What to do after Newtown

[Hemodoc]

Sorry, that is once again a skewed view of the traditional America. You are wrong. America is instead the common market place where if you wished to work you could and America is still one of the only nations where you can rise from poverty to great wealth in only one generation. Once again, that is a leftist view of the world. America is the one place where workers have thrived. Sorry, can't agree at all with that type of leftist propaganda.

Your view of conservatism compromising is also silly since conservatives more often than not had a clear Christian base for their morals. There are some things that there is no compromise such as abortion for instance. If you believe life began at conception, where is the point of compromise?  No, that is once again a leftist view of conservatives that is just frankly silly.

OK, Hemodoc.  I think everything that anyone has had to say has been said.  I guess there is nothing more to discuss.  Except for one thing...

As I have pointed out before, I have read many of your posts for a long, long time.  It occurs to me, and forgive me if my memory is faulty, that not once have you ever expressed any curiosity about anyone else's views or opinions.  You do not ask questions, and I must assume it is because you have no interest in what anyone else has to say, what they believe and/or why they believe as they do.

It seems that if someone does not share your opinion, then that person is silly or is labouring under leftist propaganda or is part of some conspiracy to turn America into a God-hating culture that makes Sodom and Gomorrah look like the Queen's tea party.  Your world view seems to be shrouded in fear and loathing that must be either defended by the institutionalization of hatred of "the other" or abandoned with the slogan, "Your side won, so go live in the putrid world that you are creating."

Perhaps I do have a skewed view of the "traditional America", but maybe, just maybe, you do, too.  And that's why I asked this question in the first place.  I was curious to know how other people defined it.  Our definition of what is "traditional" is a reflection of our own life experiences, but apparently that has not occurred to you.  Your definition of "traditional America" will surely not be the same as someone's who was unable to eat at a certain restaurant in 1960 because of their skin color.  Hemodoc, surely you have some modicum of imagination.

Conservatives and their left leaning counterparts have been compromising since this nation began.  Our Constitution, which I know you hold dear, demands it.  The nation today demands it of our Congress.

Actually, today there are many more nations where one can rise to great wealth very quickly.  Those happen to be the same nations that are starting to see ever widening gaps between the wealthy and the poor.  Brazil is a prime example (they are quickly buying up expensive and desireable American real estate and are paying in cash!), and Russia is right there, too.  Sadly, the fact that personal wealth in Russia is rising is due often to crime and corruption engendered in the new freer market economy.  China is seeing the same phenomenon with the loosening of Communist strings, but even there you can see yet another country experiencing the same economic gap between the haves and the have nots.  In this country, the rich are getting richer and the poor are working harder to keep what they have.  While there is certainly nothing wrong with being very wealthy, that ever widening gap just feels immoral.

I can certainly understand why someone would refuse to compromise on abortion.  But surely there are other issues that this nation cares about on which our policymakers (ie, Congress) can compromise.  This is how Congress traditionally has functioned.  What's different now? 

Oh, never mind.  I keep asking the same questions over and over yet get no replies that don't have disparaging remarks in them.  I truly do not care if anyone thinks I am wrong or silly or a doormat for commies.  In fact, I am quickly becoming majorly uninterested in what anyone believes.  It's just too much like hard work to expect thoughtful opinions thoughtfully expressed.  I don't give up easily, but I am now.

(PS...I do want to make it clear, Hemodoc, that I have a great deal of affection for you although I have no idea why.  You can be utterly frustrating, but I admire your passion.  I will refrain, however, from asking more questions of you as I am probably being intrusive although I do not mean to be.  I can see where some might construe my curiosity as nosiness.)

Dear Moosemom,

As far as asking questions about liberal views, I have stated several times on IHD that I was originally a Boston liberal as is all of my family, well I guess my brother is now an independent. I quite understand the liberal view since I lived it until I was 36 years old when I became a born again Christian. In addition, there are lots of folks that tell me their views here on IHD without me asking. I don't make an assumption that I know what they are thinking or what motivates them.

As far as advancing above the situation you were born into, that in short is called the American dream. No doubt, that is a dying notion in this nation as it turns more and more into a European socialist type of state. That was not so a mere generation ago. But make no doubt, rising above your situation you were born into is known worldwide as living the American dream. Sadly, it is dying today.

As far as compromise, there are many issues where you must be true to your principles. Unfortunately, we have very few in Congress who are true statesmen any longer. That may be why you believe compromise is what drives America. There are some things worth fighting for. Sadly, fewer and fewer people have those kind of strong moral compasses any longer.

The constitution DOES NOT demand compromise. Instead it is set up for lively debate and strong opinions Let the best win out. The constitution places no restraints on political views or opinions, it instead promotes free speech and separate spheres of competing power. No, some of the greatest debates in our history occurred in the 1800's during the infancy of our nation.  Compromise, no that is not at all the basis of our constitutional powers.

