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




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

What about it? It ain't his body.

Posted By: sm on 2008-08-23
In Reply to: what about a father's right? - cj

You think I'd carry a child for 9 months, give birth and then hand it over to the father - NOT! 


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

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


Other related messages found in our database

Yes, it makes me feel better, my body is my body
and nobody can tell me what to do with my body or what is in my body till the 120th day!
And to 'sm' or 'm' or whatever she calls herself on this board, I wish the same she wished to 'abc' in her nasty reply 11/16/08.

And I have become VERY thick skinned
So if he knows your soul before you have a body, and the body he planned for that soul is killed (sm
Does he just give the same soul to a different body? Just curious how your beliefs work.
It's MY body, and always will be - before,
Go screw with your OWN body.
Body by Fisher?
Lawyers Spar Over Role of Religion in 'Intelligent Design' As Pa. Court Battle Over School Policy Opens
Like body armor?

There's only so much ignorance that a body can take
nm
Nope. NOTHING I have, in or out of my body,
YOUR 'god' is not necessarily MY God. My God does not happen to be a judgemental control-freak like your 'god' is.
No, I am not confusing the body with an 844-ft mountain top...
What I am referring to are the many cases where schools will have rules that ban crosses or any form of Christian expression, but allow Muslims/Sikhs to wear headscarves. The ACLU by and large will not take those cases even if asked. If situation reversed, they will sue on behalf of Muslims/sikhs without being asked.

Again...the first ammendment guarantees freedom of religion and the free expression thereof. The last 4 words mean as much as the first words.

The first ammendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion...like the church of England that required everyone to follow that religion. There is nothing in the constitution that uses the words separation of church and state. The founding fathers did not seperate Christianity from the government...it is interwoven in the founding documents, on our currency, on the walls of Congress. It is part of the American heritage. From the drive to come here for religious freedom came the drive to set out the other individual freedoms.

As I said, if people find sharing the gospel annoying a simple I am not interested works with most Christians. There is always a radical fringe associated with any religion...some more than others. There is a radical political fringe.

All I am saying is that Christians are discriminated against in this country. And the same people who will rise up and decry discrimination against Muslims, et al, will not rise up and decry the same discrimination against Christians. I would think civil liberties apply to ALL of us....

I said nothing about putting a cross on public ground...don't know why you went off on that tangent. :)
It's not for you to decide what a woman does with her body
Mind your own business. Keep your own legs closed when the rapist approaches.
If you're so worried about your body........
and you think so much of YOUR bodyl, at what point do you think about the body of an unborn child? Shouldn't you be worried about YOUR body before you get pregnant?

What about the freedom and rights of a living being that just happens to be carried in a womb? If you don't want a baby, then how about NOT getting pregnant in the first place? And please don't give me the garbage about "it happens", blah, blah, blah.....there's always a way to make sure it doesn't happen.
If you don't think our troops deserve BODY ARMOR

provided by the President who is all too eager to see them die but never had the guts to put is own life on the line for his country, then YOU are the one who doesn't care about our troops.


If I'm a joke, you're a disgrace and a fraud.


Troops die without body armor. Why the delay?





For Lack of Body Armor, Troops Die. Why the Delay?





Paul Rieckhoff on body armor in USA Today: Rieckhoff and other veterans are calling for a congressional investigation. That's justified. Tracking their complaints could save lives in future wars — not to mention this one.

 From USA Today

After Army and Marine Corps generals were summoned Wednesday to a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill, the brass emerged with vows to improve body armor for all U.S. troops in Iraq.


 That's good to hear, but shouldn't it have happened sooner?


 Members of Congress were reacting to a newly reported analysis by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, which concluded that 80% of the fatal injuries to Marines in the study might have been prevented by additional armor coverage. Side armor, a special concern, is just beginning to arrive in Iraq.


 The armor situation fits a deadly pattern of blunders by the war's architects. The quick invasion of Iraq happened as planned, but — as former Iraq civilian administrator Paul Bremer acknowledges in his new book — the Bush administration didn't anticipate the widespread and lethal insurgency that followed.


 The occupying U.S. troops soon found themselves facing deadly new tactics with inadequate armor on both their vehicles and themselves. This tragic miscalculation has had tragic consequences.


 To date, 1,510 soldiers and 633 Marines have died in Iraq, many of them killed by rifle shots or explosions in which better armor could have made a difference.


 Army generals say the body armor used by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan has already been improved seven times. All soldiers there have bullet-proof body vests called Interceptors, which have front-and-back ceramic plates. Side panels, which are added to the Interceptors to provide more coverage, are just now being distributed to Marines.


