to numbers in other countries that have gun control and it makes us look so damn violent but here's something those stats don't tell: Those numbers? Include suicide by gun. When you remove *those figures, we're really not anymore gun-violently happy than most any other country. Of course, the overly emotional illogical gun control people don't want you to know *that.

Lisa said...

"But what can we do now? Nothing much...you can't really point your finger at him, because he hasn't actually DONE anything that warrants doing anything."

Your brother is a prime example of why, when people say "we need to get them help" and other similar things, I keep saying that's just not always possible. Statistically, your brother is never, ever going to do anything like this and he's an adult. What, exactly do people expect families like yours *to do? And who becomes the judge of what is "mentally ill" enough to warrant others stepping in?

"Somebody like Jared Loughner...is he an animal? Or is he sick and unable to help himself? Can I feel hatred towards somebody that is not mentally capable of controlling himself?"

I will tell you that I feel no hatred for these people...only sadness and pity and truthfully, As you said, it's out of their control I can't accept blaming people for something they have no control over, nor do I think they're evil. At least in most cases.

" Apparently his brother indicated he was autistic, possibly Aspergers. Does that absolve him of the hatred people feel towards him?"

Many people have highly functioning autism or Aspergers and I don't think either will cause the type of anger or fear that would cause someone to go gun down little kids, personally. This guy did well in school and was highly functioning, if he had either. There's something else at play here, imo, something far more serious. Perhaps, though, it could be that he was on medication for something related to these...?

I am sorry for how hard this is on you, AWAGN, and I know it must hit even a little closer to home because of worry about your brother on top of having young kids. Do they know about this and what are they saying about it?

Lisa said...

" nobody seems to consider how those two *separate* issues may play out together."

String, yes, I agree...regardless of what the two issues are, I think that in order for something like this to happen, there has to be a perfect storm, so to speak, of two or more issues going on.

I will say, though, that I was reading a thing Morgan Freeman said today and while I know he's no expert, it made good, common sense and I think he is right on what another contributing problem is. http://www.examiner.com/article/morgan-freeman-on-adam-lanza

Robin said...

I appreciated Morgan Freeman's words, also.

I don't for a second believe that any form of "gun control" will put an end to psychotic, pissed off people taking their issues out on innocent bystanders.

I had my grandson with me Friday afternoon, and he spent the night. He's 5. My heart breaks for the families of those killed by the senseless actions of someone who, for whatever reason (which we may never know or even understand), felt he could walk into a fucking elementary school and open fire.

That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with gun control.

Sonic said...

It's not that black-and-white. It's not a magic pill solution -- this is a very complex issue. Gun control and regulation; mental health treatment availability; a culture of violence and instant gratification; parenting issues; the list goes on and on.

But I'm convinced not doing anything is no longer an option. Somebody posted this to me today: one failed shoe bomber and we all have to take off our shoes at the airport. 30+ mass shootings since Columbine and we have yet to address even a small part of this problem. WTF??

Robin said...

Respectfully, I never said it was a black-and-white issue. I never said that there wasn't the need for a conversation, or for looking for ways to address the problems.

I simply said it has nothing to do with gun control.

Respectfully. :)

Sonic said...

Sorry, Robin, I meant Mr. Freeman's comments. His statement was eloquent, and as I was trying to say I think he's got a point. But that's certainly not all there is to it. Sorry for the confusion.

Robin said...

No problem!

I did agree with what he said about the media's glorifying of such events, though. It's been relentless coverage since Friday. When I've had the TV on today, it's been intentionally on mindless stuff. It's just too much to see/hear overandoverandover. And perhaps it does make it oddly glamorous to others who are already unstable. :(

Lisa said...

And now I'm reading the Morgan Freeman statement may be a work of fiction. I swear, is *nothing sacred anymore?

Also, does anyone know just how long MWOP plans on mourning?

Anonymous said...

Lisa, we did sit down with our children and discuss Friday's events. They were going to hear about it anyways, from somebody at church, or elsewhere. We wanted to have a discussion with them on what happened (in terms appropriate for them) from our frame of reference for the world, kwim?

My children haven't said a whole lot. The youngest is too young to comprehend. The 4 yr old is the one being the most verbal and he's asked outright if somebody would try to hurt him. We reassured him that the person who did this couldn't hurt anybody anymore and that we would certainly protect him from harm, as best as we could. It's hard, because I want to promise my children that monsters don't exist, that we will NEVER EVER let anybody hurt them. But you know what? I can't make that promise, because I can't ALWAYS be there to make sure that nobody ever hurts them. Monsters DO exist. He was satisfied with our assurances and that was that. Our older children asked if we could pray for the families and so we did. And that was pretty much it.

I hate that I even have to have such a conversation with my children. I would have preferred that they never had known such a thing, that people hurt others like this.

As for my brother? I really have no idea what he's thinking about any of this. Any time something like this happens, I wonder about him, and worry that he'll be the next copycat. But like you said, statistically, he is extremely unlikely to act out in such a way. What else can we do, though? He is struggling enough for us to worry, but not enough for anybody to have a legal right or even cause to do anything. It seems like those of us with family that have these issues are just waiting for our loved one to become the next statiscal outlier.

--AWAGN

Lisa said...

AWAGN, it sounds like you did all you could do to reassure your kids, especially the 4 year old. It sucks to have these talks, I know, but they do need to know there's bad in the world, I think. There always has been and always will be. If they were totally protected from it, they'd be ill-equipped as adults to deal with it then, when you won't be there to shield them...in a way, maybe it's not a bad thing they find out about these things and learn to handle them in appropriate manners, you know?

As for your brother, it sounds like you've done all you *can do..I'm just sorry you have that concern in your life.

Anonymous said...

FYI - Morgan Freeman denies releasing that statement.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/morgan-freeman-hoax-newtown-school-shooting-statement_n_2315848.html

Shannon said...

Even with it not being from Morgan Freeman it really was a spot on message. I just wish that the person that actually wrote it would have just taken credit for it. The message was good regardless of who it came from.

Anonymous said...

I can't stop watching anything and everything about the horrible massacre. And I can't stop crying for those babies and brave educators and their families. I need to stop watching and reading about this! A little girl pretended to be dead when every student and her teacher were shot and killed and she climbed over their dead bodies and ran outside covered in her classmates blood.
Elle

KaytieJ said...

Elle. I say this with all compassion to the horrible, sensless violence that has occurred...step away from the news. ((())) That does not mean to stick your head in the sand or become cold.

I am putting this question out there for discussion. Yes, this question is a sidebar to the recent events. I am just asking for opinions.

Why are public schools not on exterior doors lock out?

Robin said...

So...update on the grandson thing...he's on his way to my house now. We are prepared to keep him, now and as long as needed. Indefinitely. And right now, it looks like that will be through New Year's, and into January.

This situation is just so messed up. We want him not to worry, and to just be a kid. It's Christmas, and he should just be a kid.

His mom and his mom's mom make me see RED. But he'll have a safe and caring place here with us.

I sure didn't expect this. I was through raising kids. I AM through raising kids. But I'm here for this little guy.

Our goal is for Jake to take him, but Jake needs to arrange his work schedule so that's possible. Meanwhile, he's here.

Sonic said...

Yay Robin!! Hoping it won't be a big drama with the mom and her family -- is he being officially placed with you? I'm so glad he'll have Christmas in relative peace. Good for you!

Robin said...

Honestly, this is all so new, I haven't had time to process the going forward things yet.

I had my grandson with me this weekend. I was to take him over to his other gma's house on Saturday. I kept him with me all day, until I HAD to take him over there. When it was time and I told him, he crumbled, and BEGGED me not to take him there. What 5 year old does that? BEGS not to go to his gma's house? Oh, he cried...big, heartbreaking tears, and begged me. But I had to take him. So, I did.

When we got there, he wouldn't talk to anyone, wouldn't hug anyone...nothing. My heart was breaking. His other gma has her brother living with her--I've been told he has stage 4 cancer. So anyway, I'm still trying to figure out why my grandson is SO upset about being there. J (my grandson) gets distracted by opening a present they had wrapped for him, and meanwhile, his "uncle" has the remote to the huge TV in the living room and is searching the channels. Mind you, this is only the second time I've met him, and both times were very brief. So, he taps me on the arm while my grandson is distracted and tells me, "Look! I found a show for him to watch!"...and...it was something REALLY disgusting, like "I'll make her go down hard on me and she'll LIKE it!" or some such thing...I mean, REALLY? Maybe he was joking, but how inappropriate was that?

So anyway, tonight I got the call from the other gma...she'd asked her daughter to come get him, and she said, "He's better off there with you." She didn't want to keep him, so she called me. I said I'd keep him tonight and as long as he needed me. So, nothing legal has taken place yet. That's for tomorrow. Meanwhile, like I said, he's safe and happy, and we plan to see it STAYS that way.

Sonic said...

Wow. That was beyond inappropriate. No wonder he hates being there -- they're all out of their minds. Good to hear you and Jake are planning to do something formal; I think that's an excellent idea, and the sooner the better.

That's similar to my friend's experience: she was ready, and when it finally hit the fan the CPS worker called her and she went and got her grandson. He's been with her ever since, going on 10 years now. She's adopted him as her son. I can't even imagine what his life would be like if she hadn't made her move when the opportunity arose.

Good luck to all of you.

Lisa said...

Elle, I hope you're feeling better about everything now. I admit, I don't get the kind of reaction you have had, but that's not said to pass judgement on you. I know I can be detached about things. This is all awful but it goes on every single day, all over the world, and no one cares then. Here's where those who think this is another anti-MckMama site find out it isn't...I actually agreed with her, completely (unless I missed something), in what she said a couple of days ago. You know, the post that had many on MWOP in an uproar? Yeah, I'm with Jennifer this time. We, as in US taxpayers, fund the killing of kids all the time and there's no big rush of tears, fears, sadness, and whatever else, yet the very kids we are paying to have killed are not a bit different to the kids or parents from Sandy Hook who were victims. We need to stop and realize that we're not a bit different than Adam Lanza, though, if we don't actively try to stop what Obama and our government is doing *with our money* to kids elsewhere.

Kaytie, as far as exterior door lockout, most of our schools in this area are open, sort of like a maze-y strip mall. I do not, for the very life of me, understand why every single school in this country doesn't have hotel-style locks on the doors so teachers can lock them from the inside and only a key or card can open them from the outside.

Lisa said...

Robin, as awful as it's been for that poor baby, he's where he needs to be right now and that's with you and your husband. We never, ever, really get through raising our offspring, and he's one of yours. Your mama-heart knows this and I'm so very glad you have him now. Go, make it legal fast tomorrow, before minds are changed, and then help your Jake get himself ready to be a single dad or even a part time dad and you be a part time mom again. Whatever it takes, you'll never have a regret, no matter how hard it is. And that little guy? Is so lucky to have you.

Shannon said...

OMG Robin I am so glad that baby boy has you!!! I really hope that he can just stay with you until his dad gets things sorted out and he doesnt have to go back to people that apparently just dont want him right now. What his great uncle did??? I would have smashed his fucking TV how disgusting.