COMPETITION AND THE CONSTITUTION

Competition is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It is not among the national aspirations set forth in those documents: equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, protected and promoted by a republican union. But competition is a foundation of our constitutional order and a critical means of achieving our aspirations. In particular, it shapes our common life through elections, the separation of powers, federalism, free speech and religion, and competitive enterprise.



http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/competition-and-the-constitution

[Bill Peckham]

"Your argument on the internet has completely changed both my mind and my vote."
Said no one.
Ever.

LOL

[Bill Peckham]

If you are like me and think there are way to many gun deaths in America, then you should be concerned that research into gun safety and gun deaths is absent. Here is an article from the American Medical Association explaining why there is no federally funded research on gun safety http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470

There is also the question of how many gun deaths there are each day. That data isn't collected. However, Slate is trying to pull the information together by keeping track of every gun death since Newtown:

"Of course, this data is incomplete. Not all reports get caught by @GunDeaths’ news alerts or his followers. Suicides, which are estimated to make up as much as 60 percent of gun deaths, typically go unreported. Nevertheless, we at Slate want to assemble this data as best we can.

And the more people who are paying attention, the better the data will be. You can help us draw a more complete picture of gun violence in America. If you know about a gun death in your community that isn’t represented here, please tweet @GunDeaths with a citation, and he’ll add it to his feed. (If you’re not on Twitter, you can email slatedata@gmail.com.) His data feeds our interactive feature."


One way to work around the federal ban on gun research funding is this sort of crowd sourcing efforts. We could all participate to make the tally as complete as possible.

The graph of the deaths since Newtown is chilling. As of yesterday there have been nearly 200 gun deaths (including 5 children) since the 28 in Newton.

[Hemodoc]

My thought on the abortion issue:

This is a support forum for people of both genders, of many ages, who all suffer from renal failure. This is, as we all know, a life-threatening disease that requires essentially life support and other beyond-the-norm treatment to keep said individual alive. This technology was not available just a mere 50 years ago.

Out of respect, there are women of child-bearing age who are on this forum, some of them who may have had abortions - not because they chose to, mind you - but because they *HAD* to. These are women who, if they had the gift of being healthy enough, would never have chosen that path for their pregnancies. They would have chosen to *have* the baby. There are also other women on here who have had painful pregnancy experiences that have ended tragically. As well, there are also women who have been able to carry their pregnancies either to term, or far along enough to give birth to a healthy or healthy-enough child. There is no way to predict how these high-risk pregnancies will turn out, there are only statitistics that their doctors, and these women, can go by. To keep bringing up the abortion issue like it keeps being brought up by certain individuals - and *ESPECIALLY* comparing it the outright EVIL that was done in Newtown, CT just a short time ago, is a show of disrespect to these women. Until you have been in *their* shoes - who is ANYONE on this page or ANYWHERE to judge?

I am 39 years old, a woman who has known about her CKD since the young age of 23. Having children was not an option for me. Thankfully (more or less) that hasn't been an issue for me, since men do not like me. Given that, it has never been an issue in my life. But, if I had become pregnant at anytime in my CKD/ESRD journey, I would have been faced with making a HUGE decision that is not an easy one to make. That does NOT make me a "baby killer". What that makes me is this - a woman with a serious disease that does not allow my body to fully support a pregnancey in the way it should be able to. Hell, my body couldn't even keep my own self alive w/o a machine, then a major surgery where I now have someone else's kidney. And guess what?? I am not the only one on this page who has this problem!!!!!!!

So please, going forward, RESPECT the women on this page/forum who have had to go through the painful decision of terminating a pregnancy due to the fact that she has one of the many kidney-killing diseases we all know and hate. To do otherwise is absolutely tasteless.

KarenInWA

Dear Karen, you have lost me on this.  This is what I stated to Moosemom with respect to conservatives and the issue of compromise as what is at the heart of congress. I disagreed and used abortion as an example of that. Please note the even though IHD is a support center for CKD folks, it is also mainly a discussion board. In this arena, it is a political discussion thread. I stated absolutely nothing disrespectful of anyone. If folks don't agree with my views, that is not justification of stating my views are disrespectful.

There are some things that there is no compromise such as abortion for instance. If you believe life began at conception, where is the point of compromise?

Sorry, but once again that is simply stating the conservative view. It is not in any manner criticizing anyone else's views.

Lastly, simply because a woman has CKD does not mean that they cannot carry a pregnancy successfully even on dialysis. We have lot's of successful pregnancies to date in the medical literature. Nancy Spaeth had both of her children after being chosen through the Seattle life and death committees. Whether transplant or dialysis, pregnancy is quite possible.

Nancy Spaeth was accepted by the Life and Death Committee in Seattle in 1966, and after two years of in-centre treatment embarked on home haemodialysis.  She recalls attending fund-raising events for Dr Scribner, Dr Henry Tenchkhoff holding her first baby, and participation in Dr Joseph Eschbach's first study of erythropoietin treatment.  She had 4 transplants and two children, so has experience of all the ups and downs, and most of the different peritoneal and haemodialysis regimens. 

http://historyofnephrology.blogspot.com/

[KarenInWA]

My thought on the abortion issue:

This is a support forum for people of both genders, of many ages, who all suffer from renal failure. This is, as we all know, a life-threatening disease that requires essentially life support and other beyond-the-norm treatment to keep said individual alive. This technology was not available just a mere 50 years ago.

