Silver Lining???

My Mom and I were talking this week about the current state of the economy. Fortunately for us Brian and I have not yet been hit as hard as so many people we know. Brian's job is going VERY well thank God. My job is okay. My classes got slashed (downsized my number of classes by 2/3) but I still have a job. For that we feel infinitely blessed and we know how lucky we are.

I feel like I have to preface this post by saying that we know we're lucky because otherwise I might come off as sounding like a jerk. I know times are hard and I know that for most people silver lining is the last thing on there mind. So now that I have prefaced appropriately, off I go.

I am a silver lining type. I keep my sanity in knowing that there is always a bigger picture and a greater plan. I know every setback is part of the path I am supposed to walk. Even in my darkest days I knew that there was a reason I was there. I didn't really care then but I still knew. So I was pondering why economic times like these have to happen and what (if any) benefit there is. What I concluded is that there is without a doubt in my mind some small benefit for many of us. For those who are without work and simply cannot make ends meet, this is obviously not the case. But for those of us who are getting by maybe we should take a lesson from this.

And here is that lining: if we have less money we have to cut certain things. I know for a family like mine the first things to go are things like entertainment $$ and going out to eat. And what happens in those cases? We spend more time together and more time eating at home as a family. Maybe instead of turning on the TV you save a few cents in electricity by playing a board game or playing Barbie's with your kids. Maybe in a society that has become so focused on the almighty dollar we are being hit with this crisis so we don't completely lose sight of what is important. Brian and I are by no means rich (unless you mean in love and spirit :D). We live close to paycheck to paycheck. Our savings went into having our daughters. So we have lived through tough times. Through those times we always kept in mind that money was money. We could always make more money. Money is not what is most important.

So I guess what I'm saying is that if you believe in a bigger picture or a plan. Be it God or Karma or whatever I think this is all part of the plan. I just hope that a large group of us can walk away learning something from this.

**Hopefully this post is somewhat cohesive. I wanted to get it out while it was still in my head but I am pretty exhausted. :D **

In God We Trust

There has been some dicussion of late whether the phrase "In God We Trust" should be removed from currency because of separation of church and state. I think this is a ridiculous proposal. What about history? What about leaving well enough alone? Why is it that a few loud mouthed non-believers have so much say over the rest of us. They take the pledge of allegiance out of schools and we all stand by and watch. Now this??? Really??? Do we have no bigger problems to be working on in this country??

Here is an MSNBC Poll on the topic

Michael Steele

I am not sure how many of you know about this but last week the first black chairman of Republican Party was chosen, Michael Steele. He is a very good man, a man I am proud is associated with the Republican party. He is the former Lt. Governer of Maryland and boy does he have his work cut out for him. In the wake of political discord amongst republicans a strong leader has quickly become a necessity. Because our democratic system is based off of a system of contrasting and incongruent parties it is crucial that both parties remain strong and vital (despite many people thinking otherwise).

I enjoy the fact that Steele was raised a democrat and chose to switch parties in his early adult years. Shows how smart he is.


Here is some info from wikipedia I found interesting:

Political positions

On the war in Iraq: "It is imperative we improve conditions on the ground so we can bring our troops home as quickly as possible and have the Iraqi people take control of their own destiny. At the same time, we should not publicly state a timetable for implementation. I do not support a 'cut and run strategy.' Any politician out there talking about timetables and timelines is playing into the hands of our enemies who have an enormous capacity to wait. It would be a disaster for us to cut and run, as it would destroy our credibility in the region for at least a generation. At the same time, it is the Iraqi’s themselves that will ultimately have to make democracy work in their country. We should stay there only long enough to give the Iraqi people the tools they need to secure the very democracy they voted for three times. After that, it’s up to them."[46]

Energy policy: "To provide immediate relief for Marylanders, I have called on President Bush and Congress to enact an immediate moratorium on the federal gas tax - more than 18 cents per gallon - and an immediate moratorium on the 24 cents per gallon diesel tax. Moreover, Congress should approve legislation to suspend the tariff on ethanol imports. But those actions are designed to deal with our immediate crisis. Congress must roll up its sleeves and work to solve the underlying problem - our dependence on foreign sources of energy. To do that, I’ve called on Congress to double President Bush’s budget request for biomass and bio-refinery research, and create market and tax incentives for E85 fuels, hybrid technologies and alternative energy sources. Tax credits for hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles need to be renewed and expanded. Additionally, we must increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles – not just this year, but over the next several years."[47]