Anonymous said...

KaytieJ. I did realize I had to step away from the news and stop reading about the massacre. I took your advise. I'm not sure what you meant about locking the doors from the inside? The doors were locked. He shot a hole in the glass, reached his hand in and unlocked the door. Maybe I misinterpreted your message? Thanks for your advice and feedback! Elle

Robin said...

Thanks for your comments and encouragement.

This hasn't been easy.

Tonight...well, his (my grandson's) mom actually called me in tears, saying she'd thought a lot about it all, and KNEW we were best for J. She asked us to take him. I said we would.

This next couple of weeks will be...interesting. I told her we had to make it legal. She said she'd already taken all of J's legal paperwork by Jake's before she even called me. All I have to do is petition and make it so.

Now I have 12 days (during holidays) to get this little guy settled with us and find daycare before I have to return to work on Jan.2.

I am so fortunate and so thankful that my sweet life partner, my husband, is all in on this. I'm 50 and he's 47. We've just agreed to raise a 5 year-old. I'm terrified.

:/

Robin said...

Adding...Jake has been here with us since we took J, and he will be VERY involved. As soon as he gets his things in order, we do plan for his dad to take over. In the mean time, he's safe and loved. And if months turn into more, we're already making adjustments.

I sure never planned for this. Even when we knew J was coming, I didn't anticipate this. Over the last year or so, I'd kind of come to expect it. So, it's not a total shock. I just don't want it to be too hard on him. He knows he's someplace where he is very loved, but I know this won't be easy for him, any more than it will be for us. But this is what family is.

I know his heart will hurt, and all I can do with that is assure him he is loved.

Lisa said...

Robin, it *is terrifying but your son will be in the picture and so J is going to have 3 active parents raising him. Try to remember that, as it will make it easier. I think you're about to embark on something that will turn out to be one of the greatest blessings you've ever had and you're going to be just fine doing it. You are a wonderful mom and grandma, you know that? Besides, having a little one around will keep you young. :-)

Lisa said...

Is his mom going to have any contact with him at all or is she just done? Poor little guy. When he's older he will hopefully realize his mom *does love him, because she loved him enough to admit she's not what is best for him and to want him to have better.

Robin said...

Lisa--I told her when she called tonight that she HAD to stay in contact with J. I invited her over for Christmas!! I can't even imagine the world where she would just VANISH from J's life.

So...to answer your question...I DON'T KNOW. She called me in tears and said she was calling from a cheap motel. She said she knew she wasn't what he needed, and asked me to take him.

I just don't know.

I typed all of that above, all the while recognizing that it sounds like something from a tawdry episode of Jerry Springer.

I wish this toxic girl had never come into my son's life. But she did, and here we are.

We'll make some lemonade. I mean, what else do you do?

Lisa said...

Robin, you're doing all you *can do, including inviting her to remain part of your family. I hope she comes. And look, most everyone has a bit of Jerry Springer-y stuff in their lives. It's what keeps it interesting. ;-)

KaytieJ said...

See? This is why I enjoy Daisy - for being able to say what we feel, discuss what we want.

Robin - Despite all that toxic drama, you are going to have such a blessing with your grandson with you, knowing he is safe, knowing you are doing all you can to help him, your son and your grandson's mom.

Elle - I was thinking of lock down as in inner door locks. You are right though, having a window in the door that can be broken and the lock breached doesn't do much to stop the rampage and tragedy in this case.

Lisa said...

Elle, if schools installed bulletproof glass in windows and put hotel-tyle locks on classrooms, it would, at the very least, limit the time frames in which someone could do this to class-changing times and bus pick ups and drop offs.

People are *so over-reacting to all of this and it's aggravating. Kids (all of us, actually) are in far more danger every time they get in a car. They stand a greater chance of being hit by lightning. This whole gun issue is bullshit, too...banning *any weapon isn't going to help prevent school shootings, nor will stationing an armed cop at each school. It's over-reactive ignorance coming from both sides although possibly arming and training all school administrators could help prevent shootings, along with the classroom locks. But what then? Timothy McVeigh cleaned house with a rented U-Haul, some fertilizer and gasoline, doing more damage than Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Virgina Tech combined.

As a side thought, for those who are so concerned, would you be agreeable to having what's happening in Paragould, AK http://rt.com/usa/news/swat-guns-paragould-arkansas-224/ taken to a national level?

Lisa said...

Kaytie, no one can deny we're all over the place here, that's a fact. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard anything at all regarding Lia and her family. It seems sad to think of them separated at Christmas.

Robin said...

Just a brief update--J's mom came over today and visited with him. She signed over temporary guardianship, but we will have to wait until next week to get the document notarized. J is happy here, and he told his mom today that he wants to stay here.

We are adjusting. I am TIRED! ;)

Anonymous said...

A mother can not sign over a child. Getting a note notarized means NOTHING legally. Right now, you are a legal stranger to the child.

Are you getting legal advice from a reputable source?

Sonic said...

(((Robin))) What a Christmas you'll have!

For the questioner above, I haven't seen anything re: Lia and her family.

I dunno, Lisa. I think removing access to a weapon that can kill 26 people in a matter of seconds is probably a good idea. It's not the only answer, of course.

Happy Holidays, daisies!

Lisa said...

Robin, it sounds like things are going as well as they can be, everything considered. Does J already have his own room decorated at your house or will you get to have the fun of doing that with him now?

I have heard nothing about Lia...makes me sad that we can't even heard how she is in ways unrelated to legal issues but it is what it is. Live and learn one more time about caring about people's kids that you meet on the internet. I do hope they're all able to be together, though.

" I think removing access to a weapon that can kill 26 people in a matter of seconds is probably a good idea."

So, where do you stop with removing things that can do this? Should we no longer be able to rent U-Hauls? Buy fertilizer? Should we ban PVC since pipe bombs could be placed under buses, in malls, under pews in churches? And more importantly, why do you think banning automatic or semi-automatic weapons, which I assume you mean here, is going to keep criminals from getting them? Criminals typically don't like buying their weapons legally to begin with and it's rare when they do.

Everyone ready for Christmas or whatever your family does?

Sonic said...

Re the assault weapons: most of the weapons used in mass shootings over the years were purchased legally. Those committing these crimes weren't criminals (at least not until the shootings). In other places when these types of weapons were outright banned or heavily restricted, crime rates in general dropped. Yeah, you can kill a lot of people with a UHaul full of fertilizer, but I don't think McVeigh decided to use that because he couldn't get a gun. And I'm by no means saying that's the only thing we need to do about this problem, just one thing that WILL help.

It seems to me (which I'd have to do more reading to confirm or reject) that gun violence against large groups of strangers is committed by different people that pipe bombers.

I don't have the answers. I think doing nothing is not an option. I think there are several issues that need to be confronted and dealt with; gun ownership is one of them.

And now for something completely different: the house is clean, the presents are wrapped, the frig is full of dinner to be cooked. I'm ready to put my feet up and watch the king return. :)

StringOfRandomLetters said...

:-O Elvis is coming? :-O

:::ducks:::

(no offense meant)

StringOfRandomLetters said...

:-O Elvis is coming? :-O

:::ducks:::

(no offense meant)

Lisa said...

String!! That's just wrong! But very funny. :-D

Sonic, it's quite probably true about most of the "assault" weapons used in these killings being bought legally, although, in fairness, in this last one he *did steal them. But in overall terms, most people who commit planned crimes with guns aren't buying them legally. My point is, it's not hard to buy a gun and a person can even do so legally without having to meet any purchasing requirements, such as background checks or waiting periods. Now, personally, I'd be good with us tightening up on that but the only crimes I really think it may prevent are crimes of passion. Anyone who wants to commit a mass murder will always have a means at their disposal and one *could logically argue that the harder we make it for them, the angrier they'll become and the broader their scope of damage may become, as a direct result. I don't have the answers of what *will work either, but I do think I've got a pretty good idea of what won't.

Sonic said...

Damn, I missed Elvis! :(

Lisa, I hear you, truly. I'm finding it difficult to look at numbers and statistics from other countries and still maintain that banning certain weapons has no effect. You're right, somebody bound and determined to get that sort of weapon would likely still be able to, but I'm good with making it as difficult as possible. In fact, I'm good with making gun ownership more difficult across the board. Remove the exceptions to the background check; make the background checks more extensive; implement longer waiting periods; require more education and training; do as one commenter said this week -- establish strong laws with teeth in them. Before you say anything, I know criminals will still try to get weapons in the back door, but it will be a LOT harder, with a lot more possibilities for tripping up and exposing themselves. (PS: It's been estimated that as many as 40% of guns used in crimes of various types were obtained at gun shows and other venues not requiring a background check.)

You're saying Lanza "stole" the guns? which were apparently in his home and unsecured, or easily available to him? Not sure that fits the criteria for a stolen weapon. Our local shooter in OR, a few days before the Sandy Hook shootings, did steal his weapon from a friend.

I have to say, not instituting sensible law because somebody might get mad is not what I'd call logical.


And now, breakfast is over, it's time to get back to cleaning up and getting ready for the Assault of the Christmas Elves (aka, my granddaughters) this afternoon. Have a wonderful holiday, Daisies!

Sandy said...

Popping in to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas.

(Did I miss Elvis?)

StringOfRandomLetters said...

Merry Christmas to any Daisies who celebrate, and a lovely, peaceful day to any who do not.
I meant no sacrilege by my Elvis reference, which I did not mean to post twice either. Twenty lashes with a wet piece of tinsel for me :-P
(I only saw Baby Elvis myself. Or was that an elf in a white jumpsuit? I'm not quite sure; I may have had too much eggnog. Though it isn't spiked ... apparently I don't need to drink to be goofy.)
I agree on tightening up gun laws; I hope and believe it is possible, based on what many of my much-more-gun-loving-than-I friends have said lately, that our country can come to a consensus on this, even though it is likely only a piece of the larger issue.

Lisa said...

"I'm finding it difficult to look at numbers and statistics from other countries and still maintain that banning certain weapons has no effect."

You know, I get that...I do and I've wondered the same thing and tried to figure out why that is. The reasons I come up with are multi-faceted...in some cases, they had few guns to begin, both legal and illegal with so it wasn't an issue of people giving something up or jeopardizing their personal safety to not own guns or certain guns. In some cases, I believe it's a matter of many drugs either being legalized or ignored and I do think drugs are at the root of much of our gun violence. In some smaller European countries, I think it's being Socialist and able to be supported indefinitely by the government and therefore eliminating a need for "income" and theft, which is often carried out with guns. In some countries, such as Australia, which has a fairly recent set of gun enforcement laws, I truly think it comes down to many people simply owning illegal, undeclared guns and not admitting it coupled with, well, an interest in international pride we lack. In the end, though, I think Americans have just become an over-reactive lot...when you look at our population and the number of guns of all types our citizens own, guns really, truly are not a big problem in our country. The media makes them out to be and people buy into it but when you look at the percentages and ratios, we just aren't any more violent than any other country, the exceptions being some Asian countries, guns or not.