Out of respect, there are women of child-bearing age who are on this forum, some of them who may have had abortions - not because they chose to, mind you - but because they *HAD* to. These are women who, if they had the gift of being healthy enough, would never have chosen that path for their pregnancies. They would have chosen to *have* the baby. There are also other women on here who have had painful pregnancy experiences that have ended tragically. As well, there are also women who have been able to carry their pregnancies either to term, or far along enough to give birth to a healthy or healthy-enough child. There is no way to predict how these high-risk pregnancies will turn out, there are only statitistics that their doctors, and these women, can go by. To keep bringing up the abortion issue like it keeps being brought up by certain individuals - and *ESPECIALLY* comparing it the outright EVIL that was done in Newtown, CT just a short time ago, is a show of disrespect to these women. Until you have been in *their* shoes - who is ANYONE on this page or ANYWHERE to judge?

I am 39 years old, a woman who has known about her CKD since the young age of 23. Having children was not an option for me. Thankfully (more or less) that hasn't been an issue for me, since men do not like me. Given that, it has never been an issue in my life. But, if I had become pregnant at anytime in my CKD/ESRD journey, I would have been faced with making a HUGE decision that is not an easy one to make. That does NOT make me a "baby killer". What that makes me is this - a woman with a serious disease that does not allow my body to fully support a pregnancey in the way it should be able to. Hell, my body couldn't even keep my own self alive w/o a machine, then a major surgery where I now have someone else's kidney. And guess what?? I am not the only one on this page who has this problem!!!!!!!

So please, going forward, RESPECT the women on this page/forum who have had to go through the painful decision of terminating a pregnancy due to the fact that she has one of the many kidney-killing diseases we all know and hate. To do otherwise is absolutely tasteless.

KarenInWA

Dear Karen, you have lost me on this.  This is what I stated to Moosemom with respect to conservatives and the issue of compromise as what is at the heart of congress. I disagreed and used abortion as an example of that. Please note the even though IHD is a support center for CKD folks, it is also mainly a discussion board. In this arena, it is a political discussion thread. I stated absolutely nothing disrespectful of anyone. If folks don't agree with my views, that is not justification of stating my views are disrespectful.

There are some things that there is no compromise such as abortion for instance. If you believe life began at conception, where is the point of compromise?

Sorry, but once again that is simply stating the conservative view. It is not in any manner criticizing anyone else's views.

Lastly, simply because a woman has CKD does not mean that they cannot carry a pregnancy successfully even on dialysis. We have lot's of successful pregnancies to date in the medical literature. Nancy Spaeth had both of her children after being chosen through the Seattle life and death committees. Whether transplant or dialysis, pregnancy is quite possible.

Nancy Spaeth was accepted by the Life and Death Committee in Seattle in 1966, and after two years of in-centre treatment embarked on home haemodialysis.  She recalls attending fund-raising events for Dr Scribner, Dr Henry Tenchkhoff holding her first baby, and participation in Dr Joseph Eschbach's first study of erythropoietin treatment.  She had 4 transplants and two children, so has experience of all the ups and downs, and most of the different peritoneal and haemodialysis regimens. 

http://historyofnephrology.blogspot.com/

My only concern is the feelings of the women on this board who have had to go through this decision, whether they wanted to or not. HemoDoc, with all due respect, you do not know the personal health histories of everyone on this board, and neither do I. I have probably read more of the different threads on here than you have, and have seen some very personal and tragic stories on here. These are whom I think of. No matter my feelings on abortion, I would never bring it up on a page like this one, and especially compare it to the evil of the Newtown tragedy like was done on a different thread earlier this month. All I am simply saying is to think first of these women before going off about abortion.

Also, as for transplant patients being pregnant, it really does depend on the patient and the state of their transplant. Some of the medications are very harmful to the fetus, and a woman may not be able to be off of them for any period of time, depending on the state of the transplant. In my case, my transplant was injured by a biopsy. My creatinine is stable at 3.3, w/a GFR of 17. I am forever grateful to my live donor who was so kind, generous, and loving as to give me this wonderful gift. However, due to a biopsy, it is not performing optimally. I most likely would not be able to carry a pregnancy to term *and* keep this gift working as well. This is a reality for me. Who knows what other patients realities are? We are not them, we do not live their lives, we are not their doctors. Each case is unique and individual. To judge otherwise is none of our business.

That is all I am saying. I prefer to be compassionate rather than judgemental or all-knowing.

KarenInWA

[Hemodoc]

My thought on the abortion issue:

This is a support forum for people of both genders, of many ages, who all suffer from renal failure. This is, as we all know, a life-threatening disease that requires essentially life support and other beyond-the-norm treatment to keep said individual alive. This technology was not available just a mere 50 years ago.

