temporarily...dysfunctional: Pregnancy Tag (Yep! Megs again! SMILE)

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Pregnancy Tag (Yep! Megs again! SMILE)

1. WAS YOUR FIRST PREGNANCY PLANNED?
Absolutely! (I had people ask me if I believed in 'Planned Parenthood' - I'd tell them - absolutely! - I PLANNED on being a Parent! Oh! Yes! LOL)

2. WERE YOU MARRIED AT THE TIME?
Can you have babies without being married??? (SMILE)

3. WHAT WERE YOUR REACTIONS?
I'm sure glad it's not just the flu! LOL

4. WAS ABORTION AN OPTION FOR YOU?
NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5. HOW OLD WERE YOU?
20

6. HOW DID YOU FIND OUT YOU WERE PREGNANT?
I went to the doctor because I was not feeling very good!

7. WHO DID YOU TELL FIRST?
The Patriarch (DH giggle) - of course!

8. DID YOU WANT TO FIND OUT THE SEX?
that was not an option in 1967

9. DUE DATE?
March 30, 1968

10. DID YOU HAVE MORNING SICKNESS?
"Morning"? sickness - you mean - morning noon and night!
Poor DH thought I'd taken up worshipping strange idols - I spent so much time kneeling in front of the 'porcelain throne' in the bathroom! LOL

11. WHAT DID YOU CRAVE?
SWEETS!

12. WHO/WHAT IRRITATED YOU THE MOST?
The male chauvinist pig who dared to tell DH that morning sickness was all in my head and I could stop it anytime I wanted to! (what I wanted was to throw up all over him!!!!!! GRRRR!)
Can you tell that irritated me just a tad???!!! LOL
whew!

13. WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST CHILD'S SEX?
Girl

14. DID YOU WISH YOU HAD THE OPPOSITE SEX OF WHAT YOU WERE GETTING?
No.

15. HOW MANY POUNDS DID YOU GAIN THROUGHOUT THE PREGNANCY?
Who knows - I just wanted to have a healthy baby

16. DID YOU HAVE A BABY SHOWER?
Yes - I was very blessed

17. WAS IT A SURPRISE OR DID YOU KNOW?
I think I knew

18. DID YOU HAVE ANY COMPLICATIONS DURING YOUR PREGNANCY?
Not with the first one - thank goodness!

19. WHERE DID YOU GIVE BIRTH?
Ridgecrest (for all ten)

20. HOW MANY HOURS WERE YOU IN LABOR?
5 1/2

21. WHO DROVE YOU TO THE HOSPITAL?
DH

22. WHO WATCHED YOU GIVE BIRTH?
Husbands were not allowed in delivery at that time - so just the doctor and nurses

23. WAS IT NATURAL OR C-SECTION?
Natural.

24. DID YOU TAKE MEDICINE TO EASE THE PAIN?
They did use pitocin and I sure wish there would have been something more than just a demoral shot (which hurt so much it was like adding insult to injury!)

24. HOW MUCH DID YOUR CHILD WEIGH?
8 lbs - 7 1/2 oz.

25. WHEN WAS YOUR CHILD ACTUALLY BORN?
March 30, 1968

26. WHAT DID YOU NAME HIM/HER?
Alice Marie

27. HOW OLD IS YOUR FIRST BORN TODAY?
41!

and - like Megs said:
I'm sure most, if not all moms who read this will want to be tagged, so guess what? You are!

4 comments:

RoeH said...: Hey we have a child the same age. Mine was December 1967. There was a lot they didn't have in 1967 that they have today. I feel like it was the dark ages. But really...it wasn't. :); February 5, 2009 at 6:18 PM
jarca said...: OH! i remember my excitement at getting to be an "auntie" for the first time.; February 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM
BigDaddy said...: I'm Not Pregnant! :) hehe; February 11, 2009 at 1:31 PM
templework said...: Son...I have to admit - I'm glad to hear that (giggle)
I bet your wife is too - LOL!

((HUGS)); February 11, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Post a Comment

.~*CELEBRATIONS*~.