The budget deficit: "Congress must also enact pro-growth policies that encourage the economy to expand: like making tax relief permanent and repealing the death tax. As we saw with the most recent deficit figures, a growing economy will in fact reduce the size of the budget deficit. In order to achieve optimal economic growth, Congress must adhere to sane spending guidelines while promoting smart policies devoted to growing businesses and creating jobs."
Affirmative action: "Studies show enormous disparities still exist in education, healthcare, employment and economic opportunities along racial lines in the United States. I believe programs are still necessary to help close these divides. I support giving people opportunities. Programs must be fair to all Marylanders – of every color – and they should focus on economic empowerment."[48]

On gay marriage: Steele has stated that he personally opposes a federal marriage amendment to ban same-sex marriage and believes that states should decide the issue for themselves but has indicated he would support it if elected RNC Chairman. He rates the issue of banning same-sex marriage low in importance.[49]

Stem cell research: "We have a lot to gain through furthering stem cell research, but medical breakthroughs should be fundamentally about saving, not destroying, human life. Therefore, I support stem cell research that does not destroy the embryo."[50] In February 2006 Steele compared embryonic stem cell research to the Holocaust, remarks for which he later apologized.[51]

Health care: " We need to increase access to health insurance through Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and high deductible policies, so individuals and families can purchase the insurance that's best for them and meets their specific needs.... I support allowing small businesses to band together and compete for better insurance options.... To help increase our nation’s seniors access to affordable care, I have called to extend the sign up period for the Medicare Prescription Drug plan."

Stay at home or go to work?

This is picking up on a topic that I started to delve into last week. I had more to say but in a highly unlikely turn of events I lost my train of thought (I know, who would have thought that could ever happen).

In the not too distant past I watched some talk show (It might have been that Oprah Michelle eluded to or maybe it was something like the View, not sure... not huge fans of either show lately) about the debate whether Moms should stay at home or work out of the house. The thing that surprised me the most about this program was the righteous indignation of the women on BOTH SIDES of the argument. The working Moms were criticizing the stay at home Moms (SAHMs) of lacking purpose and the stay at home Moms were calling the working Moms abandoners of their children.

As a work at home Mom (WAHM) I know that I am having my cake and eating too. I know how truly lucky I am that I get to work while being with my kids every day. The question for me is twofold. One, why in the hell do people feel that they have the right to sit in judgement of others? And two, (a hugely different topic) do Moms (or Dads) belong at home with their kids?

Lets look at number one quickly since I think most of us will agree. I find that people who are so belligerent about a topic like this are so for a reason. Maybe they wish they could be home or go to work? Maybe it's jealousy that spurs their anger. Maybe they are just too dumb to remember the lesson of "if you don't have anything nice to say". A topic like whether or not a Mom is wrong for staying home or going to work is really a decision that every family has to make for itself.

On to issue number two. I realize I just said that this is a topic each family should have the right to make but I thought it might be worth talking about since it is something that has stuck in my head for the past couple years (since I saw the show). Do the majority of working Moms work out of the home because they have to or because they want to? One of the arguments that gets made against dual-working parents is why have children if "you are letting daycare raise your child". This is not my personal opinion, but I have heard it said time and time again. My opinion is that most Moms who work do it because they have to. Most of the women I know would much prefer that they or their spouse could be there in a day-to-day basis. So it seems that it comes down mostly to finances. If you cannot afford to get by on one income (and who can) then you don't have a lot of choice. Am I wrong in assuming that most Moms would want to be home? I know there are some women who are very career focused and choose to work but are they the exception?

I am going to end all this by saying giving my personal opinion for my family and for others. For us, it was very easy. We were willing to make whatever sacrifices needed to be made for one of us to be home every day. For other families I think that while having one parent home full time with the kids is ideal that is not always what works best for every family. I do know it sure isn't my place to judge.

I do really want to get a sense of what other people think on this one. I am surrounded by a lot of Moms who either stay at home or very much wish they could so I tend to get a more one-sided view of this issue.

Octuplets

I am sure that most of you have heard about this woman in CA who gave birth to octuplets. What I recently learned is what stunned me the most. The woman has 6 kids already, is a single mother living with her parents, filed for bankruptcy a little over a year ago and used fertility treatments to get pregnant. Is this woman crazy or just stupid? It sounds as if she had IVF to get pregnant. What in the heck kind of fertility clinic puts in enough embryos to become pregnant with octuplets. Even if all the kids are identical (which is like 1 in a million) that is a minimum of 4 embryos, probably more. There is some speculation that she used fertility drugs on her own to get pregnant which makes her even crazier. What kind of life do these children have to look forward to? The grandfather is having to go back to his native country of Iraq to be able to provide for all of these children. Sounds to me like social services really needs to be involved.

