And why does he think they should be aborted? Because they aren't perfect? Well old man Harris, you are fa-A-ar from perfect so I'd think twice about that.

Oh and it's ok for his wife to have a child with Down Syndrome but God forbid someone else does! Practice what you preach there are few things I despise more then a hypocrite.

Please...

90% of all Down's fetuses are aborted.
If half the population is pro-life - as you claim - that means an awful lot of "pro-lifers" are aborting them as well.

I think people panic when they find out their child has Down Syndrome. I think we should put more resources into educating people about the syndrome. It's not a death sentence.

Jess 4:30 pm,

Excellent point.

FF 4:23 pm,

...due to the poor advice given by their "trusted" doctors?

Jess, 4:30 you have hit on something very important. Doctors will very frequently -almost always- pressure people who find out their child may have down's to abort, giving them NO information on how to raise a child with Down's syndrome, and very often exaggerating what the child will suffer through, and like you said, they pretty much make it sound like it's a death sentence. The ones who need to be focused on here are the doctors who will make women feel guilty if they don't abort their Down's Syndrome child. It is terrible!

More people would keep them if they understood more about what it actually is.

FF 4:23 pm,

...due to the poor advice given by their "trusted" doctors?

Posted by: Janet at February 18, 2008 4:33 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow! 90% of all doctors are pro-choice as well?

http://www.sujeet.com/

Please take a look at this site.

"Wow! 90% of all doctors are pro-choice as well?"

Maybe 90% of doctors are stupid? More reasons to DIY your own surgeries. I don't have anesthesia but I have aromatherapy spray.

Well said Jess. Thank you for your passionate advocacy for children with disabilities. I have really noticed that in your posts as of late.

Hey FF got anything I can do? Boob job? You'll never get another traffic ticket.

More reasons to DIY your own surgeries. I don't have anesthesia but I have aromatherapy spray.

Posted by: Jess at February 18, 2008 4:37 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oooooooh, lavender. It's so soothing.
So is Patron.
You can borrow my Black and Decker cordless drill and my Dremel tool if you need them. Finish up with my Bare Minerals concealer and you'll be all set.

No FF I'm sure your boobs are perfect as is.

Carrie, I believe that everyone is flawed. We need to know though that you don't need to be perfect to be happy or lead a filling life, or make others happy.

FF, let's set up our own medical practice. Oh we do water births!!!

Hey FF got anything I can do? Boob job? You'll never get another traffic ticket.

Posted by: Jess at February 18, 2008 4:39 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had work done on my smile this morning. it was expensive and painful.
Had I known that you were available I would have called. Dayum...

FF, I wouldn't think that pushing for abortion based on your own perferences would be very "prochoice". Do you?

There's a lot of bigotry against the disabled, pareticularly those with developmental disabilities. Anecdotal evidence from parents, and statistics on the abortion rates after a prenatal diagnosis, indicate that people seem to go into the field of prenatal testing with a "search and destroy" attitude. I'm sure they think of themselves as "making the world a better place" by "preventing suffering". But that doesn't make what they do right.

FF, let's set up our own medical practice. Oh we do water births!!!

Posted by: Jess at February 18, 2008 4:45 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

We'll set up our practice at Wild Rivers Waterslide Park! Fun for the whole family!

"We'll set up our practice at Wild Rivers Waterslide Park! Fun for the whole family!"

Slide down a water slide as you're giving birth. Once you hit the pool the baby pops right out and you get a free picture and soda : )

FF;4:32,

Wow! 90% of all doctors are pro-choice as well?

I didn't quite say that, but I would be surprised if the majority of OB/GYN's are not pro-choice. That seems to be the mindset of medical schools today. I'd be thrilled if someone could prove me wrong. Maybe Jill knows the statistics.

I think that very few people are emotionally and finacially equipped to handle handicapped children.
My sister works at a local school for the deaf, and is often stunned by the number of bright, charming children who are warehoused there for simply being hearing impaired. It makes my heart hurt.

Did anyone click on my link?

Yes, Jess,

That pretty much says it all. Good story.

Did anyone click on my link?

Posted by: Jess at February 18, 2008 4:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I did.
That kid has amazing parents and a wonderful brother.
(Is his wife DS?)

FF,
I think we should put more money into schools to better educate ALL our children and have special education teachers specific to a disabled child's interest. Also maybe if parents knew what children with disabilities could accomplish they would be less likely to give up on their education at home. Kind of a placebo effect, if the parents think extra attention is worth it they will provide their child with it and in turn their child will improve. But like you said some parents could not handle the responsibility. I'm thinking families with already a large number of children might find it harder to give a special needs child the attention they deserve.

FF, as far as I know she is. I read his brothers essay on DS and it is sad that for a long time having DS was just seen as being an idiot or having the "idiots disease" because clearly these people are capable of much more. Yes I am sure his family had a lot to do with it.

Jess, I clicked the link. What an amazing testimony and proof that children (and adults) with Down's are precious!

Jess -

Thank you so much for that link! I've sent it to my sister who works with disabled children.

When I questioned my dr. on certain stats that had recently made headlines regarding birth defects for my age group and the possibilities of having a child with DS, he said "well if it happens, we can arrange an abortion immediately"
I never went back to their clinic again.

Did you tell him why you weren't coming back?

Maybe you should have made it clear you were pro-life from the get-go

Well, I think it's probably better for her to see his true colors and find a better doctor than to have him pander to her simply because he knows her stance.
Know what I mean? I would rather know ...

Sandy,

Yikes! That's crazy.

Hi Jess,
I should have said this clinic handled my miscarriage horribly. It was upon my follow-up visit for my miscarriage that I asked these questions. (I was on the fence about even returning to the clinic after my experience.) I never thought to have them put on my chart that I am pro-life. I wanted to tell him after his remark, but I never got the chance. It was at the tail end of my visit. He obviously was in a hurry and just scurried out the door right after his comment. I was left speechless. That comment clinched my decision to leave their practice. I was so angry.