"Remove the exceptions to the background check; make the background checks more extensive; implement longer waiting periods; require more education and training; do as one commenter said this week -- establish strong laws with teeth in them."

I totally agree. You know, someone convicted of a misdemeanor in this country can own a gun but someone convicted of a felony can't. Sounds good in theory, only I'd far rather have a felonious embezzler owning a gun than someone with 7 misdemeanor domestic violence arrests. We definitely need to make some changes. Look, I have no qualms saying I'm looking to buy a semi-automatic or automatic gun of some sort. That said, I'd be perfectly fine with a month-long waiting period and a requirement that I take a course and pass a test on handling and firing it safely. I'd also not object to being required to pass the same test every few years. I'm all for laws that would make it a crime to not report a gun stolen within a weeks' time period and God knows any parent whose minor kid gets their parents' gun and hurts themselves or others with it needs to be punished severely. To me, this is a huge part of the problem...people who own weapons legally tend to overwhelmingly use them legally. I'd like to see penalties for crimes committed with guns to be far, far harsher.

Lisa said...

"(PS: It's been estimated that as many as 40% of guns used in crimes of various types were obtained at gun shows and other venues not requiring a background check.)"

Yup, and I'm fine with this being changed. Don't get me wrong, now...I wish it *didn't need to be changed but some people can ruin things for everyone and this is an example of that.

"You're saying Lanza "stole" the guns? which were apparently in his home and unsecured, or easily available to him? Not sure that fits the criteria for a stolen weapon."

I am. From what I've read, his mother had them in a locked gun case and he killed her and then took the key. That fits the criteria for a stolen gun, imo.

"I have to say, not instituting sensible law because somebody might get mad is not what I'd call logical."

I can say I agree to this and I do, except we're going to differ on the definition of "sensible law". :-)

Sandy, I think you missed Elvis but I'll make yo a peanut butter and 'naner sandwich, if you like?

I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas and is safe in the winter storm that is coming on fast!

Robin said...

I so want to join in the conversation, soon, but I'm on overdrive right now. I did want to pop in and update, though.

Christmas for ME was miserable. I ended up sicker than I've been in a long time with a 24 hr bug Jaiden brought over. It was bad enough when he had it (I had conveniently blocked out THAT part of parenting a young person), but it hit me like a ton of bricks. I spent all of Christmas Day in bed, aching all over and running a 102 degree fever. I didn't spend a lot of time in the bathroom because I refused to eat anything that would give the bug ammo. But I woke up feeling much better this morning. Thank goodness.

I went and toured pre-K schools today, finding one that is both awesome and convenient. And tomorrow, we're making our guardianship legal, and enrolling the little guy to start next week. It's a necessity--I go back to work on the 2nd. And other than being sick on Christmas Day, our holiday went very well. Jake came and stayed with us from Christmas Eve until this afternoon, when he had to go to work.

I'll pop back in soon and join in. Just gotta get caught up, first. Hope everyone else has enjoyed their holidays. :)

Robin said...

Oh, and to answer a question you asked earlier Lisa, Jaiden does have a room at out house and has since we moved in early this summer. I decked it out with Mario (the video game character) stuff, and he loves his room. He is very happy being here, and cries anytime he even thinks he might be going "home." I still don't know what happened there, but I do know he doesn't want to be there.

Lisa said...

Robin, I hope you've recovered from your bug and J's Mario room sounds so cute and comfortable! 2013 is going to be an amazing year for you and your family, especially that lucky little boy you're "mom" to now. It's going to to be hard from time to time, but you are never, ever going to regret this and I'd even say you'll find yourself thankful for it. :-)

Happy New Year to anyone who finds this. I hope 2013 brings us all joy, contentment, love, prosperity, the proper kind of pride and hope, but none of those at the expense of others. What a perfect world that would be, no? :-)

Oopsie Daisy said...

Robin, I just found something in spam directed to you...it's up there now, but here's a repost:

"Anonymous said...

A mother can not sign over a child. Getting a note notarized means NOTHING legally. Right now, you are a legal stranger to the child.

Are you getting legal advice from a reputable source?

December 22, 2012 9:38 PM"

StringOfRandomLetters said...

Yappy Hew Near !!!!
May 2013 bring us all jeace and poy :-))

Lisa said...

"Yappy Hew Near !!!!
May 2013 bring us all jeace and poy :-))"

Tiddo.

Robin said...

Lisa--yes, and thanks for your concern. Short-term guardianship is acceptable here (max 60 days) with the notarized forms we have. However, they forms must be filed with the local court system as well.

Anonymous said...

Question! MWOP poster Mcyadayada. School teacher
K -1st grade. She is a bully! She posts everyday, all day and picks Mckmama apart - issues not related to the bankruptcy charges. She is approx 50 yrs old, never married, no children, extremely overweight and she posts all day, every day! That is very disturbing to me. I am posting anonymous

Robin said...

I didn't see a question in there...but if it was "Do you care?"...the answer is "No."

Sonic said...

Dear Disturbed:

I recommend at least one serving of a cool adult beverage and a light snack. You'll still be disturbed, but you won't care so much about other people's lives.

No need to thank me.

Sonic said...

Oh, and Yappy Hew Near and adult beverages to all!

Lisa said...

"Lisa--yes, and thanks for your concern."

Nooo, I didn't ask that! I found it in spam...someone else (anonymous) asked it of you. I just c&ped it so you would see it now, since it's been in spam for days.

Who cares what MckYadaYadaWhatever's opinion is on all things MckMama? I don't mean that to be rude, but it's just her opinion and if she wants to express it about Jennifer in ways you (or anyone else) don't like, she still has every right to do so, just as you've just done about her, here. No sense in getting all worked up about someone on the internet, you know? Especially when they aren't talking about you.

Robin said...

Ah, OK. Thanks, Lisa. Yeah, we want to be sure we're covered no matter what happens.

Jaiden is doing amazingly well. He's such an agreeable little guy. And I think he's really thriving with the structure we're providing. He's happy. He's eating and sleeping well. Tonight, for the first time since he came to stay with us, I got him to go to bed by himself (I've been laying down with him every night til he falls asleep). And he LOVED his first day of school on Monday. He asked me several times tonight before bed, "What time is school in the morning?"

He's an easy child to keep. Really, for the most part just a nice little guy.

Sonic said...

Bless his little heart. He sounds so happy and relaxed. You're saving him, y'know. :)

Lisa said...

Robin, he sounds like a really great kid and I have a feeling he's going to fill a place in your lives y'all didn't even know needed filling. It's pretty obvious you're doing the same for him and he can feel it already...what Sonic said. :-)

Lisa said...

Well, since it's so quiet here, I believe I'll have a pissy little rant about the McKinneys. Apparently Kieran has become very sick with what sounds like the flu while they're on this road trip and they have actually loaded that child up in the car, sick as he is, and are continuing on with their Xyngular tasting expedition. The child is so sick he couldn't walk, had to be carried and then was put in a crib on wheels to be taken out to their car. *Seriously? As far as I'm concerned, that's abusive. There's no reason they couldn't stay right there in that hotel until he is feeling some better, at the very least. I'm sorry, but these piddly-ass Xyngular things are just not that big of a deal. It's been a long time since she's done something parenting-wise that I find to be this horrible, I'm not one to nit-pick her on that, but this breaks my heart for that poor kid and for the others who will undoubtedly get sick, too. Can you just *imagine having to be on a long road trip with a bad case of flu? :-(

Sonic said...

That really bothered me. "We're driving and he's sleeping." I suppose since they don't believe in vaccines or flu shots they also don't believe in doctor visits until it requires a run to the ER. That poor kid needs fluids, maybe aspirin, bed rest, peace and quiet. Those other kids are going to start dropping like flies in the next 48 hours. They need to stop driving, check into a hotel, find a clinic and take care of this. Imagine yourself traveling with your kid doing something you think is important, and suddenly the kid is very ill, what's the first thing that pops into your head? You reorder your priorities and take off your corporate shill hat and be a parent. Honestly, sometimes I think there's seriously something wrong with the McKinneys' heads.

Lisa said...

Exactly, Sonic. I mean, we don't do flu shots or doctors (well, rarely) but the minute I saw my kid was sick, that's it. He's staying home (or I'd get him home) and he is going to rest, take stuff to feel better and having me fussing over fluids. Hell, he's 21 and I *still do that if he's home and gets sick. Why in the *world, if they're going to insist on putting that poor kid in a car, not make the logical assumption all the kids will get sick and so start the drive straight home and fast, hoping to make it before it slams them all? She could even rent a car and go on about her Xyngular mission trip alone and have Israel drive the kids home. I just looked...it's 750 miles back home, an easy 2 day drive for one driver, even allowing for a good hotel rest one night, if need be. I just don't get how any parents could just load him back up and continue on. That's just downright mean in my book. :-(

Sonic said...

Mean, stupid, clueless, irresponsible... *sigh*

Anonymous said...

I am equally in shock regarding JM - posting that comment about how sick her son is and the picture of him in a crib? At his age? In a parking lot? WTF? And they were hitting the road again? It sounds like she's baiting again. Elle

Lisa said...

I was thinking about that crib thing...how utterly humiliating for an 8 year old. :-( I don't care how sick he was, no *way would I have put my son, at 8, in a crib. Being carried wouldn't have been much better for him but better than a crib. Either his dad would have carried him, I'd have requested a wheelchair or, honestly, I'd have let him lay on a luggage cart with a blanket and pillow long before I put him in a crib. Of course, I'd have not left the hotel with a child so sick he couldn't walk or stand. Why in the world was he not put in a wheelchair, though, for his own dignity? Hotels that size always have them on hand for guests who experience unexpected problems. Now I see Lachlan is sick...it seems they've got the 24 hour stomach thing going around. What kind of idiot would even think of being around her and her crew right now, then carrying that back home to their own families? It just all disgusts me and boggles my mind. With 2 of them driving when they left earlier, they could have had those kids home and in their own beds right now. :-(

Anonymous said...

Those kids are probably so overtired from sleeping in a new place every night, not getting enough playing time, sleeping in a room with how many other people. When my kids get overtired, they get headaches, complain their bellies hurt, just feel sick. A good nap in their quiet rooms does wonders. These kids are not getting something as simple as that.

StringOfRandomLetters said...

Re: the McKDoofuses. Payback will be when one of the adults gets it. Suffice it to say that you can put a diaper on a child at night - don't ask what happens every time you pass a little "gas".

StringOfRandomLetters said...

Re: the McKDoofuses. Payback will be when one of the adults gets it. Suffice it to say that you can put a diaper on a child at night - don't ask what happens every time you pass a little "gas".

Lisa said...

I just can't get over her taking sick people into her grandmother's home. I don't care if her grandmother said it is fine, you just don't do that to elderly people when you've got a nasty virus running through the family. :-(

Trudy Atchison said...

Hide your purses....

Lisa said...