Here is part of the story on CBS News

Can you have it all?

Related to the recent post about working versus stay at home Moms, I thought it might be interesting to talk about this whole phenomenon of women having children VERY late in life because they chose to have a career before a family. I get why a lot of women in this day and age chose first and foremost to pursue a successful career. They can make good money, lay down roots, but a home, save some money and so on. But what then happens when they wake up at 45 and decide they do want children afterall.

I cannot tell you how many times I almost stuck my foot in my mouth thinking that women at my IVF clinic where their with their daughters when they were actually the patient. My Mom would laugh that when she accompanied me people thought SHE was there for IVF. (She did, however, stick her foot in her mouth when announcing to a woman in the waiting room "Oh, I'm not the patient, I am way too old to have a baby." :D I know it sounds wildly inappropriate but it was kinda hysterical since she has 30 year old children.) The clinic has a cutoff age of 55 for IVF. Fifty-Freaking-Five!

So, am I the only one who sees a problem with this picture. I am not saying that it is necessary to start a family before you are 35, when you technically become of advanced maternal age. (I am now in my thirties and still intend on trying for more kids.) That being said, what about the fact that if you wait too long, when your child graduates from high school you might be retiring? What about the fact that birth defects and issues like Asperger's Syndrome and Autism greatly increase with advanced maternal age? What age is just too old?

Can women really have it all? Maybe the better question is should we want it all?

The company you keep

I have always enjoyed the idea that it is a wise man who surrounds himself with people more intelligent and experienced than himself and let them help guide you. I believe this is a good philosophy in politics, your career and life in general.

So when a man like Timothy Geithner is chosen to help lead our country out of economic perils I have to start wondering. Who is our new president surrounding himself with. This dude (Mr. Geithner) better be one heck of a financial whiz kid to make overlooking tax evasion worth it.

For those of you who don't know WATCH THE NEWS... lol... just kidding.

Here is the story from MSNBC and The NY Times

Look at all these cupholders

Am I the only who feels like when it comes to political issues the media has this way of throwing in these stupid piddly little details (like the clothes the president and family wear, Obama's adorable little daughter taking pictures of the white house or what kind of dog they are getting) as a way of somehow placating the women of the country. It's like going to buy a car and the salesman tells your husband all about the horsepower, torque and acceleration time while he shows you the cupholders and lighted mirrors. Are we still so archaic that people care about the clothes they wear or the dog they walk? Maybe I am alone in feeling like they are doing it to throw WOMEN a bone. Maybe they're trying to throw stupid people who know nothing about politics a bone.

For me, I would like to see less of the puff pieces and more of the information about issues that effect women in their daily lives. Talk to me about educating and parenting my kids, help for my finances and getting me equal pay. Don't get me wrong here, this isn't an issue I take with the president... it's the darn media. But that's another story for another day.

The Freedom / Fairness Doctrine

Have you all hear of this? Over dinner yesterday my hubby and mother-in-law were discussing and I felt this was a blog worthy issue. It seems some of the liberals in Washington are trying to revive this appropriately dead doctrine.

Here is a brief description I copied from a couple of different sources:

"Moves are afoot among liberals to revive the defunct "Fairness Doctrine." That was a regulation issued by the Federal Communications Commission which required broadcast licensees to present "both sides" of controversial issues, and present them in what the FCC deemed to be an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC, and aspects of it have been questioned by the courts." --ACRU (American Civil Rights Union)

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable, and balanced." -- Wikipedia

If I turn on a Christian talk radio show (or a conservative radio show, or a liberal show, and so on and so on) I know what I am going to get. I am not going to come away disgusted because they left out the opposing view on a particular topic. Do you tune into a country music station and change the channel because they don't play rap?

So, my question is if I tune in to listen to liberal talk radio or conservative talk radio, why in the hell should that station feel the need to present the other side of the issue? First of all, I am obviously tuning in to hear this specific radio program because I am in agreement with the general ideas of the station. Second, am I not smart enough to know what the opposite side believes??? Third, why does the government have the right to dictate what a radio station transmits? (Obviously things like foul language might be a different story here, but you know what I mean.) Are we forgetting about the first amendment altogether?