Bethany, what happens if she never found out his stance until something went horribly wrong and he did the opposite of what she wanted.

"well if it happens, we can arrange an abortion immediately"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

He didn't say "we will arrange an abortion," "we should arrange an abortion," or "we must arrange an abortion."
He offered it as an option; "we CAN arrange an abortion."

I'm sorry you had a bad experience Sandy. I don't think the medical community treats women and women's health issues the way they should. I hope you are able to find a good doctor who will really care about you. Or you can come to FF's and my water park hospital. Lol, no you don't want that.

I know what it's like to be ignored though, when I had mono one doctor brushed me off and told me to eat some crackers when I informed her I hadn't been able to eat anything in three days. Duhr I tried EATING!. The other doctor thought I was pregnant just by looking at me. Yup needless to say I ended up in the ER. Two IVs later I still wasn't peeing. Dehydration is the WORST thing in the world.

FF,

Not everybody thinks killing their unborn children is an option like yourself. I mean, you may have a killer instinct but not everybody does, you know what I mean?

This is so sweet. I had to share it.
http://www.startribune.com/local/15616762.html

"Not everybody thinks killing their unborn children is an option like yourself. I mean, you may have a killer instinct but not everybody does, you know what I mean?"

If you mean every woman should make her own decision about whether to have an abortion or not, I agree with you.

Carla 6:05,

What a great story. They should write a book about their lives together. How inspirational!

I'm sorry you had a bad experience Sandy. I don't think the medical community treats women and women's health issues the way they should. I hope you are able to find a good doctor who will really care about you. Or you can come to FF's and my water park hospital. Lol, no you don't want that.

Posted by: Jess at February 18, 2008 5:34 PM

I don't think that the medical community's disregard of their patients' opinions, feelings, or what-have-you is restricted to only women and women's issues. I think it's a problem that's endemic in the system. Doctors just generally think that they're better than everyone else.

That isn't to say that there aren't a lot of fabulous doctors out there, but it seems like they're outnumbered by the ones who think that their medical education makes them so much smarter that the only person's opinion they need to consult is their own.

Lawyers suffer from the same syndrome.

Hal,

so far, virtually 0% of women regret the birth of their children, but many regret their abortions. It should not be legal Hal, it doesn't do women any good, plus abortion is killing human life.

Actually, it's not true that 90% of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted. 80 to 90% of babies *who are diagnosed prenatally* are aborted. Many people who are pro-life and/or wouldn't consider aborting just don't have the tests done.

Jen R, 7:11,

That explains the high percentage. Thanks!

THANK you, Jen R...I knew there was an explanation. That makes so much sense.

so far, virtually 0% of women regret the birth of their children, but many regret their abortions. It should not be legal Hal, it doesn't do women any good, plus abortion is killing human life.

Posted by: Jasper at February 18, 2008 6:40 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting. Who can forget this famous survey?:
http://happilychildfree.com/ann.htm
Yet when pro-life groups try to gather signatures of women who regret their abortions they only get a smattering of replies, while Ms. Magazine can get 5000+ signatures from women who are happy with their decision to choose abortion at the drop of a hat.

I'd be interested to actually see the comments by Professor Harris in context.

The one thing I'd say is that if he really said that Down's pregnancies "should be aborted," then that is not consistent - he'd been better off saying that it's up to the pregnancy woman or the couple.

Doug

Jen: "80 to 90% of babies *who are diagnosed prenatally* are aborted."

This is true.

"Many people who are pro-life and/or wouldn't consider aborting just don't have the tests done."

One problem though is that now that the American College of OBGyns has recommened that ALL pregnant women have testing to see if their babies have DS, because tests (ultrasound and blood tests) can discover it earlier, more and more women are being tested. The tests offer no risk to the baby (unless of course they diagnose DS), so it is easy to agree to testing. Once you find out, unfortunately it can be scary.

I know of a pregnant woman in her early 20's who had all sorts of routine tests which included testing for DS, even though her chances are so low.

Many women who found out from amnio later in pregnancy kept the babies because they were so far along. But now, many more will discover earlier and more will abort because it is "easier."

It is a frightening prospect to think that more and more babies with DS will be aborted. There will be very few indiviuduals in our communities with DS, and it will seem more and more strange to us when we do encounter them.

As for caring for babies with DS....it is true that sometimes they have medical problems, but thankfully in this day and age they can be corrected or treated (also, "normal" babies have these very same problems...it's just that there is a higher risk of having them when a baby has DS). Most states have programs that help with the cost of correcting these problems.

Other than that, what they mostly need is love, which is not hard to do because they love you intensely. They are often charmers and happy babies. Caring for them is just like any other baby...women are definitely not given accurate information. We are treating them as monsters and nothing could be further from the truth. They are angels.

If mothers would only keep their babies, they will be changed for the better, and they will will be so full of love for their precious child, they will thank God that they made that decision.

"so far, virtually 0% of women regret the birth of their children,"

Obviously society would crucify any woman who says she wishes her child had never been born but I know plenty of women with children who say they wish they had waited.

And having a child doesn't mean security in your old age. They could (God forbid) die young or grow up selfish and self absorbed.

I view the name "abortion" as a convenient medical term for "murder". I have one grandchild with Downe Syndrome. She is a priceless addition to my daughter's family.

But I do believe you have to be fully grown as an individual before you can have a child. Like the parents who didn't accomplish what they wanted in life so they try to force it upon their children. That shouldn't happen.

BTW I hope my kids aren't part of the "popular" crowd. I hope they are individuals with one or two close friends they can really be comfortable with.

"I think we should put more money into schools to better educate ALL our children and have special education teachers specific to a disabled child's interest"

I am not to sure what you mean by this but most special education teachers usually specify in a certain disability. "learning disability" "emotional behavior disorder" "developmentally disabled" etc. Even elementary education teachers have to take courses on how to educate children with disabilities. It can be challenging because most schools are making big cuts, which makes class sizes sooo big. Teachers have such a hard time trying to reach the kids who are "below average" they also have a hard time reaching the kids that are "above average" I was a regular education teacher for four months. My class sizes were all above thirty... the special education room... just over 20. It so sad that we aren't putting more money into education. :(

I also agree with you Jess on parents spending time at home working with their children. It helps sooo much.