Lol, Trudy's in the house. How're you doing, Trudy?

Everyone having a good weekend?

Anonymous said...

Does anybody read or participate at Free Jinger?
Julia

Sonic said...

I read occasionally. They're a tough crowd.

Lisa said...

I read there occasionally, Julia. I often think I'd like to join in and then somehow just never do. Why?

Anonymous said...

Apparently there was some sort of coup and I guess they discovered that the owner of the site was begging for donations, but then using the money for her own enjoyment. I tried reading up on it, but man, the threads are like 6 pages long, and I didn't have the time.
I never comment there, but love reading. i've learned a lot from that website! Hope it all stays intact.
Julia

Sonic said...

I was reading through some of that last night after your first comment, Julia. Sounds like the "ownership" of the domain changed hands several times, and the last time the new owner decided to monetize the thing and set it up as her business, a LLC. All monies are hers to spend as she wishes; some of it of course is to keep the site going (domain fees, etc.). It sounds like the biggest problem Jingers are having is that she did all this more or less behind the scenes, without much transparency and with lots of "donate to keep Free Jinger on the air!" campaigns. Her profits have been small, but significant enough to raise a lot of questions now that it's out in the open. Kind of a mess.

Lisa said...

I just went and read what remains of it all...intereting stuff, that. While I've never understood the problem people have with blogs or forums being montized, it's a whole different ballgame when one knowingly begs for money under false pretenses. It's a shame though, because once a blog or forum goes through an upheaval like this, it's never really the same again and FreeJinger is sort of an institution in the snark world.

Julia, how are you feeling?

Lisa said...

Dead, dead, dead.

Anyone want to talk about thse things?

Why are we banning any kind of weapon to protect our kids in school and yet never mention securing our schools unless it involves guns. What about hotelroom-style locks on classroom doors and iron gates on any accessible entrances? You want in? You *must go through the achool office, gain approval and then pass through a metal detector in order to access the main body of the school. Seems to me a far better solution since a cop with a gun doesn't stand much of a chance of protecting a school against, say, 2 armed students coming at him from different directions. Columbine, anyone?

Banning "assault weapons"? Why? Anyone intent on killing in mass numbers will simply build bombs. Should this not be addressed?

Just some thoughts to ponder...anyone care to offer up any thoughts? I'd say "discuss" but God, that's rude as hell.

Sonic said...

Most schools already have the rule about going through the office. Adam Lanza didn't follow tht rule. Making access more difficult sounds like a better idea: interior locks, fencing, etc. Maybe remove glass/windows that would provide access to interior locks; if I remember right that's what Lanza did.

The fact that there are other possibilities for mass murder shouldn't prevent us from removing the ones we can control. There's no reason for assault weapons, multi-round clips, armor-piercing bullets, etc., in the hands of non-soldiers besides the "I want one!" factor. Lots harder to get a mass-murder-size weapon inside too.

Sonic said...

Also, I'd love to hear what people think about Oprah/Lance Armstrong last night. I shall use his own words to express my thoughts: arrogant prick.

Lisa said...

"Most schools already have the rule about going through the office."

Sonic, yes, exactly...a rule isn't good enough since people with bad intentions aren't going to be following the rules. Only people who meanno harm with do that, so what's the point? Replace all glass with bulletproof glass, *force people, by whatever means, to go through the office in order to access the rest of the school. Have the person who grants that access behind a bulletproof glass, like a bank teller, and have classrooms able to be exited easily, but locked for entrance, like a hotel room. It just isn't that hard to do and would provide *way more safety than an armed cop or two. Yet no one mentions doing something that would be so much more effective. I just don't get it.

" There's no reason for assault weapons, multi-round clips, armor-piercing bullets, etc., in the hands of non-soldiers besides the "I want one!" factor."

I disagree. If, for example, 3 or 4 armed thugs decide to break into my house, I can't defend myself against that with a .357. Also, let's face it, we have to think globally, too...we're pissing peolpe off all over the damn world and it's a matter of time before the wars we've started come to our shores. A handgun isn't going to help much there, either. And then, we're (as in our government) encouraging citizen rebels all over the world to stand up against their "bad" governments and we're arming them with semi-automatic and automatic weapons to help them do so. Why can citizen rebels *here not have the same right? Besides all of that, our Constitution says I *can have one simply because I want one, although I think most people do have better reasons than that.

"Also, I'd love to hear what people think about Oprah/Lance Armstrong last night. I shall use his own words to express my thoughts: arrogant prick."

I have only seen clips, but oooooh, yeah, he is. What a complete and total asshole that man is and it's so ingrained in him, he really doesn't realize the full extent of it. Thanksfully, the rest of us do now. The lives that man ruined with his lies is mind-boggling...so ugly.

Robin said...

I've followed the LA thing in the media somewhat, but I didn't EVEN care enough about it to watch the interview last night on OWN. I. Don't. Care. Sorry if that sounds bitchy, but seriously...who ever thought that all those folks just conspired to bring him down? If I was into watching people eat crow, I'd have tuned in. But I really don't care about Lance Armstrong's self-made mess.

And as for this: "The fact that there are other possibilities for mass murder shouldn't prevent us from removing the ones we can control."

See...I just don't see it this way. Respectfully, we can't control any of them short of addressing the mental health issues that put someone in the place where it seems reasonable to gun down 20 first-graders with a semi-automatic weapon. And banning the guns won't make them go away. People who have dark thoughts about doing catastrophic damage to innocent people will still find ways to do just that, and if that's how they choose to do it, they will find a way to get those guns and that ammo. If not, they will find another way, which might be even more devastatingi.

The problem isn't the guns. They didn't get up one day under their own volition and storm the doors of an elementary school. Nor will they, ever. It took a sick individual to use them to that end, so in MY mind, the PROBLEM is the sick individual, and NOT the guns or the ammo.

Lisa said...

"If I was into watching people eat crow, I'd have tuned in."

Robin, that's why I wasn't interested, as well. I thought that's what he'd do and frankly, I think we all knew he'd doped. Like you said, that many folks weren't conspiring to bring him down. I really had no interest until I saw clips of the interview and then, I was stunned. It got my attention quickly because never, ever have I see anyone so completely at peace, to the point they can't even fake otherwise, with having destroyed the lives of others to "win". There's something mentally very wrong with the man, almost sociopathic, which is something I didn't expect to see, you know?

" and if that's how they choose to do it, they will find a way to get those guns and that ammo. If not, they will find another way, which might be even more devastatingi."

This is how I see it, as well. I still firmly believe psychotropic drugs may well be to blame, but that's something I don't foresee stopping anytime soon and so, regardless of the reason why they do it, if the drive in them is so strong to kill innocent people in mass numbers, they will. And honestly, bombs are the most simple substitute, which is a scary thought. I liken it to rape, and I'm speaking of the "traditional" definition of rape as opposed to "date rape" and such. It's an act of degradation and violence. If you castrate the rapist to stop him, he will most probably turn to torture and murder instead, as he still has that innate need to degrade and commit a violent act against someone. If he can't use his penis, he will most probably use something even worse because frustration and additional anger has now been added into the mix.

Robin said...

Maybe I should add that I find it all particularly disturbing.

Or maybe I shouldn't add that...I don't know?

What I DO know is that I have a whole lot of friends who seem to believe that restricting access is some sort of automagical solution.

It's not. And I'm sorry if that upsets you somehow.

Taking access to guns and ammo will not impact those who use guns illegally. It just won't.

Anonymous said...

Just adding my own .02 while I sit here and go through old paperwork.

Re: Lance Armstrong. It genuinely saddens me to see that the accusations are true. Call me naive, but I had sincerely wanted to believe that he had not doped and that he had been set up. Much like I had, as a 15 yr old, sincerely wanted to believe that OJ Simpson could not possibly have committed the crimes he had been accused of.

But...now we know better.

I did not watch the interview...honestly, I'm not that interested. He's admitting his guilt, what more needs to be said? I can't jive with those who are still supporting him, though. Comments like, "But he did so much good with his foundation..." Really? How about I go donate some cash to the local homeless guy, and then slap him across the face? Bottom line...Lance Armstrong is a despicable person. And for that matter...I suspect most of those athletes probably are. That we've come to this point...where winning at all costs, and then sacrificing your integrity and flat-out lying, going so far as to destroy the lives of people who refuse to follow your scheme...when winning is THIS important...eh, I think we really need to start re-evaluating our priorities in this country.

Re: the gun debate. The cliche is well-worn, but it's true...criminals are not going to follow the gun laws. There are too many weapons in this country and they will find a way to get them. Taking away responsible citizen's rights to have them isn't going to solve anything, and will probably just make matters worse.

As for the whole mental health issue at the heart of this? I think most people would agree that mentally ill people should not have guns. But define mentally ill. Define how long a person has to be considered mentally healthy before they regain the right to own a gun. If I have a bad day and swear at my neighbor, am I now at risk of being defined as "unstable"?

Say I am having mental health issues. Now, because I know they will probably take my gun rights away, I'm going to be less likely to seek treatment. See the problem here?

Honestly, I don't think there really is an easy answer here. I think it's fine to go ahead and crack down a bit on weapons...there really isn't a need for these assault guns, kwim? Nobody should be able to just walk into a gun show and purchase a gun. But some of the other restrictions...meh.

AWAGN

Anonymous said...

My kids school locks all the doors after school starts, leaving a door to the office open. When I get to the office there is glass separating me from anyone in the office. Someone needs to unlock the door from inside (or with a key). The door are glass, so someone with a gun presumably could break in, but can't walk in easily. This is a small, Christian school. Both public schools my kids have had speech therapy at have had the rule to go to the office first. One, you had to walk through the office to get to classrooms, but the door was not locked. The other one you did not even have to walk into office, you could walk right by. It should be that hard to put doors up that lock so everyone needs to be buzzed in. I understand this would not have worked in that school shooting, but it works better than rules that are not enforced most of the time.
Anon 9999

Sonic said...

I'll bet those rules are enforced now.

I don't think there's any one solution. I believe the mass-destruction type weapons should be banned, and/or large clips made illegal. That means not only can you not own them, you can't sell them. At the same time, I think the gun-show aspect of gun sales should be severely restricted, if not banned altogether. A significant portion of non-background check gun sales happen at these shows; remove that possibility. More thorough background checks; longer waiting periods; a stronger, more effective mental health care system... All these things combined would address at least some of the gaping holes. And none of them address the odd sort of attachment some have to gun ownership. I'm not singling out anybody here; I've just heard an awful lot of people interviewed lately who become hysterical and irrational at their imagined fears about gun regulation, who seem not to have the ability to allow any change when change is so clearly called for.

One more time so it's clear: I'm not advocating banning all guns. In fact, there was a story that came out today (happened awhile back) about a guy who whipped out his pistol and fired at someone in an office -- ex-girlfriend? Don't remember the exact circumstances, but after he finished there he ran next door to a theater, caught up in his irrational rage and blood lust or whatever and determined to kill some more. Unfortunately for him, he encountered an off-duty policewoman who was packing. She dropped him in his tracks and saved who-knows-how-many lives. Sometimes it's called for.