Embryo Adoption

My recent post on embryo usage brought up another thought for me personally. When you put your frozen embryo's up for adoption the entire process is done anonymously. Compare this with a live birth adoption where you can opt for an open adoption or a closed adoption. While I don't think you have the right to be involved in the life of the child later on, it brings to mind the question, should the donating couple be allowed to help choose the parents? Should I have the right to be part of the process of choosing who will raise a child that is biologically mine? Am I not entitled to some small bit of information? The adopting parents are entitled (rightfully) to every small bit of information about me. I have to provide everything from my educations level and health history to intimate details of my personality and habits. Does that not buy me the right to have some information in return.

I realize that this brings up both legal and moral issues. Is it a good thing to know what the people look like or where they live? Won't that just complicate the process?

IMO it would be best to find a middle ground. Allow the donating couple to see a vague description of the adopting parents. Create bios on each couple that give the donating couple enough information for piece of mind. I don't want names, addresses and bank statements, just an idea of what kind of people they are. Isn't that only fair?

DNA

I was asked in reference to my last post about embryo adoption these questions: Do you even wonder about those babies then? Can you go on with your life and NOT be distracted by the fact that your children (DNA wise) are out there?

Excellent questions indeed! I thought it over and am ready to respond. The long and short is that OF COURSE I wonder about those babies. Are they out there? Did they ever get implanted and eventually born (statistically the unfortunate answer is probably no)? Are they being raised well? Do they have parents who love them? What do they look like?

That being said I see this as a test of my moral beliefs. Wouldn't I be a hypocrite if my possible curiosity about my DNA outweighed my feelings on how embryos should be treated? I think you really find out your own beliefs and morality when the dilemmas become greater. I am proud that I was able to stick to what I think is right and moral and feel good about it.

I will think about these potential children for the rest of my life. But I will also be able to look myself in the mirror every day of my life and know that I chose to help a couple, like Brian and I, hopefully become parents. People who go through the hell of trying to adopt embryos are not doing it to mistreat their children. I can smile knowing that yes, maybe I have a genetic piece of me out there, but that is NOT MY CHILD.

A new President

So it seems the change of power has occurred. I'm not really sure what the next few years holds for our country but I pray that President Obama can make good on what he believes needs to happen and can lead this country towards better times.

Embryos

So, in the light of my newfound appreciation for sharing my opinions, here goes. :D

I thought my topic of the week would be that of embryo storage, usage and disposal. I believe that donating both eggs and embryos is a beautiful gift that I can give to another couple like Brian and I who could not otherwise have children. I don't see it as hugely problematic, although some would disagree. I know that this can be considered wrong by some people as the embryos I might put up for adoption are essentially my children. This is where the controversy comes in. What if my kids end up dating their own biological sibling in twenty years (not real likely, I know)? What if laws get passed that might disregard my anonymity and these children are able to seek me out? What if my children find out that I chose to do this and they are hurt or angry? What if I see a child in the mall some day and it is the spitting image of me or Brian or my daughters?

I think I might have pointed out in a comments section that this issue of embryo usage is one of the major issues the catholic church takes with IVF. (A couple people asked my opinion on some catholic churches taking issue with infertility treatment). According to the church to dispose of embryos either for scientific study or just disposing of them all together is morally the same as abortion. This is a point I have to agree with the church on. Many churches and priests do not see any problem with the actual act of IVF itself. It is what happens after that causes the problems.

And as for the issue of disposal of embryos... my personal opinion is that using embryos for scientific study is very close to allowing your own children to be guinea pigs for who knows what. At my clinic there is no rule or law saying that if you donate to science they have to tell you what studies are being performed. I find this scary. I know this brings into question the whole "When does life begin" debate. For me, it's easy. Life begins at the moment of conception. So, that being said I see scientific study of embryos to be a moral quagmire.

That leaves us with the last option, disposal. I think you can all probably venture to guess where I stand here. Throwing away a human life is immoral. When these embryos can be adopted by parents who have worked, prayed, gone through test after test and procedure after procedure why the hell would you throw them away.

I know there are a lot more issues here I am overlooking, feel free to bring them to the table. I just see this one as an easy decision (for me personally, anyway). I think to NOT put your embryos up for adoption is selfish. Just because you might have a fear of this potential life coming to find you later on. Or because it might be weird knowing your child is out there somewhere. To me helping a deserving couple become parents should outweigh those issues.

I am not sure that people who never do IVF get the gravity of the decision to do an IVF cycle. It's even more complicated than finding the money to pay for it, putting yourself through the hell of hormones, injections, ultrasounds, surgery, and the painstaking stress this all takes mentally and physically. It is also a series of decisions that have to be made. How many embryos to transfer? What happens if you end up pregnant with higher order multiples? What to do with unused embryos? What if you have embryos that are fragmented or considered sub-par? There is so much that goes into a cycle on top of what meets the eye.