Ethan
1-4

Splash
1-4

Sparekitty
1-27

Great Grandma C
(roadrunner)
1-29-1928

MustangDream
2-2

EvilGrin
2-5

Micah & Becky anniversary
2-6-1993

Firepaw
2-16

Darian
2-18

Funnytom
2-22

Kreestofur
2-22

Micahwave
2-23

Miglet
3-17

DesertDesigner
3-30

Carl W.
3-31

Dulcinea-le-Fey
5-9

Spencer & Megan anniversary
5-17-1996

Titus
5 - 22 - 2006

d50guy
5-25

Mathew
5-25

Bobby Jr.
6-13

Jason & Angie Anniversary
6-15-2007

femmtech
6-21

Boolie
7-1

Dracomicon
7-2

Jeremy
7-8

Linda & Carl anniversary
7-8-1967

Neosigma
7-18

Maris
7-21

MeganM
7-29

Charity
8-9

Elena
8-20

Alice & Chad anniversary
8-22-1992

Stephanie & Cameron anniversary
8-26-2006

Hallkitchen
8-30

Jarca
9-2

Jeffrey
9-2

High1ander
9-4

templework
9-9-1947

Elizabeth & Jeffrey Anniversary
9-9-2008

Carloche
9-12-1970

Am
9-13

Carl L. & Michelle Anniversary
9-22-2007

Jonathan
9-23

WonderWomanka
9-26

Tinkebelle
9-30

Elizabusy
10-9

Blazeburner
10-16

Broc
10-26

Angie
11-18

PoohBear
11-28

DanTheMan
12-15

A More Determined Discipleship

A More Determined Discipleship
by Neal A. Maxwell

(as you read this - realize - this was given 10 October 1978 !!!)

"...Discipleship includes good citizenship. In this connection, if you are a careful student of the statements of the modern prophets, you will have noticed that with rare exceptions—especially when the First Presidency has spoken out—the concerns expressed have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties. The declarations are about principles, not people; and causes, not candidates. On occasions, at other levels in the Church, a few have not been so discreet, so wise, or so inspired.

Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. (See 1 Kgs. 18:21.)

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!

We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

M. J. Sobran wrote recently:

“The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law ‘respecting’ the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge ‘the free exercise’ of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it. …

“What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs.” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61.)

Brothers and sisters, irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations. Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable. Its paid ministry would be numerous beyond belief. Its Caesars would be insufferably condescending. Its majorities—when faced with clear alternatives—will make the Barabbas choice, as did a mob centuries ago when Pilate confronted them with the need to decide.

Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. M. J. Sobran also said, “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59).

This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.

In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play—especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them—the secular bureaucrats’ burden, you see.

Am I saying that the voting rights of people of religion are in danger? Of course not! Am I saying, “It’s back to the catacombs?” No! But there is occurring a discounting of religiously based opinions. There may even be a covert and subtle disqualification of some for certain offices in some situations, in an ironic irreligious test for office.

If people, however, are not permitted to advocate, to assert, and to bring to bear, in every legitimate way, the opinions and views they hold which grow out of their religious convictions, what manner of men and women would we be?

Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church.

Notice the terrible irony if this trend were to continue. When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?

If we let come into being a secular church which is shorn of traditional and divine values, where shall we go for inspiration in the crises of tomorrow? Can we appeal to the rightness of a specific regulation to sustain us in our hour of need? Will we be able to seek shelter under a First Amendment which by then may have been twisted to favor irreligion? Will we be able to rely for counterforce on value education aided in school systems which are increasingly secularized? And if our governments and schools were to fail us, would we be able to fall back upon and rely upon the institution of the family, when so many secular movements seek to shred it?

It may well be that as our time comes to “suffer shame for his name” (Acts 5:41), some of that special stress will grow out of that portion of discipleship which involves citizenship. Remember, as Nephi and Jacob said, we must learn to endure “the crosses of the world” and yet to despise “the shame of it” (2 Ne. 9: 18; Jacob 1:8). To go on clinging to the iron rod in spite of the mockery and scorn that flow at us from the multitudes in that great and spacious building seen by Father Lehi, which is the “pride of the world” (1 Ne. 11:36)—is to disregard the shame of the world. Parenthetically, why, really why, do the disbelievers who line that spacious building watch so intently what the believers are doing? (See 1 Ne. 8:33.) Surely there must be other things for the scorners to do. Unless deep within their seeming disinterest. … Unless. …

If the challenge of the secular church becomes very real, let us, as in all other relationships, be principled but pleasant. Let us be perceptive without being pompous. Let us have integrity and not write checks with our tongues which our conduct cannot cash.

Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel.

There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself.

Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, “summer is nigh” (Matt. 24:32). Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat! ..."

For the complete text see:
A More Determined Discipleship
By Elder Neal A. Maxwell

AKA...

Recent Comments...

FAMILY

Extended FAMILIES

blog rings

Church Humor

Missionaries We Know

Friendly

LOLs / Smiles / Bits'n'Pieces

ARTISANS

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Pregnancy Tag (Yep! Megs again! SMILE)

4 comments:

About me

visitors

Love My Blogging Buds

.~CELEBRATIONS~.

FOOD FUN - RECIPES & FOOD STORAGE

Ann's

Thought Provoking

TECH & FUN

HE Lives!

It's about love...

blogoversary

Archive

A More Determined Discipleship