Sonic said...

I meant to add: none of the changes I was talking about would keep criminals from owning guns. I get that. Just because we can't solve the entire problem once and for all doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Anonymous said...

I think the biggest fear gun owners have (and even those of us who are not gun owners, but still share this concern) is that the government is slowly eroding rights. When we look at history, we see this before...and it usually doesn't end well. This slow erosion of rights. In my opinion, this is why many people are deeply opposed to gun rights. It isn't really about "guns" per se. It's about rights, and the role a government has in stepping in and controlling those rights.

Kind of a catch-22 if you ask me. We want to be safe, but we don't really want anybody overseeing that safety, kwim?

--AWAGN

Robin said...

The kind of gun control that *might have prevented this would have been *responsible gun ownership and adequate mental health care.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/n-m-teen-accused-killing-family-quiet-article-1.1243888

Sonic said...

Totally agree, Robin. :(

Sandy said...

Grabs Trudy's purse and runs

Trudy said...

Hey bring back my smokes!

Anonymous said...

Sticks a couple of mints in my ears. Then in my pockets for Lisa to find later :-D

Robin said...

Read the comments on this product. Soooo worth the time!!

http://www.amazon.com/Accoutrements-12283-Magical-Unicorn-Mask/dp/B0070QMUFA/ref=sr_1_1?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1359166990&sr=1-1&keywords=magic+unicorn+mask

Robin said...

This one, too:

http://www.amazon.com/Hutzler-5717-571-Banana-Slicer/dp/B0047E0EII/ref=sr_1_1?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1359168912&sr=1-1&keywords=banana+slicer

Must. Read.

Anonymous said...

LOL the pics are pretty good too!

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Amazon reviews. Has this been shared here? I can't remember...but whomever shared it, I about died laughing.

http://www.amazon.com/Veet-Hair-Removal-Creme-200ml/product-reviews/B000KKNQBK

AWAGN

Robin said...

ROFL!!

Robin said...

My son has been missing for 8 days now. Then out of nowhere last night, my sister I haven't spoken to in 3+ years sends me a FB friend request out of nowhere (she vanished, not me). She wanted me to call her tonight to catch up. I just wasn't emotionally ready for any of that. Any. Of. That.

Life is truly strange.

Mckmama Liar said...

http://mckfacts.blogspot.com/

Sonic said...

Robin, I'm sorry, I think I missed something. Your son is missing??!?

Robin said...

Sonic, yes. My son has been missing since...he was last seen a week ago Friday, I believe. A missing person report has been filed. While I don't think this is a case of foul play, we do not know where he is No one does.

Sonic said...

Oh my God, Robin. This is your grandboy's dad?? You must be beside yourself. Is it possible that he just skipped out for awhile?

Robin said...

No, it's my younger son.

And anything is possible. I hope he's only skipped out for a while and calls someone soon. This is hell.

Sonic said...

I can't even imagine. My heart goes out to you. You're in my prayers.

Robin said...

Thanks, Sonic.

It's so odd...

People seem to think a missing person is somehow less missing if it's not a stranger abduction or something like that.

I don't get it.

If someone you love has vanished, does it matter why or how?

I don't think it does much if you are the one trying to find the person who's vanished.

I am so worried about my son. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I'm so sorry Robin and hope/pray for good news for you. Family is important.

Anonymous said...

I'm so sorry Robin. :-( Have you put the word out on FB? How young is he?

AWAGN

StringOfRandomLetters said...

Best wishes for hopeful news, Robin. It must be so hard to wonder and worry.

Robin said...

AWAGN, he's 24, and I have friends sharing all over the country.

Thanks, String and others. Yes, it's very hard. Any news would (almost) be better than no news at all.

I just want to step out of all this. I don't want to be that poor woman who doesn't know where her son is. But I don't know how to do this the right way. Thankfully, I've never had this to figure out before. And I have no clue how to do it right this time.

Sonic said...

Checking in on Robin -- thinking of you every day.

StringOfRandomLetters said...

Echoing what Sonic said, Robin. Hoping for news, good news.

Robin said...

Thanks, ladies. No news. :(

Sonic said...

Man, I wish things would break for Robin. It must be killing her waiting like this. :(

Robin said...

I work throughout the day to not dwell on anything.

My daughter called me last night in tears. I had to give her a pep talk. I told her I understood how easy it was to slip into hopelessness and despair, but IMO, right now it's a waste of emotion. We don't know what happened. It's easy to think the worst and succumb to that emotion. And yesterday was very hard. I was in our hometown, where Seth was living, and I went through his room. Unbelievably, no one had done that yet. It scared the crap out of me. Nothing was missing. He'd bought new shoes for a pharmacy school meeting he was supposed to have a few days after he vanished. They were there, all shiny and new. The shirt he'd obviously planned to wear was on a hanger, laid out on his bed. His laptop and tablet were there, the tablet on the charger. His two rifles and one of his handguns were there, as was his ammo. He kept another handgun in his car, and that along with Seth and his car have vanished.

As I said...it would be easy to slip into despair. I fight it all day. But I don't know where he is, or what happened, and I refuse to have an emotional response to something I don't know.

At least for now. My emotions are egg-shell thin. It wouldn't take a hard hit for me to crack. I am observant of the smallest things...it's hard to explain. I *notice everything, even if it seems like nothing. Small imperfections and beauty equally make me stop and look. That's just weird. I think about what strangers are feeling. My emotional radar is on full ping. It's exhausting.

But I'm functioning. I have to.

StringOfRandomLetters said...

Oh Robin. I don't even know what to say. I wonder if the noticing of every little thing is your mind trying to stay healthy. It reminds me of certain times in my life, during or after traumatic events. I hope you can rest. I hope good news comes.

Robin said...

I came across a term tonight that I hadn't even considered before, but I know it's what I'm experiencing: "traumatic loss."

I'm in Dallas,TX this week. Saturday, there was a horrible shooting locally of an accomplished young man who was a former military sniper. You might have heard the story--while it was local here, it was also a national story. This young man reached out to other young vets who were suffering PTSD. Sadly, one young man he was trying to help shot him and his friend at a shooting range (I'm afraid I must agree with Senator McCain here...who does therapy for PTSD at a GUN RANGE?!?!) and killed them both. But as I was getting ready for my day this morning, I listened to a local news report about the incident and the people involved. And I thought...PTSD. Wow. How many ways can this manifest itself? Post Traumatic Stress Disorder...

Which is maybe why I was also made more aware of the suffering of families when something sudden and unexpected happens. I thought about the wives and children and mothers and brothers and sisters of these men. Traumatic loss. The method of the loss matters less than the effect it leaves in its wake.

I'm trying to stay healthy and focused, but maybe my attempts at not feeling things without full knowledge of the facts are just ways to avoid feeling at all?

I just don't know. But thanks for letting me blather on here. I don't feel like I can talk with anyone about this and how I'm feeling but my daughter and my husband, and I don't want to hurt them either, so I mostly just keep this shit in my head. And it's fiercely tiring sometimes.

Anonymous said...

Prayers to you, breathe deep, be strong, and take care of yourself. You are living a mother's worst nightmare. Hope for the best as we all do. Good thoughts/prayers being sent out to your family.
C

StringOfRandomLetters said...

Hey, Robin. I think your thoughts on traumatic loss are right on. And it's also part of a grieving process, you know? That you have lost him because you don't know where he is or what the circumstances are. I believe it's a healthy part of the process, at least in my experiences.

To me, you trying not to feel that which you don't know that you need to to feel -- it's not allowing yourself to "go there" because you don't *need* to. If, heaven forbid, you *have* to, then you will deal with it differently at that time.

Nature helps me so much at times like this - so many tiny things that we pass by any normal day, that can be the one thing we found joy in on *this* day. It's important to let those tiny joys find you, to remember that you can still find your balance in this wobbly world.

Anonymous said...

Robin, my thoughts and prayers have been with you. Any news on you son?
C

Robin said...

Thank you. No, no word.

When I was in Texas last week, I drove over to our hometown, where he was living. I went by to see his dad. I asked if anyone had been to go through his apartment. They said no. I said I'm going.

His dad went with me. We were welcomed in by his roommate and his roommate's mom.

We went through his stuff. NOTHING was gone. His guns, computers, and clothes were all there, minus the one gun he kept always in his car (it sounds like he was a gun-junky--he wasn't, but he and his dad enjoyed going to the range and shooting together). So, the only things missing are my son, his car, and one handgun.

I am working on grieving. It doesn't matter so much how you lose someone as it does that they are lost. We are approaching a month in just days now. My daughter, other son, and I are working on accepting this. We don't have a lot of options.

In the next two weeks, his brother (Jaiden's dad) and I are driving to East Texas to clear out his stuff from his apartment. We can't just leave it there...and rent will be due again soon. So we're going to go box it up and store it there in Texas.

We really don't have any other choice.

Anonymous said...

My heart is heavy for you Robin. May you find peace and closure in this. Praying and thinking of your son, you, and your family daily. A family's worst nightmare.
C

Sonic said...

Thinking of Robin -- you're all in my prayers.

kate said...

Lisa, you still around?

Lisa said...

I'm here, Kate, and hi! How are you? How is everyone? I'm so sorry I went MIA...I checked a couple of times and didn't see new comments so I sort of gave up on the place. Someone on the Mcktruths site just clued me in that people are talking, which is great to see!

Robin, I won't dwell on what I've read here...you're probably sick enough of my constant hugs on FB...and yes, let that amuse everyone...not only are R2 and I FB friends, I hug on her. She is pretty damn awesome, despite my having been such a complete bitch and totally misjudging her. Who knew? ;-) I'm so sorry about the need to pack his things and store them...it will be awful to do but you're right, it must be done. Best to keep them in Texas, though, because he is going to need them again someday and I do, with all my heart, believe that.

Trudy, did you get your smokes back?

Lisa said...

"Saturday, there was a horrible shooting locally of an accomplished young man who was a former military sniper."

Accomplished? Not really. He killed a bunch of people who never did shit to us, for no good reason. That's no accomplishment, at least not one to be proud of. He was nothing but a murderer for hire and being a member of the military lends no legitimacy to that. While I don't wish death on anyone and feel so badly for his family since I know they loved him as families do, I also don't feel his death is any great loss to anyone but them at all. Paybacks can be a bitch, as can Karma. Do unto others asd you'd have done unto you, after all.

Anonymous said...

Robin-you don't know me and I don't know you. My heart aches for you. I am praying for you and your son. Elle

Anonymous said...

Lisa- I don't think you should judge a member of our Military without knowing the details. "They never did shit to us"? "They meaning who"? The talibon? Please elaborate

Lisa said...

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about my not judging people but when it comes to murder, I'm not too shy about judging people. He was a paid for hire, cold-blooded murderer. And I said "they" meaning all of the people he murdered. The Taliban never did anything to us...the Afghans, in general, never did. Nor did the Iraqis or the Iraqi government. he went to their countries and killed their people, people who never caused us harm. That makes him a murderer in my book...not sure what it makes him in yours. What do *you call a man who kills innocent people who are doing nothing more than defending their own home soil from invaders?