Francis D,
I agree!
Your grandaughter is truly a blessing and I'm sure her grandparent is to her, also.
:)

"Obviously society would crucify any woman who says she wishes her child had never been born but I know plenty of women with children who say they wish they had waited."

how about regret? have you ever heard a Mother say they regretted having their child?

Yes. And had you asked my parents five years ago if they regret having me I'm sure they would have said yes.

Ugh I was an awful acid mouthed, bulimic, depressed cutter. Well I still have depression and anxiety but I take medicine for it.

Jess: Obviously society would crucify any woman who says she wishes her child had never been born but I know plenty of women with children who say they wish they had waited.

Right - if the implication of the question is "Do you not love you kid?" then who is going to say no?

It makes a huge difference how the question is worded.

Ann Landers once asked her readers if, had they to do it over again, would they have kids?

70% said no.

That's out of over 10,000 people, and the 70% was high enough to surprise me.

Yet even if it was 50%, or 20% for that matter, it'd show that having kids is not always (to say the least) the best decision for a given person.

Doug, you said you wanted tos ee me wearing pink.

I have a picture of me in a brown and pink dress, and one of me in a very pink (and blue) outfit when I went to DC. If someone wants to let me know how to use html to post them here I will!

Jess, I bet your parents love you very much. My son has ADHD and can be difficult at times but I wouldn't change anything about him. I'm glad the medication is helping, I too suffered from depression and anxiety at times...

"Right - if the implication of the question is "Do you not love you kid?" then who is going to say no?"

I agree Doug. But how many (anybody can answer) has heard a women say they regret having their baby? I know many who regret their abortion.

jasper-

how old is your son with ADHD

The reason I ask jasper is because I am ADD.

But how many (anybody can answer) has heard a women say they regret having their baby? I know many who regret their abortion.

Jasper, only a couple times in my whole life, and it entails more sorrow, IMO, than most any number of abortions where the pregnancy was unwanted.

Here too, the relative anonymity in an Ann Landers-type of poll will have people being more honest than is otherwise often the case.

PIP, if your image is accesible over the internet, you can use:

IMG SRC="http://www.link_to_pips_picture.jpg" WIDTH="380" HEIGHT="250" BORDER="0" align="center" ALT="pips picture">

the width and height you can adust... Doug may know how to as well...

Hi JM, my son is 7.

Doug,

I can't imagine for the life of me that a mother would regret their child, I'm surprized you know a couple...

Jasper,

Just speaking from my experience with having ADD, I was able to manage it on my own by the time I got to high school. It was a struggle when i was your son's age. But I did "grow" out of it. I still "space" out from time to time.

If someone wants to let me know how to use html to post them here I will!

PIP, here is how I do it:

1.) Have the picture file saved on your computer as a .jpeg or .gif - those are the ones I think work on Jill's site. Anybody - feel free to add to that or correct me if I'm wrong.

2.) Go to http://www.imageshack.us/

3.) Imageshack is free, requires no registration, etc. Click on "Browse" and locate the file on your computer.

4.) Then double-click the file or click on it once then on "Open" in the window that includes the picture file (I'm talking Windows machines here - Apple computers: you're on your own). The path of the file will then appear on the line in the Imageshack window next to the "Browse.." button.

5.) Click on "Host it!" down below.

6.) The picture should upload to Imageshack. Now it's on their server, and can be accessed via the internet.

7.) A small image of the picture will appear on the Imageshack screen, and down below will be a line saying, "Hotlink for Websites ."

8.) Copy that line - it's the URL for the picture online, now. So right-click it then 'Copy' or left-click it then CTRL + C or left-click it then click on 'Edit" at the top of your computer screen then 'Copy."

9.) Paste that URL into the "Post a Comment" window on Jill's blog and the picture will appear.

Might sound complicated, but if anything I went overboard with the explanation, and it's pretty intuitive, especially once you do it.

Doug

"Just speaking from my experience with having ADD, I was able to manage it on my own by the time I got to high school. It was a struggle when i was your son's age. But I did "grow" out of it. I still "space" out from time to time. "

Thanks JM, thats encouraging to know, I can tell you turned out very well too :)

Thanks Doug for the info...

Doug, where did you find that picture.. its hilarious. I'd like to e-mail it to my boyfriend.

Doug LOL!!!! (the pic)

Thanks Jasper... just make sure you work with your son, as I'm sure you already do.

JM, that picture has been on the internet for many years, often showing up with "tinybeer" in the name somewhere. Cracks me up...

My daughter has Down syndrome. She is the youngest of six children. Let me tell you she is the joy of my day. She greats ever morning with a smile, and she is not suffering at all She loves life.

Yes.. sadly 90% of babies prenataly diagnosed are aborted. This comes from the CDC. 1 in ever 800 children concieved have Down Syndrome. So about 55000 children are aborted each year just because of the extra 21 st Chromosome. Sad. We have so muc to learn from people with DS. THey are not mistakes of genetics. God has a plan.

Anyway.. sad to see this Prof is warping so many. He is not the first prof do have such a warped opinion. But sadly.. he is likely just mimicking the sentiments of our warped society. Ya know.. if your not a good worker.. contributing to the econonmy. reminds me of Scrooge. GOnna go an give my sweet little girl a extra big hug. Precious.

Okay there are 3..so here goes!

another..

Hi Steph,
You are blessed indeed to have a daughter so full of love and life! God does have a plan and I am so glad she has you for a Momma!!! :)

OH.. ONE THING...

YES 80-90 % of *prenatally diagnosed* are aborted. However.. ACOG just ran a huge campaign stating that they will now push the DS test ( tri screen) on EVERY woman age 25 and up. NOT just 35 like it used to be. However, I have been offerd the test with all of my pregnacies.. from the time I was 25. ( even though that was over ten yrs ago :) ) anyhow.. I finally had them mark my chart and refused the tests after a while. So what that means is they are now on a search and destroy. And of course with ridiculous " wrongful life" law suits why would they want to risk it!?

