Ms. Pelosi, Meet A,B,C,D,E,F,G and H!

[pomtzu]

In actuality, that is true. However, there are people who believe that you can. When I was first married, my husband and I went to our family dr. for complete physicals. When the dr. heard that I was on birth control and was considering having my tubes tied, he said "You should reconsider. If something should happen to your son, (this was my second marriage) God forbid, you'll want to have more children". I said "No, I wouldn't. I'd be too heartbroken. Besides, you can't replace children like cattle". He said "You would change your mind and then it would be too late". However we feel, there are still people who feel that if a child dies, you can possibly fill the void w/another one. I think the word "replacement" is what seems offensive to some. I do understand it in theory but in practice it's another matter.

That's the exact same situation I encountered years ago. I expressed the desire to my doctor to have my tubes tied after my 2nd child, and he asked the same question - what if something happened to one or both of my children - and I said the same thing - that they could never be "replaced"!

[Medusa]

they could never be "replaced"!

And, of course, they couldn't be replaced. My point is that the word "replacement", however offensive to some, stresses the point that there is a void in the family that, in their opinion, needs to be filled. Having a family is of the utmost importance to many and if, for instance, an only child was taken from them, I can understand their wanting to have more children. I wouldn't see it as trying to replace the lost child and it's doubtful that they would see it that way too. They would be, IMO, trying to have their normalcy, their family, again. They would always revere their child's memory but having more children doesn't detract from their child's legacy. If anything, it enhances it because it's a testament to the impact that the child made on their lives.

[Edwina's Secretary]

And, of course, they couldn't be replaced. My point is that the word "replacement", however offensive to some, stresses the point that there is a void in the family that, in their opinion, needs to be filled. Having a family is of the utmost importance to many and if, for instance, an only child was taken from them, I can understand their wanting to have more children. I wouldn't see it as trying to replace the lost child and it's doubtful that they would see it that way too. They would be, IMO, trying to have their normalcy, their family, again. They would always revere their child's memory but having more children doesn't detract from their child's legacy. If anything, it enhances it because it's a testament to the impact that the child made on their lives.

That is exactly the point some of us have been making. This couple, who chose to have more children after losing their three were called "sicko" (she was anyway) for wanting "replacement children." What Pomtzu and I at least have been saying is the are not "replacements" nor is the action "sicko."

It offends me to see this couple labeled in this way.
Thank you for understanding.