Anonymous said...

Wow Lisa. I have no words. One question: who crashed the planes into the buildings and the field in Pennsylvania and murdered almost 4000 innocent people and children?

Anonymous said...

Can I just interject into this argument briefly? Lisa, I don't know your stance on pro-choice/pro-abortion. I'm sure it's come up here before, but I can't recall where you stood.

If you are opposed to abortion, than my question is moot.

But if you are "pro-choice", can you rectify the comments you just made with your stance on abortion? Because I would find it quite interesting to hear somebody support abortion rights, but then make such comments about our military. Not saying I necessarily disagree with your stance on the military...I see, academically, where you are coming from in your opinion. I am, however, saying that if your opinion of the military is as you've stated, I can't see how you could then turn around and support a woman's right to end the life of an innocent child for her own convenience.

-AWAGN

Lisa said...

"One question: who crashed the planes into the buildings and the field in Pennsylvania and murdered almost 4000 innocent people and children?"

Militant, extrememist Muslims who were trained by al-Queda (and US flight schools) looking for revenge for what we've done to them for decades. 9/11 was payback, retribution, not terrorism. And if you want to call what they did "murder", you must logically acknowledge that Chris Kyle was also a murderer, as are all our troops over there. Otherwise, you have to simply call it an act of war. It can't be both ways.

AWAGN, years ago, I was so pro-choice that I'd have actually called myself pro-abortion. No longer. I am pro-choice to a point...for me, it's not what I would do, personally, any longer, but it isn't a choice I can make or should make for others. That choice is up to each individual woman, her doctor and her God. Years ago, I was an escort at an abortion clinic and would still be willing to do so, providing late term abortions weren't performed. For me, and I speak only for myself here, life that is viable outside the womb with no real medical intervention treads into an area I'm not comfortable with and have conflicting thoughts about. When my thoughts conflict, I tend to err on the side of caution. That said, I do not believe life actually begins until the first independent breath is drawn, but I also ackowledge I could be wrong about that since no one really knows. Perhaps that helps explain? If not, can you be more specific?

Robin said...

I certainly didn't mean to open a can of worms by calling him "accomplished," but perhaps you misunderstood my meaning in choosing that particular term.

Lisa said...

I think I may have...I typically take it to mean the user is saying it in a positive or complimentary way but I can see how it could be meant otherwise, as well. But there's not a thing wrong with opening cans of worms. It makes for good discussion. :-)

Anonymous said...

As you pointed out, when there is a question, I tend to err on the side of caution. Such as in the question of when life begins. In my opinion, it was WAY too easy to hold the opinion that life doesn't begin until the first breath is drawn, because then, one would have little moral conflict in abortion. In other words...it feels awful convenient to hold the opinion that life doesn't begin until the first breath is drawn.

In other words...it feels an awful lot like dehumanizing the unborn child as to justify the procedure of abortion...which usually is a procedure done out of convenience (not always, but usually).

Our country has a storied, torrid history of the stronger dehumanizing the "weaker" for their own convenience. As does our world, really.

Because there is not a definitive way to answer the question of when a life actually begins, I err on the side of caution, and believe it begins the moment it is conceived. I could *even* see acknowledging the beginning of life as that point when brain waves begin.

But neither of these litmus tests of life have any palatability with the pro-choice camps because if life begins then, what is in effect happening is a *murder* of an unborn life. And it's a lot harder to argue the morality of abortion rights, if it's actually a murder.

But as the laws stand now, determing when a life begins is WAY too open. I could, conceivably, stand here and argue that my already born 4 yr old is not actually a life, in my opinion, and that his presence is a burden to me, and causes me to be oppressed and no, I don't want to put him up for adoption, I'd rather just end his life.

Recently, I have engaged in discussion with pro-choice proponents that have willingly acknowledged that the unborn child is a life, but that to force a woman to carry that life to term is a far greater travesty than the travesty of ending that life, for the woman's 9 months of convenience.

That blows my mind. To trade the entire life of one person for 9 months of another person's inconvenience? 9 months!

I saw a meme the other day...it said, "A man who doesn't want to be a father is called a deadbeat. A woman who doesn't want to be a mother is called pro-choice."

Anyways...what you said above about blatant murder, etc etc etc....to have such an opinion, but then to sit back while woman in our very own country blatantly do the very same thing to their own child....to me...the two stances don't mesh. I would even go so far as to say it's hypocritical. But that's just my own opinion.

Gotta run...things to do...lol.

--AWAGN

Anonymous said...

AWAGN:
Can we please not proselytize here? Your anti-choice rhetoric is just crap you are repeating from propaganda that you have been fed.
Your bitter judgement of women who have abortions is irritating at best. Women choose abortion for a variety of reasons, and "convenience", which you just keep repeating is pretty far down on that list if you look at statistics. But you wouldn't want to actually look at statistics, because that might make you think. And comparing your 4 year old to a cluster of cells is just ridiculous. You sound like Paul Ryan, or some such other mouth breather.
I've been reading here for ages,and this is probably the most annoying hijacking of any thread I've seen. Have your opinion, but stop slut shaming and judging other women.

Lisa said...

" In other words...it feels awful convenient to hold the opinion that life doesn't begin until the first breath is drawn."

That's because it isn't what you believe. I could just as easily say, and mean, that it feels awfully convenient to me to just accept, without a shred of proof, that life begins earlier. My statement is every bit as accurate as yours, but again, neither of us know the truth. By the same token, we can both err on the side of caution but what that caution actually is will vary according to our own beliefs. trust me, though, that I don't find anything here to be convenient or easier to believe. It's something I've worried over and thought deeply about most of my adult life and will continue to do so. I'm not sure how you can state there's no moral conflict here, as I think all people but particularly all women, regardless of the final stance they take, should have some moral conflict over what's right for the very reason we *don't know.

"In other words...it feels an awful lot like dehumanizing the unborn child as to justify the procedure of abortion...which usually is a procedure done out of convenience"

To you, I can see how it would feel that way. In fact, it *should feel that way, if you feel abortion is wrong.

"And it's a lot harder to argue the morality of abortion rights, if it's actually a murder."

So, if you truly, in your heart, believe abortion is murder, what do you do to stop it? If you believe babies are being killed, surely voting to stop it or holding a sign up isn't the moral solution to defending a baby from being murdered, is it? Speaking only for myself, if I knew someone was murdering babies, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and no one else would stop them, I would. No dramatics in that statement, I simply would. I would kill them in order to defend the defenseless and would easily do so with no concern for myself. I would go to prison in a heartbeat for it, if it meant I stopped that person from murdering more babies and believe that doing less would be immoral. Wouldn't you? See, these people who actually kill abortion providers? I can respect them...I may not agree with them but by God, they truly believed babies were being murdered and did the proper thing, morally and Biblically, based on that belief. So, what do you do to stop the murders?

Lisa said...

"I have engaged in discussion with pro-choice proponents that have willingly acknowledged that the unborn child is a life, but that to force a woman to carry that life to term is a far greater travesty than the travesty of ending that life, for the woman's 9 months of convenience. "

That blows my mind, as well. I cannot understand how a person could think this way at *all, not even a little bit. For me, this is akin to these women who have their babies in a bathroom, suffocate them and shove in a dumpster and then, when caught, get off with a slap on the hand. The hell? They murdered their baby. It's not worth less thanthe live of a murdered 22 year old, simply because it only lived a few moments. It sounds like these people you speak of would be the type to defend this, as well.

"I saw a meme the other day...it said, "A man who doesn't want to be a father is called a deadbeat. A woman who doesn't want to be a mother is called pro-choice."

There's truth to that. It's sad, but there is.

" I would even go so far as to say it's hypocritical. But that's just my own opinion."

Yes, indeed it is just your opinion. Thankfully, lol!

"Can we please not proselytize here? Your anti-choice rhetoric is just crap you are repeating from propaganda that you have been fed. "

Ehhh, she can say what she wants. I'm totally good with it and find it to be an interesting discussion. She wasn't disrespectful, considering it's a touchy topic, and considering her point of view, I understand why she made the correlation between that I said and abortion. In addition, she's right that abortion is typically (yes, I know there are exceptions) chosen out of convenience..a lot of pro-choice people don't like hearing that as it sounds ugly, but it's the truth. Why else would anyone have one outside the scope of medical necessity, if not because the pregnancy was inconvenient?

Lisa said...

Oh, the typos...I get caught up in what I'm thinking and my fingers get out of control...sorry!

Anonymous said...

Believe it or not, I didn't actually comment specifically to debate *abortion, though I was well aware that a debate would likely ensue. Honestly, I was/am more interested in challenging Lisa's opinion of the military, in light of her views on abortion. More specifically, I am genuinely interested in discussing how one could rectify such strong opinions against the military with a "pro-choice" opinion. I put pro-choice in quotations marks, because I truly hate the propaganda way in which this particular debate is labeled. I, as an anti-abortion person, am no less pro-choice, than somebody who believes abortion is acceptable. I believe in LOTS and LOTS of choices. I just don't believe that abortion is a valid choice, because I believe the child is a life from conception, because I can't justify any other definitive and measureable identification of when life actually does begin.

Anyways...I digress.

Although I did not bring the topic up to necessarily debate abortion, given Anons comments, I'd like to address a few points.

1) I can assure you, my comments are not propaganda that I am repeating. My opinions are my own, and they are well thought out, well debated amongst those who vehemently hold different opinions than my own. I have had my opinions challenged and have spent considerable time thinking critically about where I stand on this topic and why. I have rarely encountered opposing opinions on this topic that are well rooted in logic, but...I have occasionally and those discussions have led me to think more deeply and examine again why I believe what I believe. If you will...my thinking on this topic has been well-honed. So...no propaganda here. If you are questioning the meme quote I posted as propaganda...I found it quite thought-provoking. I take it you'd prefer to not think on it though. To each his own.

2) You accused me of being judgemental. Guilty as charged. I will absolutely judge another woman who has made the decision to end the life of her unborn child because that child's presence was an inconvenience to her. No different than I would pass judgement on a woman like Casey Anthony (assuming she is, afterall, guilty).

3) If "convenience" is not the reason for most abortions, than what is? I'm not including women who have been raped, or women who have serious medical concerns, or ectopic pregnancy abortions. I'm talking about non-medically necessary abortions. What other reason would a woman make such a choice, that cannot be boiled down to a matter of the pregnancy and/or child being an inconvenience to her?

4) How exactly is my 4 yr old different from a cluster of cells? No really, I'm curious. Because biologically, he is....a cluster of cells. So are you. So am I. There are arguments used by the pro-choice side to justify why an abortion is acceptable, and why it should be legal. Those very same arguments can be used to justify the termination of a 4 yr old.