I hope they do not find AUtism to be genetic. Or tey will come up with a test to eliminate those children too.

Last...

Mods, I have about 3 up. If you would kindly post them for me I'd love it!

Imagine if instead of advocating testing for Down syndrome and encouraging abortion, they wre testing for a "gay gene", or for dark skin pigmentation. Then the bigotry would be plain for all to see. And that's what it is -- bigotry. But because it's aimed at folks with disabilities, somehow it's okay.

Yeah, we're all for "tolerance" and "diversity". As long as you're not "diverse" in a way that the Beautiful People aren't tolerant of.

LOL that last picture cracks me up.

I have nothing but admiration for those with the courage to defy gravity and perform horizontal ballet.

The vertical dancers are just p*****s.

(Your Scream video is warped. I liked it!)

steph,
I'm sure you mean ALL of your children are the joy of your day : )

Thanks FF! It was a lot of work.

And yes, I have a very warped sense of humor ;)

Doug,
This was a question I had posed to you on a blog that is down now so I am posting it again:

Is sentience a physical thing or a spiritual thing or both?

And yes horizontal ballets take great talent!

haha that was the photo i illegally ripped from the company website. woops.

Doug,

Nice picture of the moon. Did you take it?

Regarding Ann Landers' poll numbers, the results may not be representative of the population as a whole, since only her readers would have responded. There may be a large group of very happy (and busy) Moms and Dads who don't read her column or don't have the time to write to her. Just a thought...

Carrie,

It was nice to see you.

Thanks.

Janet, no - that picture of the moon came straight from a "moon pictures" Google search. I sure like the moon.

I agree that the replies to the Ann Landers poll were likely not representative of the US population as a whole. I doubt that 70% really regret having kids, overall. However, again - even if it's only a small part of that, it's significant, and eye-opening.

Doug

PIP - "Pretty in Pink" indeed! Thank you for posting those.

And aww Geez.... Now I gotta go wash....

Doug

This was a question I had posed to you on a blog that is down now so I am posting it again: Is sentience a physical thing or a spiritual thing or both?

Truthseeker, sorry about missing it - don't know why, because I usually do cruise the threads....

A physical thing - it involves sense organs, nerves, synapses and the thought-processing parts of the brain.

For "spiritual awareness," at most I see that as a matter of belief; faith. If we believe in the soul, karma, etc., then there could be some type of recognition in there somewhere - just thinking aloud.

Doug

Doug,

You believe that everything is contained in Nature, right? That all that we know can only be known through reason. Am I saying this right? That there is no "outside" force. Nothing outside of Nature. Anything "supernatural" is not really supernatural, but part of the natural order of things? Unknowable, but still part of the complete picture?

And you arrived at this conclusion through reason?

Doug ;)

I'm willing to bet that my mom and dad probably regretting having kids when I was 9-14 years old. I was a little terror. No liiiiiiie.

"Ya know.. if your not a good worker.. contributing to the econonmy. reminds me of Scrooge"

Actually this reminds me of conservatives.

PIP,

Doug is a married man.

Doug,

Pip is too young for you.

90% of all Down's fetuses are aborted.
If half the population is pro-life - as you claim - that means an awful lot of "pro-lifers" are aborting them as well.

First off- take a stats class and learn about representative sampling: The only people who would know their babies have Downs are the proaborts who have an amniocentesis so that they can be sure to abort any child that isn't perfect. I know I would never have an amnio and accept the additional miscarriage risk. What's the point? An amnio is just a "search and destroy" mission.

So pro-lifers aren't aborting their babies with Down's. They're birthing their babies because they realize they have Downs because they wouldn't kill them either way.

If anything, this stat is inencouraging because it means that 10% of those that determine their child has Downs are human and parent enough to love their children anyway. I beleive 100% of parents should be that way, but with 3000 abortions a day, it ain't so.

PIP,

you must have the boys chasing after you. :)

"you must have the boys chasing after you. :)"

You must have ME chasing after you! *pinch pinch pinch pinch*
Doing anything for you? No? Nothing? *slinks away*

Jess, of course. You're a cutie too!

Hi all,

have had some computer woes and this is why I have not posted of late. However, there are many inconsistencies of late than need be addressed. #1 ... the Ann Landers bit: if she had lived in the age before Copernicus and polled people on whether the earth was flat. I'd bet she would get 100% response... OF COURSE (silly question). This does not make their assertion correct, even if they wanted to be 'correct' and give 'the best answer in their circumstances.

The universe/Nature is much more complicated than we ever imagined. We 'know' things through our senses plus there are some 'other' phenomenon that do not quite fit into this neat 'concrete' view ... like time; space; forces ... like gravity. (Energy and mass are two others) Even if we add up all the energy in these 'things' and what we 'know' ... we still arrive at a figure of 10% of the energy hypothetically released at the Big Bang. The other 90% is called 'dark matter'. The Hubble telescope has two galaxies in the process of 'going-through-one-another' some of this 'dark matter' is revealed as a 'shadow' similar to the spirals of light emanating from one galaxy. So of all that can be known via our senses is only about 10% of what 'is'.

The 'supernatural' is an existence different but not necessarily 'part-of' nor 'bound-by' the parameters of this universe. We get an inkling that such is possible by considering what life means; via miracles and back-handedly by the concepts of 'nothing' and '0' .... is 'nothing' real ????? How about absence??? Then what is it?

John

MK: You believe that everything is contained in Nature, right? That all that we know can only be known through reason. Am I saying this right? That there is no "outside" force. Nothing outside of Nature. Anything "supernatural" is not really supernatural, but part of the natural order of things? Unknowable, but still part of the complete picture?