Out of respect, there are women of child-bearing age who are on this forum, some of them who may have had abortions - not because they chose to, mind you - but because they *HAD* to. These are women who, if they had the gift of being healthy enough, would never have chosen that path for their pregnancies. They would have chosen to *have* the baby. There are also other women on here who have had painful pregnancy experiences that have ended tragically. As well, there are also women who have been able to carry their pregnancies either to term, or far along enough to give birth to a healthy or healthy-enough child. There is no way to predict how these high-risk pregnancies will turn out, there are only statitistics that their doctors, and these women, can go by. To keep bringing up the abortion issue like it keeps being brought up by certain individuals - and *ESPECIALLY* comparing it the outright EVIL that was done in Newtown, CT just a short time ago, is a show of disrespect to these women. Until you have been in *their* shoes - who is ANYONE on this page or ANYWHERE to judge?

I am 39 years old, a woman who has known about her CKD since the young age of 23. Having children was not an option for me. Thankfully (more or less) that hasn't been an issue for me, since men do not like me. Given that, it has never been an issue in my life. But, if I had become pregnant at anytime in my CKD/ESRD journey, I would have been faced with making a HUGE decision that is not an easy one to make. That does NOT make me a "baby killer". What that makes me is this - a woman with a serious disease that does not allow my body to fully support a pregnancey in the way it should be able to. Hell, my body couldn't even keep my own self alive w/o a machine, then a major surgery where I now have someone else's kidney. And guess what?? I am not the only one on this page who has this problem!!!!!!!

So please, going forward, RESPECT the women on this page/forum who have had to go through the painful decision of terminating a pregnancy due to the fact that she has one of the many kidney-killing diseases we all know and hate. To do otherwise is absolutely tasteless.

KarenInWA

Dear Karen, you have lost me on this.  This is what I stated to Moosemom with respect to conservatives and the issue of compromise as what is at the heart of congress. I disagreed and used abortion as an example of that. Please note the even though IHD is a support center for CKD folks, it is also mainly a discussion board. In this arena, it is a political discussion thread. I stated absolutely nothing disrespectful of anyone. If folks don't agree with my views, that is not justification of stating my views are disrespectful.

There are some things that there is no compromise such as abortion for instance. If you believe life began at conception, where is the point of compromise?

Sorry, but once again that is simply stating the conservative view. It is not in any manner criticizing anyone else's views.

Lastly, simply because a woman has CKD does not mean that they cannot carry a pregnancy successfully even on dialysis. We have lot's of successful pregnancies to date in the medical literature. Nancy Spaeth had both of her children after being chosen through the Seattle life and death committees. Whether transplant or dialysis, pregnancy is quite possible.

Nancy Spaeth was accepted by the Life and Death Committee in Seattle in 1966, and after two years of in-centre treatment embarked on home haemodialysis.  She recalls attending fund-raising events for Dr Scribner, Dr Henry Tenchkhoff holding her first baby, and participation in Dr Joseph Eschbach's first study of erythropoietin treatment.  She had 4 transplants and two children, so has experience of all the ups and downs, and most of the different peritoneal and haemodialysis regimens. 

http://historyofnephrology.blogspot.com/

My only concern is the feelings of the women on this board who have had to go through this decision, whether they wanted to or not. HemoDoc, with all due respect, you do not know the personal health histories of everyone on this board, and neither do I. I have probably read more of the different threads on here than you have, and have seen some very personal and tragic stories on here. These are whom I think of. No matter my feelings on abortion, I would never bring it up on a page like this one, and especially compare it to the evil of the Newtown tragedy like was done on a different thread earlier this month. All I am simply saying is to think first of these women before going off about abortion.

Also, as for transplant patients being pregnant, it really does depend on the patient and the state of their transplant. Some of the medications are very harmful to the fetus, and a woman may not be able to be off of them for any period of time, depending on the state of the transplant. In my case, my transplant was injured by a biopsy. My creatinine is stable at 3.3, w/a GFR of 17. I am forever grateful to my live donor who was so kind, generous, and loving as to give me this wonderful gift. However, due to a biopsy, it is not performing optimally. I most likely would not be able to carry a pregnancy to term *and* keep this gift working as well. This is a reality for me. Who knows what other patients realities are? We are not them, we do not live their lives, we are not their doctors. Each case is unique and individual. To judge otherwise is none of our business.

That is all I am saying. I prefer to be compassionate rather than judgemental or all-knowing.

KarenInWA

Sorry Karen, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. This is a political thread and I gave a reason why some things are beyond compromise. Sorry you don't appreciate that view, but again, this is a political thread.

I will let Nancy Spaeth's two kids born in the ancient past of CKD treatments speak loudly. The hope for women with CKD is that many have chosen to still have families and done well. Of course it is high risk and no I am not looking at anyone's individual medical records, but the bottom line, it is no longer an absolute certainty that you can't carry a full term pregnancy with advanced CKD.

[gothiclovemonkey]

here I thought id stop posting on this one... but after reading the last few, i feel i must inform...