Say what you will...but in my opinion, calling an unborn child a "cluster of cells" and then insinuating that it's ok to destroy that "cluster of cells" is no better than the dehumanizing of jews, african-americans, slaves, native americans, women, or any other class of people that has been oppressed because they were deemed "weaker" by those who had the might to "prove" their strength.

-AWAGN

Anonymous said...

Lisa...regarding your question on what *I* am doing to stop abortion.

Recently, a FB friend had mentioned something similar. Not quite as extreme as your example, but similar. She asked if we, as anti-abortion Americans, are any better than the German Christians who stood by and did nothing to stop the genocide of the Jews. It was incredibly thought-provoking. As has been your comment.

Bottom line....two wrongs don't make a right. Murder is murder...it's wrong whether it's a random act, an act of passion/anger, a psychotic act, or even when it's justified (as in the case of death penalty).

What can *I* do, as an anti-abortion American? I can talk about it. I can help educate people who may have questions about their choices. I can help educate young men and women to make smarter choices to PREVENT an unplanned pregnancy to begin with. Am I going to change the mind of most people? No...I recognize that. But by talking about it, by having good, solid discussions about it...perhaps more people will really think about their stance on this topic.

I can also make my home open for those children who may be the result of an unplanned pregnancy, but who were not terminated.

There's lots I can do. But being a vigilante isn't one of them. It doesn't serve anybody. That late-term abortion doctor that was murdered? His murderer is in prison, but guess what? Late-term abortions are still being done, and not always because the unborn child has a medical condition (though that is usually the reason for a late-term abortion).

What purpose did his murder have? None. He's gone...but four more abortion providers rose up to take his place.

Anyways, moving on, because I'm supposed to be doing some work right now.

After reviewing my comment here, I can say that I see your opinion on the military in a different light. Murder is wrong, I said above. All murder is wrong. So what is it that the military does? Well...they murder people. Gotcha.

Do you feel as though we ought to have no military? What if our country were to be attacked? Should we stand by and not assist other countries that are being attacked? This are not debate questions, I'm interested in your specific opinion on these questions.

--AWAGN

Lisa said...

" Believe it or not, I didn't actually comment specifically to debate *abortion, though I was well aware that a debate would likely ensue."

I completely believe this, as I've made comments before understanding the same. :-)

"Honestly, I was/am more interested in challenging Lisa's opinion of the military, in light of her views on abortion. More specifically, I am genuinely interested in discussing how one could rectify such strong opinions against the military with a "pro-choice" opinion."

And I think you've probably found you understand how I am quite consistent, even if you don't agree with me.

"I, as an anti-abortion person, am no less pro-choice, than somebody who believes abortion is acceptable. I believe in LOTS and LOTS of choices. I just don't believe that abortion is a valid choice,"

Well, I'll disagree with you on this, as you are wanting to limit choices. I, on the other hand, am just fine with anything someone else chooses because I have come to firmly believe their choices concerning abortion don't involve me in the slightest. It's between a woman, her doctor and God, regardless of what form(s) a person feels God takes, if any. And I know that's all fine for me to say, seeing as how I don't believe life begins at conception. If I didn't, I freely acknowledge I'd feel differently about it not concerning me.

Lisa said...

"Anyways...I digress."

I never do that. Ever. Really. *fingers crossed behind my back*

"My opinions are my own, and they are well thought out, well debated amongst those who vehemently hold different opinions than my own."

I'm with you so far and believing this to be true.

"I have rarely encountered opposing opinions on this topic that are well rooted in logic,"

Hmmm...logic can sometimes be subjective. You know this, right? Because I have often called people damn illogical over things (they are!!) but they don't think they are a bit and are sincere in that. As much as it pains me, I've been forced to occasionally admit maybe they *are being logical, considering their core beliefs. Lol, I still they they're wrong, though.

"2) You accused me of being judgemental. Guilty as charged."

Hell, we all are.

"3) If "convenience" is not the reason for most abortions, than what is? I'm not including women who have been raped"

I will. I'll out-AWAGN AWAGN on this one, so to speak. If someone really, truly believes life begins at conception and it's a baby, why is it okay to murder it because it was conceived as the result or rape or incest? Makes no sense to me, as that isn't the baby's fault. Why should it die for the sins of the parent or parents? *If you believe abortion is murder, that is. Also, why would one abort a baby to save the life of the other? Isn't part of being a mother being willing to die to try your best to give your baby life or keep it alive? These inconsistencies on the part of so-called pro-life people annoy me. It's either murder or it isn't. I mean, once the baby is born, there would be no good reason to kill it...if it's the same as a born baby, why would there be any exceptions prior to it being born?

"4) How exactly is my 4 yr old different from a cluster of cells?"

S/he breathes. S/he can live in this world without depending upon you to sustain her/his life. Your child life is proven to be, as s/he has lived outside of your body. It's a very, very different thing. Now, is it more important? Ehhh, I reckon that's the part up for grabs as far as what the truth is.

"Say what you will...but in my opinion, calling an unborn child a "cluster of cells" and then insinuating that it's ok to destroy that "cluster of cells" is no better than the dehumanizing of jews, african-americans, slaves, native americans, women, or any other class of people that has been oppressed because they were deemed "weaker" by those who had the might to "prove" their strength."

And, as a woman who is (feather, not dot, lol!) Indian legally but also a descendant of slaves, I will disagree with you. They are immensely different.

"Recently, a FB friend had mentioned something similar. Not quite as extreme as your example, but similar. She asked if we, as anti-abortion Americans, are any better than the German Christians who stood by and did nothing to stop the genocide of the Jews. It was incredibly thought-provoking. As has been your comment."

Actually, I think anti-abortion Americans who do nothing put German Christians to shame in the do-nothing category.

Lisa said...

Oh, shit.
*cries*

A lot of my comment was lost at the end. It's after 2:30 am and I'll redo it tomorrow. Damn Blogger.

Anonymous said...

Lisa, what are you doing to end the "murders" committed by the military?

Anonymous said...

I know you've got more coming, Lisa, but I'm dealing with insomnia over here, so I thought I'd make the best of it and exercise my brain a bit more...lol.

1) I don't agree that you're being consistent in your views of the military and your "overall" pro-choice leanings. If it's not ok for our military to murder people, than it ought not to be ok for our own citizens to do the same thing. I think, of course, the real disagreement is on where life begins and that discussion is one in which we could go around and around and around on. My opinion on the overall discussion of when life begins is that it ought not to be subjective. Because if it is subjective, than anybody could decide whatever they wish for where life begins and that, my friends, is a scary thought in and of itself. The definition of when life begins, therefore, ought to be objective, based on a clearly defined status of development, easily identified from fetus to fetus. As it stands, biologically speaking, a fetus would meet the definitive characteristics used to identify a living organism. (Side note...I once had a college biology professor who was demonstrating these characteristics of a living organism. He drove into the lecture hall on a Harley, got off and began to explain how his Harley exhibited the biological characteristics of a living organism with one exception...it did not have the capacity to reproduce. Needless to say, he was a memorable professor).

In anycase, my point being, we really ought to have a concrete definition of when life begins.

Now...you mentioned a couple of characteristics of my 4 yr old which distinguishes him from an in utero fetus. The problem is that, the characteristics you mentioned, by and large, would not then give a status of "life" to a newborn. A newborn is not capable of sustaining him or herself. He is completely dependent on others for warmth, food, etc. Yes, he has proven to exist outside of my body, but at what point during his birth did he suddenly switch from "not life" to "life", if that is to be the litmus test? Was it when he began to crown? Was it when he was completely out, but still attached via umbilical cord? Was it when he was cut free? If it was when he was cut free, than that leaves the door open for a woman to completely birth a 40 week gestation child, leave the umbilical cord attached, and then kill the child. If it is when the child is completely out of the womb (but still attached via umbilical), than the door is still open for a woman to birth the head of a 40 week gestation child, and have a partial birth abortion.

See the ambiguity?



Anonymous said...

2) I'm with you on the logic issue. Logic *can* be subjective. But dang, I've seen some really illogical arguments coming down the pipe in support of abortion rights. Such as the argument that it is a greater travesty for a woman to be forced to carry a child for 9 months than for the child's life to be terminated.

3) The issue of doing something about abortion. Well...I understand, academically, your opinion on this. But again, two wrongs don't make a right. Neither would my vigilante murder of an abortion provider result in the cessation of abortions. I would go to jail and have absolutely NO ability in effecting change in regards to abortion laws and opinions.

Let's turn that argument around a bit though. You are opposed, in general, to the military action our country partakes in, yes? You feel as though our soldiers are really just glorified murderers for hire, yes? What are *you* doing to prevent this outright slaughter and murder of people who are just trying to protect their lands from our invasion? Really, what *can* you do?

4) The discussion of rape and abortion. Well, first, my past experiences with the abortion debate topic have shown that anytime the discussion turns to rape victims, the topic can get real ugly. It seems like all rational discussion gets thrown out the window, and generally, I tend to stay away from this part of the debate for that reason.

That said. In my opinion, a child conceived of a rape situation is no less a child, and is no more deserving of a death sentence than any other unborn child. It's a child.

But the truth is, a rape pregnancy is so much more complicated and discussions of what should happen to the unborn child really need to be sensitive to the fact that the woman carrying that child has just been violated in a most horrific way and is now having to face 9 months carrying a child that is genetically half of her attacker.

But the bottom line is...it's still a child! And something beautiful can come of him/her. I think the real victory is in overpowering the evil that was done and allowing good to come of it.

Now, regarding women who may choose to terminate because their own life is at risk. This is an area in which I will have to disagree with you slightly. I agree, in principle, that most mothers would give of their own life to save their child's life. I would think, anyways. Even if that meant their child(ren) would grow up motherless. For example, if your house was on fire, and two of your three children were out, would you not run back in for the 3rd child? Most mothers would, I suspect. I know I would.

However. If a mother made the choice to NOT run back into that burning house, nobody would force her to do so. KWIM? Thus, I don't think that a woman faced with saving her own life, or saving the life of her unborn child should *have* to choose her child's life over her own.

But I, myself, couldn't imagine not sacrificing my life if it meant my child could live. I loved all of my children from the moment I learned of their existence, and would have willingly given my life for them...in utero or not. Still though, it's a very difficult reality in this debate. As rare as such situations are (excluding ectopic pregnancies, which are rarely, if ever, viable), life of the mother scenarios do occasionally happen.

In anycase...off to try and get some sleep now. My apologies if my thoughts are a bit scattered...lol. It's late here!

--AWAGN

Anonymous said...

propaganda.

Anonymous said...

All of that, and the best you can come up with is "propaganda"?

Whatevs...

Changing the subject...tonight on PBS, there's a documentary airing called, "Raising Adam Lanza". It's particularly interesting to me because I have wondered about this part of the whole Newtown story. What was Adam like as a boy? Was he like any other little boy running around? I mean, aside from the fact that he had Asperger's and Sensory Integration Disorder. Are my *own* little boys at risk of changing from sweet little boys into mass murderers? How did he go from sweet little boy to murderer of sweet innocent children?

Did any of you watch it? What did you think?