Yes, I do think everything is contained in nature, but I also think there is intuition on some people's parts that bears out. There are people, IMO, who are aware of parts of nature that I am not, due to their abilities in this realm. There is awareness at times that cannot be adequately explained via physical proof and the five senses alone. The "sixth sense" stuff would be "supernatural," I think, as far as what we all take for granted in our daily lives, but I do not say that it's actually "outside nature."

Some things very likely are unknowable for us, but I do think there is validity at times in stuff like precognition, mutual awareness in twins, etc., so some things are knowable for some of us who have the certain ability/awareness/sensitivity etc.
......

And you arrived at this conclusion through reason?

If anything I'd say it is unreasonable to dismiss the "psychic" stuff out of hand, from what evidence I have seen, the stories I have read. Reason alone cannot disprove the existence of "supernatural" stuff.

Doug

MK, you are right, I am a married man, darn happily too. And yeah, PIP is not even quite half my age, I figure.

Tell you what though - her smile in the first picture with who I assume are five friends - now that is one of the best smiles ever.

JOHN BOY - I was just gonna ask where in Heaven's half-acre you had gotten to....

Ann Landers might have been a flat-earther herself, but if her readers feel a certain way about having kids, then they feel that way.

Agreed that things are more complicated than a Newtonian view with only the five senses being taken into account. Dark matter, neutrinos, etc., - I would still place them as part of "nature," but that's not to say we know all of what nature is or all of what is in nature. I think the "supernatural" comes from us placing what we know and understand (at least relatively well) within the term of "nature." It's really not that the rest is "unnatural" or "supernatural," I'd say it's really just that it's beyond what we commonly say is understandable within natural law, as we observe it.

Doug

Cuteness defined:

Doug,
This is getting wierd.

PIP, think!

Do you treat, care for, and help a sick or disabled person, or do you kill him? Do you measure the value of a person’s life in money? Or in utilitarian usefulness? The cost to society to care for all the physically and mentally handicapped among us is but a tiny fraction of the cost to society for the morally deformed among us. Professor Jerome Lejeune, discoverer of the chromosomal pattern of Down’s syndrome once related to us a story he had heard from a geneticist colleague which illustrates this well:

"Many years ago, my father was a Jewish physician in Braunau, Austria. On one particular day, two babies had been delivered by one of his colleagues. One was a fine, healthy boy with a strong cry. His parents were extremely proud and happy. The other was a little girl, but her parents were extremely sad, for she was a Mongoloid baby. I followed them both for almost fifty years. The girl grew up, living at home, and was finally destined to be the one who nursed her mother through a very long and lingering illness after a stroke. I do not remember her name. I do, however, remember the boy’s name. He died in a bunker in Berlin. His name was Adolf Hitler."

For more, check out http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_24.asp

QUALITY OF LIFE MINUS SANCTITY OF LIFE EQUALS GENOCIDE.

Just havin' a little fun, Anonymous. Not doing anything today - waiting on a seal for a pump.... no work until tomorrow.

Doug

PIP - "Pretty in Pink" indeed! Thank you for posting those.

And aww Geez.... Now I gotta go wash....

Doug

Posted by: Doug at February 19, 2008 8:16 AM

Seriously Doug,
Was this very inapropirate comment really necessary?

Doug,

I guess what I'm really asking is if those seemingly "super"natural events are actually "natural" events that simply can't be explained, yet.

Or are they something that comes from "outside" of the natural world.

How 'bout you just define "super"natural?

There is something to cheer about.

Two Choices

What would you do? You make the choice. Don't look for a punch line, there isn't one. Read it anyway. My question is: Would you have made the same choice?

At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves learning-disabled children, the father of one of the students delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he offered a question: 'When not interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does is done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things as other children do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?'

The audience was stilled by the query.

The father continued. 'I believe that when a child like Shay, physically and mentally handicapped comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people treat that child.'

Then he told the following story:

Shay and his father had walked past a park where some boys Shay knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, 'Do you think they'll let me play?' Shay's father knew that most of the boys would not want someone like Shay on their team, but the father also understood that if his son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others in spite of his handicaps.

Shay's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked (not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for guidance and said, 'We're losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him in to bat in the ninth inning.'

Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile, put on a team shirt. His Father watched with a small tear in his eye and warmth in his heart. The boys saw the father's joy at his son being accepted. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear as his father waved to him from the stands. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shay's team scored again. Now, with two outs and the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was scheduled to be next at bat.

At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance to win the game? Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat. Everyone knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the ball.

However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing that the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shay could at least make contact. The first pitch came and Shay swung clumsily and missed. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to the pitcher.

The game would now be over. The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end of the game.

Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first baseman's head, out of reach of all team mates. Everyone from the stands and both teams started yelling, 'Shay, run to first! Run to first!' Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and startled.

Everyone yelled, 'Run to second, run to second!' Catching his breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling to make it to the base. By the time Shay rounded towards second base, the right fielder had the ball ... the smallest guy on their team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team. He could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but he understood the pitcher's intentions so he, too, intentionally threw the ball high and far over the third-baseman's head. Shay ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the bases toward home.

All were screaming, 'Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay'

Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to help him by turning him in the direction of third base, and shouted, 'Run to third! Shay, run to third!'

As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the spectators, were on their feet screaming, 'Shay, run home! Run home!' Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team.

'That day', said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, 'the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity into this world'.

Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having never forgotten being the hero and making his father so happy, and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day!

AND NOW A LITTLE FOOTNOTE TO THIS STORY: We all send thousands of jokes through the e-mail without a second thought, but when it comes to sending messages about life choices, people hesitate. The crude, vulgar, and often obscene pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion about decency is too often suppressed in our schools and workplaces.
You're probably sorting out the people who aren't the 'appropriate' ones to receive this type of message. Well, the person who sent you this believes that we all can make a difference. We all have thousands of opportunities every single day to help realize the 'natural order of things.' So many seemingly trivial interactions between two people present us with a choice: Do we pass along a little spark of love and humanity or do we pass up those opportunities and leave the world a little bit colder in the process?

A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats it's least fortunate amongst them.

May your day, be a Shay Day.