I am a mom. I am not pro life, or pro choice. In fact, I am not even sure what I think about it. I guess I am nutral life? ha ha For me, personally, I dont know that I could go through with it(if i hadnt had a hysterectomy lol) , BUT i do know that I would have to. Let me explain why.

My pregnancy was short. I didnt realise that I had kidney failure, and I got very sick with my pregnancy. I nearly died, when they decided to take my child by c-section at 26 weeks. He was born 3 months early. He was ONE pound and 3 oz. He too nearly died then. He is now 8 years old, with health issues related to being premature.
Knowing that, I dont think I could do it again. As much as I would love to, because of my own personal beliefs, and knowing if i didnt want the child that adoption is an option... i fear id die, or the child, or both...
Ya, its possible to have a child on D, ive seen it with my own eyes, but its dangerous for both mother and child. many doctors advise against it. Why put your life in danger, or the childs? and what if you both live, and hes got a lot going on medically, and obviously so do you. Do you have an idea how hard it is? raising a child is hard work, raising a child with special needs is even harder. Doing that while also being on dialysis... priceless? heh its hard. Ive done it by myself for the better part of his 8 years. Its not easy to find part time child care, and the cost of childcare is ridiculous.
I love my son, and I am soo glad to be his mom, no matter what life wants to through at us. But, it is difficult, and It made me be a bit more understanding toward women who chose to do that. I still dont really think its the best option (adoption!!!)
There are a few reasons I think abortion would be completely understandable, like when drugs are involved, insest, rape, medical problems, etc. But the PROBLEM is when you use it as a form of birth control. That should be the issue.

Also, id like to point out if we did ban abortion, do you really think that will stop it from happening? people will find a way, no matter what.  it wont stop them. desperate people do desperate things....

MM, you know I love you, so I have to say it, but You do know what the definition of insanity is? (DOing the same thing, over and over, expecting different results?) Dont let some ... person *ahem* cause you to feel or be insane. some people are just stubborn...
i love that you ask questions and stuff, so dont let one person change that in you.

its been my experience that people suck and they all have opinions. some are askewed, terribly. especially when you bring up topics with politics, religion, etc.
It would be nice to live in a world, with love and understanding, but I doubt we ever see that day.

[cariad]

Please note the even though IHD is a support center for CKD folks, it is also mainly a discussion board.

NO. It is mainly a support forum. You do not get to redefine the nature and purpose of this forum because it suits your argument. If this is mainly a discussion board, then I need to hear that from a mod, or preferably an admin, so that I can leave permanently. With so many worthy causes in this world, I do not wish to donate my time and money to "mainly a discussion board". A support forum with sideline discussions is a worthy cause in my estimation, a discussion board with support as an afterthought is not. I am dead serious about this, so if I have got this wrong, I would appreciate clarification from someone with the authority to do so.

Lastly, simply because a woman has CKD does not mean that they cannot carry a pregnancy successfully even on dialysis. We have lot's of successful pregnancies to date in the medical literature. Nancy Spaeth had both of her children after being chosen through the Seattle life and death committees. Whether transplant or dialysis, pregnancy is quite possible.

Just because it has been done BY OTHER PEOPLE does not mean that Karen or anyone else would or could have the same outcome. It is some wickedly bad science to suggest that anyone with CKD could have a successful pregnancy without serious, even fatal, consequences. I was advised to have an abortion by a transplant nephrologist if I wanted to save my kidney. I think he knew a bit more about the situation than anyone here does.

Karen, I agree with you and made a similar argument about how homosexuality is discussed on here. Just because it is a political section does not mean anything goes. If people are going to compare having an abortion to shooting children in a school, that analogy is, in my husband's words, "heinous".  It is sad when appealing to a person's human decency fails to bring about even a slight change in tone or words. I agree that this is entirely disrespectful to the women of IHD who have made that choice (whether to save their lives/health or for other reasons) and to the women on here who know they would be forced to make that choice should the situation arise. 

[jbeany]

Please note the even though IHD is a support center for CKD folks, it is also mainly a discussion board.

NO. It is mainly a support forum. You do not get to redefine the nature and purpose of this forum because it suits your argument. If this is mainly a discussion board, then I need to hear that from a mod, or preferably an admin, so that I can leave permanently. With so many worthy causes in this world, I do not wish to donate my time and money to "mainly a discussion board". A support forum with sideline discussions is a worthy cause in my estimation, a discussion board with support as an afterthought is not. I am dead serious about this, so if I have got this wrong, I would appreciate clarification from someone with the authority to do so.
 

Don't leave now, cariad.  We're here as a support group.  Removing ALL the political threads has been discussed by the mods and admins more than once.  We're here originally and primarily to help those with CKD.  The amount of vitriol and tantrums that come from the political discussions - and the excessive amount of time we spend dealing with them - has frequently made the staff question the wisdom of letting them continue.  So far, our choice has been to keep true to Epoman's vision of a support site that wasn't censored.  He loved a good debate on politics and religion himself.  But he did NOT tolerate personal attacks.  He regularly blocked members from accessing the site, both temporarily and permanently, to deal with problems.  The current admins rarely exercise that option, except with spammers. 