Also...I know it's a common opinion that the mother was "dumb" for taking a mentally ill person to the shooting range. I think of it a little bit differently. Putting aside what we now know of Adam, if his interest was in guns, and his mother was just trying to connect with him in a place where he was at...does that change your opinion of her, and her decision to take him to a shooting range?

Again...think of it without the knowledge of hindsight here. You're his mom. He's never really been "violent" before. He has a serious social disorder. He's interested in guns and shooting. It seems like the only way you can "reach" him is to meet him where he's at. Would you have brought him to the shooting ranges? Or would you have foreseen the potential hazard in doing so?

--AWAGN

StringOfRandomLetters said...

If he was obsessed with Anders Breivik, I would say guns are not a good place to meet him where he's at.

Anonymous said...

Did she know that, though? Or did he have his own place in the basement where she never really went?

--AWAGN

Anonymous said...

I love this blog! I respect the different opinions and responces that are shared. I was going to talk about Mckmama but tonight is not the right time. Elle

Lisa said...

Stopping in quickly to say I'm not ignoring anyone and *love this conversation, but have been a bit busy and not feeling well, both. Have to be up early in the am for some appointments and then I'll be baaaaaaahck. ;-) Elle, talk about anything you like, including MckMama. We can handle multiple topics at once. Heck, we can even handle propaganda! See y'all tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Lisa,

I'm just curious to know if you've been watching the Jodi Arias trial?

Lisa said...

Hi, hi...I know, I disappeared a bit again. I've just not felt well at all the last couple of days and then got some bad news about one of my kid's friends that just sort of hit hard and I really didn't want to think about anything too deeply for a bit. But hey, it's nearly 1am and let's do this. ;-)

First, no, I've just hit and missed a tiny bit on the Jodi Arias trial. I suspect it would have been a good one, had it gotten in at the beginning. What little I've seen has made me think she might get off...is that right?

Elle, don't forget, you can talk Mckmama anytime. I'm all caught up in the latest shenanigans, too!

"Lisa, what are you doing to end the "murders" committed by the military?"

Not a damn thing but talking about my views on it all, voting against what I can, when I can and writing letters. Well, sending emails, anyway. Would you like mne to enlarge on why I'm not doing more, why I'm not killing them to stopt hem, sinc that seems to be your real question? Or are you content with this answer. Be sure to let me know. :-)

"1) I don't agree that you're being consistent in your views of the military and your "overall" pro-choice leanings. If it's not ok for our military to murder people, than it ought not to be ok for our own citizens to do the same thing."

And it isn't okay, AWAGN. I think we can all agree, though, across the board, that someone who has been born is alive and purposefully causing their death is murder. But if one doesn't believe an (and I'll spare you the dramatic fetus-calling here since, really, who actually says that in real life?) unborn baby is a life yet, then one can't believe it's murder to abort such. That's the difference.

" I think, of course, the real disagreement is on where life begins and that discussion is one in which we could go around and around and around on. My opinion on the overall discussion of when life begins is that it ought not to be subjective."

Hell, I wish it weren't subjective either, so then we'd all know one way or another, for a fact. But we don't know and we will probably never know until we die, so we're forced to accept the fact it *will remain subjective and ask such, neither side can say with factual certainty that they are right.

Lisa said...

"The definition of when life begins, therefore, ought to be objective, based on a clearly defined status of development,"

And with this, just this easily, you lost objectivity. See how easy it is to do so" I could just as easily say "The definition of when life begins, therefore, ought to be objective, based on a clearly defined status of ability to survive outside the womb with nominal medical intervention," and I'd be just as correct, just as objective, as you are.

"As it stands, biologically speaking, a fetus would meet the definitive characteristics used to identify a living organism."

Not really, not until usually the third trimester, anyway.

"In anycase, my point being, we really ought to have a concrete definition of when life begins."

It would be lovely, wouldn't it? I can't think of anyone who wouldn't wish for this, truth be told. Unfortunately, it isn't something man can define.

"Yes, he has proven to exist outside of my body, but at what point during his birth did he suddenly switch from "not life" to "life","

Imo, at the point in which he can exist outside the womb with nominal medical intervention, being cared for by you or any other adult.

"if that is to be the litmus test? Was it when he began to crown? Was it when he was completely out, but still attached via umbilical cord? Was it when he was cut free? If it was when he was cut free, than that leaves the door open for a woman to completely birth a 40 week gestation child, leave the umbilical cord attached, and then kill the child."

For me, life begins with the first unassisted breath, whether still attached or not. That last couple of months, though, is iffy territory for me, as I feel life is capable of being had, should something happen and a birth occur early.

"See the ambiguity?"

No, in my mind, there is none but for possibly up into the last trimester.

"2) I'm with you on the logic issue. Logic *can* be subjective. But dang, I've seen some really illogical arguments coming down the pipe in support of abortion rights. Such as the argument that it is a greater travesty for a woman to be forced to carry a child for 9 months than for the child's life to be terminated."

To be fair, there are horrifically illogical arguments on both sides. But yes, the one you mention here is a good examply of a lack of logic on the pro-choice side, imo.

"Neither would my vigilante murder of an abortion provider result in the cessation of abortions. I would go to jail and have absolutely NO ability in effecting change in regards to abortion laws and opinions."

But there is no question it would save at least *some lives, if you view them as lives. No?

"Let's turn that argument around a bit though. You are opposed, in general, to the military action our country partakes in, yes? You feel as though our soldiers are really just glorified murderers for hire, yes?"

Not all of them, no. Ohhhh, I see we're going to tackle what the Anon asked me up there, aren't we? ;-) I should have read ahead.

Lisa said...

Jeeeez Louise, it's a novel tonight. ;-)

"What are *you* doing to prevent this outright slaughter and murder of people who are just trying to protect their lands from our invasion? Really, what *can* you do?"

I can't do much since I don't know which soldiers are killing people and which aren't. Not all are, after all. I also truly doubt I could get anywhere close to some who were, to catch them as it happens or at least immediately before or after their clearly stated (by word or action) intent to do so. The same can't be said for abortion providers. In addition, I have to accept that, in my case, I *could be wrong. I don't think I am, I feel strongly I am not but without being privy to governmental secrets, I cannot know for a fact they aren't really doing this to protect us from some great unknown threat we can't begin to fathom. Perhaps these Muslim kids are actually wired to remotely destroy our nuclear plants or something. It's highly remote, I know it is, but without that absolute knowledge, I can't rightfully *act on a belief or suggest anyone else do it, you know? Again, the same isn't true of abortion providers...the proof is absolute of who they are and what they do. As much as I hate the expression, it really is like comparing apples and oranges.

"That said. In my opinion, a child conceived of a rape situation is no less a child, and is no more deserving of a death sentence than any other unborn child. It's a child."

I'm with you on this. At least as far as my own feelings go re: abortion. for someone to say they're against abortion except in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother makes no sense at all to me. Whatever you want to call what's inside that woman, it's *exactly the same regardless of how it got there.

"However. If a mother made the choice to NOT run back into that burning house, nobody would force her to do so. KWIM? Thus, I don't think that a woman faced with saving her own life, or saving the life of her unborn child should *have* to choose her child's life over her own."

But, honestly, what kind of person do you think that would make her. I'm asking for your own personal opinion here. Because, frankly, I think it would make her a shitty as hell human being and mother...definitely in the case of the already living child and, putting myself in the position of believing life begins at conception, in the case of a pregnant woman.

And AWAGN, thank you most sincerely...it is *so nice to have an interesting discussion like this with someone so diametrically opposed to my own beliefs and yet have it remain so nice and civil, with real thought being given. I wish others would join in, too, but even if it remains just between us, I really do enjoy the discussion. :-)

Lisa said...

"Did any of you watch it? What did you think?"

I did not but, without sounding all conspiracy-theorist, there are things in this situation I'm not comfortable with as far as the truthfulness of them. I will say I have a family member who has a child just entering the teens years and said child has many emotional/mental issues. He is prone to violence, as a result. About a year ago, he became obsessed with guns ("obsessed is a gentle term for it) and she was *terrified. He sees several mental health professionals (there's a team) and they all agreed that perhaps the best defense was a good offense and, with their blessings, she began taking him to a gun range and had a professional there begin teaching him to shoot. They basically took all the mystery and drama out of it, made it damn boring with plain paper targets and after less than a month, his interest in guns had waned and he was on to something else to obsess over. Now, I have no clue what Adam Lanza's doctors may or may not have suiggested but there's a possibilty, I know, that this could have been suggested to his mother, too, as "therapy". Do I think it's a agood idea with, um, unusual kids? I'm not so sure. But I'm also not going to be quick to blame his mother for a damn thing.

Robin said...

My son called me today. I am so relieved.

He is OK.

Thank you all for your thoughts, prayers, and concerns.

Anonymous said...

Robin, so glad to hear that! Hope he's sound not just physically, but mentally as well.

Lisa, I'll comment sometime in the next few days. Busy weekend ahead, and I'm just about out of data on my hotspot until the 4th of March.

--AWAGN

StringOfRandomLetters said...

So happy for you, Robin! Best wishes.

Lisa said...

AWAGN, it's fine. I'll be in and out, so no hurry and if I put a new post up, just carry it over. :-)

Robin, I can't tell you how happy this news made me! I know things aren't exactly right for him to have even done this but with life, there is always infinite and justifiable hope. I'm so darn happy for you all that he finally called!

Sonic said...

Oh thank goodness... I was sort of holding my breath there, thanks for the update, Robin! Whew!

Anonymous said...

I'm so glad that your son is OK Robin. Thanks for letting us know. Thoughts and prayers still heading your way.
C

Sandy said...

::tosses Trudy a fresh pack of smokes::

Robin, I'm glad your son called. I can't even imagine.

Trudy said...

Sandy send more!

Anonymous said...

Has anyone heard anything about how Lia and Rhys are doing? I really cared about that little girl - and I'm usually very cynical about the way people get so involved in the lives of strangers on the internet. I hope Lia is doing well.

Anonymous said...

BTW - while I'm here - does anyone know what's going on with Tricia Lawrenson? She's the one other person who I continued to follow on the internet. She and her husband were so openly public about her life with CF and then her husband suddenly stopped blogging and rarely tweets about her anymore.

I'll be good and withhold comments about Nathan but I will say Tricia seems like a very nice person. Maybe she just needs some privacy and that's certainly her right but it's kind of disconcerting when you care about how someone is doing and then you don't hear anything more about them.

Lisa said...

Oooh, talk. :-)

I have no idea about Lia and Rhys but do wish we knew more of how Lia is doing. So many of us truly came to care for her (Rhys, Dave and Zaya, too) and I still don't get why Rhys can't give unbiased, neutral updates. Or rather, I don't get why she *won't.

No clue on the Lawrensons, either...I've not kept up with them closely at all but agree that if a person allows others to know of their troubles and become emotionally attached, they owe some type of regular updates in return.

Trudy needs to stop smoking. ;-)

Oopsie Daisy said...

** new post **

Post a Comment

Yes, you said this...