John

@ Doug,

"Ann Landers might have been a flat-earther herself, but if her readers feel a certain way about having kids, then they feel that way."

So-o-o-o- .... 'feelings' don't make it 'the best' ... doesn't change nuttin. The power of wanting/not-wanting can easily be seen in regards to taxes, eh? (Have you ever encountered a 'wanted' tax? Laws are reflections about what a society 'wants', ain't it so, Doug?)

John

John,
I love Shay Day!

(gets me every time!)

:)

Doug, Jasper

Aw, shucks! Thanks guys. Right now I'm working on this boy, but he too shy to ask me out yet, so I'm just waiting him out!

MK: I guess what I'm really asking is if those seemingly "super"natural events are actually "natural" events that simply can't be explained, yet.

Yeah, that's what I think, for sure, MK.
......

How 'bout you just define "super"natural?

As above, I'd say it's stuff beyond "what we all take for granted in our daily lives," stuff relating to the five senses, to physical reality that's unquestioned or nearly so among all people. It's psychic stuff, ghosts and gods, miracles, etc. That's how I feel the common usage often is, but again - I don't think those things actually are "outside" of nature, if they exist.

Doug

"Ann Landers might have been a flat-earther herself, but if her readers feel a certain way about having kids, then they feel that way."

John: So-o-o-o- .... 'feelings' don't make it 'the best' ... doesn't change nuttin. The power of wanting/not-wanting can easily be seen in regards to taxes, eh? (Have you ever encountered a 'wanted' tax? Laws are reflections about what a society 'wants', ain't it so, Doug?)

No, feelings don't change physical reality, as with the earth being flat or not; and past incorrect perceptions of our physical world doesn't really relate to how Ann Landers' readers felt.

Yes - taxes boil down to wants/desisres as do laws. I hear you on taxes, and while it's not that people purely and simply "love" to pay taxes, they do want to pay them more than they want to do without what they perceive the money going for. Or they're just not worried about it enough to raise too much cain.

Seriously Doug, Was this very inapropirate comment really necessary?

No, Sandy. In fact, nothing is "really necessary" here. I do hear you though, and sorry if you were offended. Guess I did go a little overboard.

Doug

FF, your link at happilychildfree.com does not work. I think maybe the site is down or abandonded.

The site is down.
Here's the famous (infamous?) survey:

The Ann Landers Survey - 70% of parents, if given the chance again, say they would not have children

If You Had It To Do Over Again — Would You Have Children?
By Ann Landers

If it is true that a large percentage of the parents in this country are sorry they had children, why don’t we hear more from them? Because such an admission goes against the grain of what we have been taught is human nature. Parents are supposed to love their children no matter what. To speak disparagingly of one’s offspring is socially hazardous. It was a simple enough letter. A young couple about to be married wrote to ask for guidance. They were undecided. They just couldn’t make up their minds whether or not to have a family.

“So many of our friends,” the letter said, “seem to resent their children. They envy us our freedom to go and come as we please. Then there’s the matter of money. They say their kids keep them broke. One couple we know had their second child in January. Last week, she had her tubes tied and he had a vasectomy—just to make sure. All this makes me wonder, Ann Landers. Is parenthood worth the trouble? Jim and I are very much in love. Our relationship is beautiful. We don’t want anything to spoil it. All around us we see couples who were so much happier before they were tied down with a family. Will you please ask your readers the question: If you had it to do over again, would you have children?”

I printed that letter and the sky fell in. The word didn’t come from Chicken Little. It came straight from the gut of young parents and old parents, from Anchorage to San Antonio. I heard from Junior Leaguers and welfare mothers. The Boston Brahmins wrote and so did the hill people of Kentucky. I had struck an unprecedented number of raw nerves. The question unleashed an incredible torrent of confessions—“things I could never tell anyone else…”

After five days of reading, counting, and sorting mail, a bleary-eyed staff of eight secretaries announced we had received over 10,000 responses, and—are you ready for this?—70 percent of those who wrote said, “No. If I had it to do over again, I would not have children.”

Twenty years of writing the Ann Landers column has made me positively shockproof. Or so I thought. But I was wrong. The results of that poll left me stunned, disturbed, and just plain flummoxed.

Could it be? Not only could it be, it is. The message came through loud and clear. Wake up and smell the coffee, Annie old girl. Your readers had blown the American Dream. Motherhood, which always rated right up there with apple pie, Old Glory and the U.S. Marines was due for a reassessment.

About 40 percent of those who wrote to say, “No. I would not have children if I had it to do over again,” didn’t sign their names. On the other hand, nearly all the letter that said, “Yes. Our children have brought us great happiness,” bore signatures. A number of those who expressed the latter view asked me to print their letters. Many said, “You can use my name if you want to.”

Approximately 80 percent of the total response came from women. The average letter ran almost a page longer than the usual Landers letter. I was particularly moved by the intensity of feeling.

Dozens who wrote said, “I am weeping as I write this. It’s the first time I have ever put such thoughts about my children down on paper. It’s painful.”

Many readers who expressed shame and guilt signed their names and addresses but asked me not to respond. A Miami woman P.S.’d, “My mother-in-law makes her home with us. Her eyesight for envelopes is very bad, but it’s perfect for what’s inside. If she found out I had written to you, I would never hear the end of it. Please don’t answer in any way, shape or form.”

The “No” mail fell into four major categories.

Category One: Young parents who were deeply concerned about global hunger, overpopulation and the possibility that we might incinerate ourselves with nuclear weapons. A San Francisco father expressed his sentiments candidly: “The world is in lousy shape. We would feel guilty if we brought a child into this mess. Later, if we decide we want a family, we will adopt.”