Banning is still an option however, and a cautionary thought that everyone who likes to participate in the debates needs to keep in mind before hitting the "Post" button.  Reread, rewrite, or delete first, everyone, please.  I've done it myself to tone down my initial sarcastic responses.

[gothiclovemonkey]

I think its mostly a support site too, with added topics.
I have felt attacked on a few occasions but I think we handled it quite well and I know I got over it, and I think the others did too.

I also think people need to calm down and realise that even if we differ in opinions on such topics as religion, politics, or what have you, we are all people and deserve respect and understanding. We can always agree to disagree and keep it civil. If we cant, then there should be consequences. Just like in real life... You cant go around being a jerkface, and not expect their to be a consequence to your actions.

For people with thinner skin, they should just avoid clicking on topics they know will get under their skin. its pretty simple really. it says right up there, for people with thick skin, doesnt it?

Tattling should really have some kind of consequence too, because we arent children... thats just silly, and creates more problems for our mods who work very hard to keep this site running smoothly. We are adults (i think a very high percentage of us are, anyway) and we should be able to take care of it ourselves. The mods aren't our mommies and daddies...

And for people who cant obey human decency, should first get a warning via email, and if they still cant, they should be banned for so many days, and if they continue offending they can be banned permanetly. Is it just me, thinking that would be the simplest way to keep things running smoothly, that would limit the work load of our mods? "Have our cake and eat it too" so to speak?

This seems like commons sense to me...*shrugs* perhaps it isnt?

We are all here for a common reason, so lets just get along and enjoy our adult conversations.

[MooseMom]

MM, you know I love you, so I have to say it, but You do know what the definition of insanity is? (DOing the same thing, over and over, expecting different results?) Dont let some ... person *ahem* cause you to feel or be insane. some people are just stubborn...
i love that you ask questions and stuff, so dont let one person change that in you.

Yeah, I know.  LOL!  The men in the white coats may be out looking for me!

I can understand why admin might seriously consider removing these political threads altogether.  However, and I know I am repeating myself, I believe that we are more than diseased kidneys.  We are all people with different life experiences that have been affected by CKD, so I find it much more satisfying to offer support to a whole person who I "know".  I also find it wonderful that we can offer support and comfort to people with whom we may disagree on other topics.  These political threads, in my very humble view, provide the perfect opportunity to live up to what some have termed "Christian ideals", to show compassion and care to those who are ill no matter who they are or what they believe. 

[Hemodoc]

Please note the even though IHD is a support center for CKD folks, it is also mainly a discussion board.

NO. It is mainly a support forum. You do not get to redefine the nature and purpose of this forum because it suits your argument. If this is mainly a discussion board, then I need to hear that from a mod, or preferably an admin, so that I can leave permanently. With so many worthy causes in this world, I do not wish to donate my time and money to "mainly a discussion board". A support forum with sideline discussions is a worthy cause in my estimation, a discussion board with support as an afterthought is not. I am dead serious about this, so if I have got this wrong, I would appreciate clarification from someone with the authority to do so.

Lastly, simply because a woman has CKD does not mean that they cannot carry a pregnancy successfully even on dialysis. We have lot's of successful pregnancies to date in the medical literature. Nancy Spaeth had both of her children after being chosen through the Seattle life and death committees. Whether transplant or dialysis, pregnancy is quite possible.

Just because it has been done BY OTHER PEOPLE does not mean that Karen or anyone else would or could have the same outcome. It is some wickedly bad science to suggest that anyone with CKD could have a successful pregnancy without serious, even fatal, consequences. I was advised to have an abortion by a transplant nephrologist if I wanted to save my kidney. I think he knew a bit more about the situation than anyone here does.

Karen, I agree with you and made a similar argument about how homosexuality is discussed on here. Just because it is a political section does not mean anything goes. If people are going to compare having an abortion to shooting children in a school, that analogy is, in my husband's words, "heinous".  It is sad when appealing to a person's human decency fails to bring about even a slight change in tone or words. I agree that this is entirely disrespectful to the women of IHD who have made that choice (whether to save their lives/health or for other reasons) and to the women on here who know they would be forced to make that choice should the situation arise.

You are too funny. LOL.

[gothiclovemonkey]

erm, whats funny about that?

[Hemodoc]

erm, whats funny about that?

Let me see, I make a statement WHY conservatives who believe that life starts at conception would not compromise and you folks are off to some pickle race to see who can make the prunes stand tall with my comment. Sorry, that is ridiculously funny. And then to complain about discussing politics on a political thread in a section called off topic and this section is:

Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry
Political discussions - no personal attacks or name calling - post at your own risk

So I am criticized for explaining why there is no compromise in the area of abortion as an example and that is taken as a personal attack against women with CKD. Yes, it is funny, absolutely since it is so ridiculous thank you.