 Defending their body-armor decisions, Army spokesmen conjure up images of medieval combatants whose ever-heavier personal armor brought their horses to their knees. A soldier wrapped in armor can't fight in the heat of Iraq, they say.


 Maybe not, but the Pentagon owes further explanations to military families and to Congress, which since 2001 has appropriated $302 billion to cover operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the questions that need answering include:


 • Was there proper planning? Thousands of troops arrived in Iraq with old-style flak jackets. Not until January 2004 did all troops have the new Interceptor vests, according to a Government Accountability Office report released last year.


 •Was the armor upgraded fast enough? The Marine Corps says it moved quickly to add side armor upon learning the news from the examiner's report. But the Army has yet to supply its soldiers with side protection.


 • Do the services have adequate supply systems? Those systems appear hobbled by slow turnarounds and poor reliability. In November, more than 18,000 vests were recalled for failing to meet ballistics tests.


 Army and Marine commanders know that no battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy. The question is how quickly the services adapt. The answer in Iraq is tooslowly, says Paul Rieckhoff, who led an Army platoon there protected only by the flak jackets, which can't stop an AK-47 round.


 The body armor delays mirror problems with the Humvee. Not until last July did the Army finally replace its soft-skinned Humvees, proven tragically vulnerable to roadside bombs, with a fully armored version.


 Rieckhoff and other veterans are calling for a congressional investigation. That's justified. Tracking their complaints could save lives in future wars — not to mention this one.



While a fetus remains a part of MY body, is sure
And it will never be yours, or anyone else's.


I just get tired of hearing "It's my body, I can
do what I want to with it."  I had a second child totally unplanned for and totally not expected (my first only being 7 months old when I got pregnant), but the thought of abortion never crossed my mind.  That baby was a human being, not just a fetus to me.  That child is now 26 years old and expecting her first child.  She has brought so much joy into my life that I can't even bear to think what it would be without her.  Had I chosen to abort her, I would have missed one of the greatest blessings I had ever been given.  It wasn't just my body that was involved.  The only choice I made was taking the risk for an unwanted pregnancy.  If I didn't want to be pregnant, I probably should have been more careful.  Now, I'm so happy that I wasn't very careful.  She is a beautiful young woman that I treasure dearly.
Well, I read the stench of body odor on the mall
was almost unbearable in places. Believe me, I live in a town where we have those persons who refused to bathe (don't know how bathing hurts the environment, but they think it does), and they are lovingly referred to as the great unwashed.  The radiology clinic where I worked at began to refuse to take them unless they washed...anyway these are always the ones who show up at the anti-Bush, anti-war rallies in our area.
So SP wrapping the flag around her body for a political photo op
x
What about feeling the baby move inside your body? sm
So the baby I felt moving in my tummy at 20 weeks gestation wasn't alive?
Say it ain't so....Family Upset Over Soldier's Body Arriving As Freight..sm

I hope this family is able to effect a change in this. This would be something worth quitting your job and marching for change.  I'm heartbroken reading of the audacity of the military to ship a fallen soldier as freight.  This has to be a mistake. Pinch me I'm dreaming...Democrat. 


 


Family Upset Over Soldier's Body Arriving As Freight


Bodies Sent To Families On Commercial Airliners



POSTED: 4:46 pm PST December 9, 2005

UPDATED: 10:19 am PST December 12, 2005








There's controversy over how the military is transporting the bodies of service members killed overseas, 10News reported.

A local family said fallen soldiers and Marines deserve better and that one would think our war heroes are being transported with dignity, care and respect. It said one would think upon arrival in their hometowns they are greeted with honor. But unfortunately, the family said that is just not the case.

Dead heroes are supposed to come home with their coffins draped with the American flag -- greeted by a color guard.

But in reality, many are arriving as freight on commercial airliners -- stuffed in the belly of a plane with suitcases and other cargo.















John Holley and his wife, Stacey, were stunned when they found out the body of their only child, Matthew John Holley, who died in Iraq last month, would be arriving at Lindbergh Field as freight.

Matthew was a medic with the 101st Airborne unit and died on Nov. 15.

When someone dies in combat, they need to give them due respect they deserve for (the) sacrifice they made, said John Holley.

John and Stacey Holley, who were both in the Army, made some calls, and with the help of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, Matthew was greeted with honor and respect.

Our familiarity with military protocol and things of that sort allowed us to kind of put our foot down -- we're not sure other parents have that same knowledge, said Stacey Holley.

The Holleys now want to make sure every fallen hero gets the proper welcome.

The bodies of dead service members arrive at Dover Air Force Base.

From that point, they are sent to their families on commercial airliners.