Category Two: Parents who stated frankly that their children had ruined their marriage. “Our happiest years were the ones before the babies came,” wrote an Atlanta woman. “In those days, we had time for the theater, parties, rides in the country, weekend trips and best of all—each other.” A wife who had signed her letter “Too Late For Tears in Tampa” wrote, “I was a successful, attractive, career woman before I had these kids. Now I’m an exhausted, shrieking, nervous wreck—too tired for sex, conversation or anything else.” A Chicago mother of four enclosed her check-out tape from the supermarket. The total was $61. “This is what we spent on groceries last Thursday,” she wrote. “The price of food is out of sight. My husband was laid off for six weeks last winter and we had to accept help from my folks. It was humiliating. We love our kids but they are so damned expensive. Actually they haven’t given us that much pleasure. We’d have to vote ‘no.’”

Category Three contained the most pathetic letters of all. They came from older parents whose children had grown up and left home. “Manhattan Mom” wrote with more rancor than self-pity. “I get a postcard from the Bahamas at Christmastime. On Mother’s Day, I get an azalea plant. In between, maybe two phone calls. I raised that boy alone. His father died of cancer when he was three. Some thanks I get.”

A 63-year-old president of a large corporation in Cleveland apologized for writing in longhand “But,” he went on, “I’m ashamed to dictate this letter to my secretary.” He described the camping trips, the evening devoted to watching their sons play football. The sacrifices (not money, he emphasized) in terms of time spent with their children. “And now,” he wrote sadly, “they are too busy for us, but they seem to have plenty of time for their in-laws. Thank God we don’t need anything from them, but it hurts not to be included in their lives. My wife and I talk about it to each other but no one else knows how we feel. It’s not the sort of thing you lay on your friends. When your column appeared, my wife read it out loud to me at the dinner table. We both voted ‘no.’”

The most bitter letters of all came from Category Four: parents of teenagers in trouble. “Where are the joys of parenthood?” asked a Washington, D.C., mother. “We haven’t seen them. But we’ve seen a good deal of security guards who’ve caught our daughter shoplifting. We have also seen policemen who picked up our youngest son for selling drugs on the school grounds. We’ve seen some very depressing emergency rooms where the older boys were taken by an ambulance after totaling two cars and one motorcycle. My husband and I keep asking ourselves, ‘What did we do wrong?’ but I’m not sure anything could have saved our kids. The pressures to steal and do drugs are tremendous. Two other couples we know are having the same problems with their kids.”

Parents with traumatic problems that involve police and hospitals are definitely in the minority. What about the majority?

Why are they sorry they had children?

Many, I believe, are disappointed because their children failed to live up to their parents’ secret expectations. Every mother wants her daughter to be beautiful and popular, especially if she wasn’t. When the daughter turns out to be neither, the mother feels let down.

Dad, who didn’t make the high school football team and couldn’t get into Harvard, nurtures the secret hope that his son will succeed where he failed. Nothing is ever said, of course, but the nonverbal communication is at work and Junior gets the message. Getting the message is easy, but doing what Dad wants isn’t. So Dad is disappointed and Junior feels inadequate and rejected.

Too many parents have a grossly unrealistic approach to parenthood. Everybody loves a cute little baby but nobody wants an 11-year-old who socks a teacher, a 14-year-old who steals money from his grandmother’s purse, or a 16-year-old who is hooked on drugs.

The disenchantment often sets in early. When a young couple has to miss “the party of the year” because the sitter didn’t show up, they can’t help resenting the child who kept them home. Add to this, walking the floor with a colicky baby, no more romantic vacations, and a bill from the orthodontist for $3,000. They ask themselves, “Who needed this?”

*

Are there some invisible components to help explain that staggering 70-percent negative response? Some missing pieces to the puzzle? I see one, for sure. The person who is against something rather than for it is much more readily inclined to take pen in hand and express his anxiety, rage, or disappointment. People who are contented are rarely motivated to write and tell me how happy they are. Anger, hostility and resentment are often the fuel that moves people to action.

Am I saying that many parents who voted “No” are disappointed, resentful, and angry? Indeed I am. They feel ripped off. “Heartbroken In Long Island” wrote, “God knows we did our best. My husband and I even took some night-school classes to learn how to be better parents. We followed the book, did all the ‘right’ things, but two out of three of our children turned out bad. I don’t believe we failed them. They failed us.”

If it is true that a large percentage of the parents in this country are sorry they had children, why don’t we hear more from them? Because such an admission goes against the grain of what we have been taught is human nature. Parents are supposed to love their children no matter what. To speak disparagingly of one’s offspring is socially hazardous.

Trouble with a husband, on the other hand, is a common topic over teacups, luncheon tables, bridge hands and telephones. By the same token, a battle with the little woman is discussed candidly at bars and clubs—wherever men meet. Plain talk about marital problems is a national sport, because everyone knows no marriage is perfect. But parents who have trouble with their children are inclined to keep their mouths shut—unless their troubles have been in the newspapers, or the parents happen to be in the company of other parents who they know are having trouble with their children.

Common misery can make strange bedfellows. A striking example of this was described in a letter from a couple of “No” voters who had to appear in court when their son was arrested for selling speed. Two other sets of parents whose sons were involved in the same ring also turned up in the judge’s chambers.

“We didn’t have one thing in common with those people except our children’s arrest,” wrote one of the mothers from Detroit. “They were definitely from the other side of the tracks. But when you have the same kind of trouble, you become brothers and sisters under the skin.”

*

If I had polled my readers 20 years ago about their feelings toward their children, would the response have been the same? I believe not. While it is true that children have rebelled against their parents from time immemorial (rebellion is a normal symptom of growing up and achieving independence), never in the history of our country have the rebellious young managed to generate so much bitterness and alienation.

Our children have far more effective weapons to use against us than we had when we were rebelling. They have ready access to smoking lounges in high schools, communes that feature kooky, far-out religions, and college campuses that permit students to live with members of the opposite sex. (You can like it or lump it, folks, because the colleges say they are not responsible for the morals of the students. But don’t forget to send in that tuition check.)

Yes, the game has changed and so have the rules. More radical switches have taken place in our society in the last 20 years than in the previous 200. Parenthood was never easy, but it is far more difficult than ever before.