[cariad]

Banning is still an option however, and a cautionary thought that everyone who likes to participate in the debates needs to keep in mind before hitting the "Post" button.  Reread, rewrite, or delete first, everyone, please.  I've done it myself to tone down my initial sarcastic responses.

Thanks, jbeany, you're the best. Believe it or not, everyone, I've done this many, many times before my posts, and the longer I am here the more I try to exercise caution and care before posting.

I can also understand why admins and mods don't want to deal with politics on this board, it is just so divisive. However, I don't think it would ever be possible to eliminate discussions going this direction, and eliminating the specific board might just make matters worse because then people could not avoid the topics that they do not want to read about. I do sometimes wish there were a way to completely block the politics section from even coming on the screen if desired - the way that some forums can let you block yourself from seeing a certain member's posts. That probably sounds really lazy, but I've tried to take breaks from politics from time to time on here, only to find myself accidentally reading posts about some pretty sensitive subjects when scrolling through unread posts. I do wonder if I'm the only one who makes these mistakes and accidentally reads a political discussion that I've sworn off. (Wouldn't surprise me if I were, actually!)

GLM, "jerkface" hee-hee, you sound like me talking to my kids. One of my faves when describing someone who isn't very nice without resorting to the naughtier words. I don't know if there should be consequences for alerting a mod, that would get kind of complicated I should think. I mean, you don't want people abusing it of course, but then you don't want people to hesitate if someone is genuinely having a go at them. I can remember a few vicious attacks toward me, but these were people who I believe "self-banned" in the end, and I found that there were plenty of people jumping up to defend me against those insults. (And I love them for it! Thank you!)

I also find it wonderful that we can offer support and comfort to people with whom we may disagree on other topics.  These political threads, in my very humble view, provide the perfect opportunity to live up to what some have termed "Christian ideals", to show compassion and care to those who are ill no matter who they are or what they believe. 

I agree, MM. That was one of the first signs I had that I'd found a really great group - that the same people that were on the opposite side of a heated discussion with me were also dropping everything to offer me support when I really needed it. Is it just me or has that corroded somewhat in the past year? It seems that the political discussions have turned much angrier - if I had to pick a turning point, I would say I noticed it around the whole Saul Alinsky kerfuffle that spread over about 3 different discussions.

[cariad]

You are too funny. LOL.

So you've told me! Quite frequently! Message received.

[cariad]

So I am criticized for explaining why there is no compromise in the area of abortion as an example and that is taken as a personal attack against women with CKD. Yes, it is funny, absolutely since it is so ridiculous thank you.

I know I was referring to your statements in the first thread about Newton in which shooting 20 six and seven year olds was compared to abortion. I found it tasteless. And disrespectful to women, yes. I didn't say anything about it being a personal attack.

And you're welcome!

[Hemodoc]

So I am criticized for explaining why there is no compromise in the area of abortion as an example and that is taken as a personal attack against women with CKD. Yes, it is funny, absolutely since it is so ridiculous thank you.

I know I was referring to your statements in the first thread about Newton in which shooting 20 six and seven year olds was compared to abortion. I found it tasteless. And disrespectful to women, yes. I didn't say anything about it being a personal attack.

And you're welcome!

Fair enough, but from the other thread, I was the third person after Rerun and Moosemom to discuss abortion on that thread. My comment was in response to theirs. All innocent shedding of blood is distasteful including the 3000 aborted children daily. I find that very disrespectful to the aborted kids. I believe God is more than angered by this as well according to his word.

In any case, this is and the others are political threads. So be it.

[lmunchkin]

I don't want to see these political threads removed either!  However, I do feel that personal character attacks should not enter.  I know I have been quilty of it myself, and always regret it in the end.

But all in all, I love reading the threads.  Especially the ones that are passionate about thier politics or beliefs. I find it all educational, informative and yes, quite commical at times.  By reading others post, tells me alot about that individual.  Nobody will sway my beliefs, unless I allow them to. Please do not do away with these threads, help us more by "toning it down" but don't do away with them!

Just my 2 

God Bless,
lmunchkin

[MooseMom]

After giving it some thought, I have to admit that I can understand how certain folks participating in this discussion could draw an analogy between what they see as the "slaughter" of abortion and the huge amount of gun-related deaths that is endemic in the United States

Guns are made to kill.   Period.  Whether it is another human being or an animal, they are used to kill.  I do make an exception for those who use guns in competition/target shooting.  As in most things, there are exceptions.

Despite the fact that so many people die because of guns, owning a gun is legal.

Abortion used as mere birth control is tragic.  I personally do not think of a newly fertilized egg as a baby, but I understand that others do.  But even though I feel very uncomfortable with using abortion as birth control, there are just too many cases where continuing a pregnancy is too dangerous for a woman, and exceptions must be made.  What is too often ignored is that a woman who should not continue with a pregnancy for medical reasons often has other children and a husband for which she must care, and it is wrong to willfully deprive the children who already exist of their mother and to willingly deprive a man of his wife. 