Reporters from 10News called the Defense Department for an explanation. A representative said she did not know why this is happening.



Army order soldiers to get rid of better body armor or lose death benefits
Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits

By Nathaniel R. Helms

Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.

The soldiers asked for anonymity because they are concerned they will face retaliation for going public with the Army's apparently new directive. At the sources' requests DefenseWatch has also agreed not to reveal the unit at which the incident occured for operational security reasons.

On Saturday morning a soldier affected by the order reported to DefenseWatch that the directive specified that all commercially available body armor was prohibited. The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. It arrived unexpectedly while his unit was preparing to deploy on combat operations. The soldier said the order was deeply disturbiing to many of the men who had used their own money to purchase Dragon Skin because it will affect both their mobility and ballistic protection.

We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) is heavy, but it is made so we have mobility and the best ballistic protection out there. This is crazy. And they are threatening us with our benefits if we don't comply. he said.

The soldier reiterated Friday's reports that any soldier who refused to comply with the order and was subsequently killed in action could be denied the $400,000 death benefit provided by their SGLI life insurance policy as well as face disciplinary action.

As of this report Saturday morning the Army has not yet responded to a DefenseWatch inquiry.

Recently Dragon Skin became an item of contention between proponents of the Interceptor OTV body armor generally issued to all service members deploying in combat theaters and its growing legion of critics. Critics of the Interceptor OTV system say it is ineffective and inferior to Dragon Skin, as well as several other commercially available body armor systems on the market. Last week DefenseWatch released a secret Marine Corps report that determined that 80% of the 401 Marines killed in Iraq between April 2004 and June 2005 might have been saved if the Interceptor OTV body armor they were wearing was more effective. The Army has declined to comment on the report because doing so could aid the enemy, an Army spokesman has repeatedly said.

A U.S. Army spokesman was not available for comment at the time DW's original report (Friday - 1700 CST) was published. DefenseWatch continues to seek a response from the Army and will post one as soon as it becomes available. Yesterday the DoD released a news story through the Armed Forces News Service that quoted Maj. Gen. Steven Speaks, the Army's director of force development, who countered critical media reports by denying that the U.S. military is behind the curve in providing appropriate force protection gear for troops deployed to Iraq and elsewhere in the global war against terrorism. The New York Tiimes and Washington Post led the bandwagon of mainstream media that capitalized on DefenseWatch's release of the Marine Corps study. Both newspapers released the forensic information the Army and Marines are unwilling to discuss.

Those headlines entirely miss the point, Speaks said.

The effort to improve body armor has been a programmatic effort in the case of the Army that has gone on with great intensity for the last five months, he noted.

Speaks' assessment contradicts earlier Army, Marine and DoD statements that indicated as late as last week that the Army was certain there was nothing wrong with Interceptor OTV body armor and that it was and remains the best body armor in the world.

One of the soldiers who lost his coveted Dragon Skin is a veteran operator. He reported that his commander expressed deep regret upon issuing his orders directing him to leave his Dragon Skin body armor behind. The commander reportedly told his subordinates that he had no choice because the orders came from very high up and had to be enforced, the soldier said. Another soldier's story was corroborated by his mother, who helped defray the $6,000 cost of buying the Dragon Skin, she said.

The mother of the soldier, who hails from the Providence, Rhode Island area, said she helped pay for the Dragon Skin as a Christmas present because her son told her it was so much better than the Interceptor OTV they expected to be issued when arriving in country for a combat tour.

He didn't want to use that other stuff, she said. He told me that if anything happened to him I am supposed to raise hell.

At the time the orders were issued the two soldiers had already loaded their Dragon Skin body armor onto the pallets being used to air freight their gear into the operational theater, the soldiers said. They subsequently removed it pursuant to their orders.

Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra. Chopra, a retired Army chief warrant officer and 20+-year pilot in the famed 160th Nightstalkers Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), said his company was merely told the generals wanted to evaluate the body armor in a combat environment. Chopra said he did not know the names of the general officers wearing the Dragon Skin.

Pinnacle claims more than 3,000 soldiers and civilians stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing Dragon Skin body armor, Chopra said. Several months ago DefenseWatch began receiving anecdotal reports from individual soldiers that they were being forced to remove all non-issue gear while in theater, including Dragon Skin body armor, boots, and various kinds of non-issue ancillary equipment.

Last year the DoD, under severe pressure from Congress, authorized a one-time $1,000 reimbursement to soldiers who had purchased civilian equipment to supplement either inadequate or unavailable equipment they needed for combat operations. At the time there was no restriction on what the soldiers could buy as long as it was specifically intended to offer personal protection or further their mission capabilities while in theater.