Today’s parents find themselves ill-equipped to deal with the steady barrage of violence (not to mention garbage) on TV—the electronic baby-sitter. Our children are bombarded with magazine ads for pornographic “literature” and “art” that would shatter a glass eye at 40 paces. We have the Pill, pit, LSD, booze for 18-year-olds, and skin flicks featuring kinky sex with close-ups of everything two people—and sometimes three or four—can possibly do together.

Our young people have no heroes. They have seen their country lose a war for the first time in its history. They have heard their President say, “I am not a crook,” and resign rather than face impeachment. They have seen their Vice President plead no contest to a charge of tax fraud and leave office in disgrace.

Polls show the average American has equal regard for politicians and used-car salesmen.

God may be in His heaven, but all is not right with the world.

It is no cinch to produce well-balanced, emotionally healthy children in an atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety and at a time when the values of an earlier era—the work ethic, discipline, firm guidelines and reward for excellence—are rejected as “old fashioned.” Granted, these past 20 years have been extremely difficult for both parents and children. My heart aches for all who are caught in the switches of this transition period.

Still I am boggled by that 70 percent. No way could I have responded “No” to that question. My daughter, Margo, has been a joy to me—not the perfect child, mind you, but our problems have been few and of no great significance. It would be utterly impossible to imagine what my life would have been like without her.

But Margo is now 36 years old and she has three children of her own, one a teenager. Would I be so joyous about parenthood if Margo were 15? I doubt it.

Wait FF is Margo your daughter?

Doug said:
**********
A physical thing - it involves sense organs, nerves, synapses and the thought-processing parts of the brain.
**********

Doug,
IMO the Holy Spirit is God's gift of life given to us at conception, and s such it is a prelude to any physical sentience.

Laura, since Ann Landers was strongly pro-abortion I doubt the veracity of anything she published.

In a sidebar that went with the
report, the editors of Good Housekeeping wrote:
“All of us at Good Housekeeping know that no mother will be able to read Ann
Landers’ report without passionately agreeing or disagreeing. We would like to know
what your reaction is. Won’t you therefore, take a minute or two to let us know how
you would answer the question: if you it had to do over again, would you have
children?”
In their October issue, Good Housekeeping reported that 95% of the responses were
“Yes.”
How does one account for these vastly different results?

http://www.stats.uwo.ca/faculty/bellhouse/stat353annlanders.pdf

Yay, Bethany!!!!

Thanks, Anon...if you'll click the link, there's a lot more interesting insight as to why her survey came to those results. As with the Housekeeping survey, the question was posed to a specific audience and not to random individuals.

From the page:
"Ann Landers herself came close to describing what is one of the major problems
with her survey. At first, in one column
2
she listed potential psychological and cultural
reasons for the negative response. Then in a later column
3
she wrote what is perhaps the
real reason for her negative response.
“I believe the logical explanation for this phenomenon is (a) the hurt, angry and
disenchanted tend to write more readily than the contented, and (b) people tell me
things they wouldn’t dare tell anyone else.”
Her choice (a) is the real culprit. The responses to the survey were not a true cross section
of society and reflected the opinions of only those who felt strongly enough to write in.
This kind of self-selection bias could be eliminated using random sampling. "

" The advice columnist Ann Landers once asked her readers, "If you had it to do over again, would you have children?" A few weeks later, her column was headlined "70% OF PARENTS SAY KIDS NOT WORTH IT." Indeed 70% of the nearly 10,000 parents who wrote in said they would not have children if they could make the choice again.

These data are worthless as indicators of opinion among all American parents. The people who responded felt strongly enough to take the trouble to write Ann Landers. Their letters showed that many of them were angry at their children. These people don't fairly represent all parents. It is not surprising that a statistically designed opinion poll on the same issue a few months later found that 91% of parents would have children again. Ann Landers announced a 70% "No" result when the truth about parents was close to 90% "Yes."
"
Source here

Reference: (yates 1999)

I know I've already made my point, but here is some more, in case someone out there isn't totally convinced that the stats are flawed:

According to one professor:

"We don't believe that roughly 70% of people in America in 1976 wished they hadn't had children. The sample is not a random sample from the entire U.S. population and likely fails to reflect the characteristics of the U.S. population. Evidence of this includes:

(1) The percentage of women in the respondents (80%) is very high compared to the percentage of women in the U.S. population (around 50%). Men are likely to have different opinions than women on this issue, since men do not give birth and are in many families not primarily responsible for raising the children.

(2) People responded voluntarily. Perhaps they did so because they are passionate about this issue. Such people are likely to feel the need to express opinions that run counter to prevailing wisdom, which in this case is that "children are a blessing." This is a classic example of the problems with voluntary response sampling.

(3) Only people who read Ann Landers's column could possibly answer the survey. Ann Landers's readers are not necessarily representative of the U.S. population. The opinions of people who do not read her column are just as important as those who do. This is an example of frame coverage bias."

Bethany - agreed that it's likely not 70% of American parents as a whole that wouldn't have kids had they to do it over again.

As I said, though, even a fraction of that is significant, pointing up the fact that not everybody is suited to having kids, and some people don't find that out until they have 'em.

As I said, though, even a fraction of that is significant, pointing up the fact that not everybody is suited to having kids, and some people don't find that out until they have 'em.

What is your solution to that, Doug?

Do we search for people who might have a tendency to be bad parents, and encourage/coerce/force them to abort children that they are obviously willing to bring to term?

This was Margaret Sanger's plan to stop the unapproved from breeding.

Also, this just proves my point further that people who have "wanted" children are many times the most abusive/frustrated/bad parents. (obviously if they carried to term, at one point they "wanted" the child, correct?)

Parents like this, who have a child simply because they "want", have expectations set too high. They "want" the child, as if the child is a possession of theirs. They expect the child to fulfill some need of theirs, and when the child doesn't live to their expectations, they become frustrated, angry, and many times, abusive.

If people would instead "welcome" children, with correct expectations, there would be a lot less abuse in this world.

Children should never be "wanted" or "unwanted". They're not things.

They should be accepted, loved, welcomed, cherished. They are people.