Despite the fact that embryos (refuse to call them "babies") are aborted daily, abortion is legal.

So, I can see the parallels, but I can also see where we shouldn't view either of these issues uncompromisingly.

Hemodoc, if a pregnant woman with severe CKD is advised by her nephrologist to have an abortion, or if a woman with a transplant is advised by her tx nephrologist to have an abortion, what do you think she should do?  Should her husband's and children's needs be a factor in her decision?  What do you think?

[Hemodoc]

After giving it some thought, I have to admit that I can understand how certain folks participating in this discussion could draw an analogy between what they see as the "slaughter" of abortion and the huge amount of gun-related deaths that is endemic in the United States

Guns are made to kill.   Period.  Whether it is another human being or an animal, they are used to kill.  I do make an exception for those who use guns in competition/target shooting.  As in most things, there are exceptions.

Despite the fact that so many people die because of guns, owning a gun is legal.

Abortion used as mere birth control is tragic.  I personally do not think of a newly fertilized egg as a baby, but I understand that others do.  But even though I feel very uncomfortable with using abortion as birth control, there are just too many cases where continuing a pregnancy is too dangerous for a woman, and exceptions must be made.  What is too often ignored is that a woman who should not continue with a pregnancy for medical reasons often has other children and a husband for which she must care, and it is wrong to willfully deprive the children who already exist of their mother and to willingly deprive a man of his wife. 

Despite the fact that embryos (refuse to call them "babies") are aborted daily, abortion is legal.

So, I can see the parallels, but I can also see where we shouldn't view either of these issues uncompromisingly.

Hemodoc, if a pregnant woman with severe CKD is advised by her nephrologist to have an abortion, or if a woman with a transplant is advised by her tx nephrologist to have an abortion, what do you think she should do?  Should her husband's and children's needs be a factor in her decision?  What do you think?

Dear Moosemom,  you ask very good and interesting and thought provoking questions. However, I am not going to answer your question because of other people on IHD who call me Jerkface and openly threaten bans against me in a horribly immature manner. This is a political discussion thread. Sorry, but I have nothing more that I have to offer to IHD on these issues. If you have any questions, please send me a PM. I am always glad to answer your questions no matter what they are and thank you for your respectful discourse over the years. Take care, Peter.

[cariad]

MM, I don't agree and think the abortion analogy lacks merit but I don't want to get into the whys beyond making that quick statement. It has been suggested that abortion is off-topic and should have its own thread. I really dislike talking about abortion myself and try to avoid the subject and avoid reading others views of it. I feel so strongly about this one issue that it tends to negatively color my view of other people when I learn that we are on different sides of that particular ideological fence. You've titled your thread "what to do after Newton" and I think that really suggests we should try to stick to talking about ways to avoid this sort of tragedy in future - gun control, arming teachers, better mental health access, whatever other ideas people have. If no one ever had another abortion in the US again, that is not going to do a thing to stop mass shootings. (It may stop clinic bombings, but thankfully we haven't had one of those in quite some time!) Suggesting that women who choose abortion or doctors who perform them are no better than a gunman who wanders into a schoolroom and kills the much-loved children of 20 different families is cruel and breathtakingly judgmental. And I think those traits don't really belong on IHD, not even in the political threads, but that could just be me.

Could we please just sequester the abortion discussion in its own thread?

[cariad]

Dear Moosemom,  you ask very good and interesting and thought provoking questions. However, I am not going to answer your question because of other people on IHD who call me Jerkface and openly threaten bans against me in a horribly immature manner. This is a political discussion thread. Sorry, but I have nothing more that I have to offer to IHD on these issues. If you have any questions, please send me a PM. I am always glad to answer your questions no matter what they are and thank you for your respectful discourse over the years. Take care, Peter.

Whoa! I was CERTAINLY not focusing on that term with regards to you, Peter, and I did not think that GLM was either. I took that solely to mean that she was talking about very general and hypothetical standards, and a person who refuses to meet those standards would be behaving like a 'jerkface'. I am not sure why you thought she was talking about you? I saw no evidence that anyone is trying to get you banned, either, unless something has happened behind the scenes that I don't know about.

[MooseMom]

Cariad, I agree with your sentiments and would also prefer not to discuss abortion.  If an IHD member chooses to create a separate topic on that issue, that's fair enough, but I for one will not be participating.

However, I would like to clarify that I myself believe it is a false analogy, but considering the opinions of certain members and how they feel about certain topics, I can understand how THEY might make that analogy.  Perhaps the analogy lacks merit, but the discussion can still be valid.  But I have no wish to go there.

Thank you for essentially pointing out that we should get back on topic!  LOL!

[cariad]

Perhaps the analogy lacks merit, but the discussion can still be valid.  But I have no wish to go there.

Oh, definitely, I agree with this, including (especially) the part about not wishing to go there.

Thank you for essentially pointing out that we should get back on topic!  LOL!

And thank you - all of you - for being too polite to point out that I've been calling the town Newton (as in Isaac) for goodness knows how long! D'oh!