If You Could Choose Your Baby’s Gender, Would You? Is That Wrong?

By: Don F. Caldwell

Is a baby’s life important?

Would it be more important if it were a boy instead of a girl, or a girl instead of a boy?

Would a parent profess that each of his or her children are just as important to them?

Would a girl love you just as much as a boy (or vice versa)? Could you say the same about them?

Choosing the gender of a child is becoming increasingly popular throughout the world. With advances in genetic testing, science is able to determine the sex of a fetus at an increasingly early age.

This practice is illegal in some countries, but it IS LEGAL in the United States.

“There is no official tracking on gender selection procedures, there is anecdotal evidence that Americans choose girls over boys, Slate reported. Google data shows that “how to have a girl” is searched three times more than “how to have a boy” in the U.S., and many fertility doctors say 80 percent of parents who undergo the procedure desire girls.”

“A study published in the online journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online in 2009 found Caucasian-Americans preferentially select females 70 percent of the time, while those of Indian or Chinese descent typically chose boys. Generally, women cite a “yearning for female bonding” as the reason for choosing girls, according to Slate.”

Efforts earlier this year to band sex selective abortion in the House of Representatives was rejected by both Republicans and Democrats, as they both try to appeal to women voters before the November elections.

The proposed law would have made it a crime to have an abortion based solely on the sex of the baby.

If one were to agree that abortion is a war against women, then considering how abortions of this nature (In the United States) targets baby boys, could this not be considered a war on men as well?

If one believes this form of sex selective abortion to be acceptable, then why wouldn’t a woman be able to abort a baby based on race? What if it didn’t have blue eyes? Perfect teeth?

Where would it stop?

The “one-child” policy in China, as well as the studies mentioned above, highlights the importance parents in Asian countries place in having male children over female. Many parents in foreign countries are more likely to focus on things such as the financial consequences of having a boy versus a girl. Considerations regarding the payment of dowries or whether a male child would be better able to contribute income to the family are not often thought of in the United States.

“Well-off foreign couples are getting around laws banning sex selection in their home countries by coming to American soil — where it's legal — for medical procedures that can give them the boy, or girl, they want.”

However, in the United States, parents are more likely to choose to have a girl over a boy, where such financial or cultural considerations have less meaning.

“While countries like China and India have been known to selectively screen for male fetuses, doctors report in the U.S. a different kind of sex selection is taking place. Mothers are spending thousands of dollars on reproductive procedures to ensure they become pregnant with a girl, Slate.com reported. “ – Fox News.com

Why, when given the chance, do we see more value in one sex as compared to another? Is it the expense we see them causing us? Would we see a child in terms of which would be more able in taking care of us during retirement?

Do poorer countries favor boys because they will help them financially but richer countries favor girls because they don’t have to worry about finances?

This also could perhaps foreshadow the preferences people will have in future children. With the continued advances in genetic testing and genetic engineering, we are / will be able to choose certain characteristics in our future children.

We can in many cases now determine if a child will be born with a congenial disease, and will in the future be able to engineer other qualities such as the color of their skin / eyes as well as other characteristics.

Would you like to design your own perfect baby?

Why?

 

Sources:

Fox News - Parents Choosing Girls Over Boys In Sex Selective Procedures

MSNBC.COM - Wealthy Couples Head To US To Pick Sex of Babies

Many Stores Now Staying Open on Thanksgiving. What are “Holidays” to you?

By: Don Caldwell


How important are “Holidays”?


Numerous companies are expanding their shopping hours closer and closer into “Holiday” territory. No longer is it just “Black Friday”, but now even runs into Thanksgiving itself….

Excerpts italicized:

For Anthony Hardwick, Thanksgiving has special meaning. Last year, he proposed to his girlfriend, Denise, in front of her whole family during the holiday.


This year though, he will be working. A part-time employee at Target in Omaha, Neb., Hardwick said his manager requested he start his shift at 11 p.m. In order to make it through the night, he'll need to sleep on Thanksgiving Day.


This year marks Target'searliest opening ever. Target, Best Buy, Macy's and Kohl's are all opening at midnight on Thanksgiving eve. Wal-Mart recently announced plans to open its doors to the public at 10 p.m. then Toys R Us followed suit, announcing it would open most stores as early as 9 p.m. the day before Black Friday.


"We have heard from our guests that they want to shop following their Thanksgiving celebrations rather than only having the option of getting up in the middle of the night," Target said in a statement. "Target will offer holiday pay to all hourly team members who work on Thanksgiving Day."


Thanksgiving Day openings have been a boon to retailers during the economic downturn. The number of people who shop on Thanksgiving -- both online and in stores -- rose to 22.3 million in 2010, about double the amount just five years earlier, according to the National Retail Federation.
Last year, the number of people who began their Black Friday shopping at midnight was triple the amount in 2009.


It is easy to blame the companies for their continual push to make profit, but we (consumers) are the ones who have drastically increased the amount of time and money spent on shopping on Thanksgiving.


We can give many reasons as to why some choose to shop on one of our most important holidays (good deals, the crowds, time away from the family..lol), but what does this say about the value of this “family” holiday to each of us? Can we cherish of “family” time and yet give shopping of most precious resource….our time?


What would it take for this to stop?


And once retailers firmly practice the habit of being open on thanksgiving, what will happen to that holiday?


Will Christmas be next???


What is a “Holiday”…to you?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Black Friday backlash: Early openings a mixed blessing - Yahoo! Finance

If You Fly With Little Children, Prepare For Mistreatment By The Airlines / Passengers.

By: Don Caldwell


Are children more of a blessing or a curse?


lol…and who would not want to sit next to the baby in the pic above?


Excerpts italicized:


Babies on airplanes. It's enough to make parents—and all the passengers around them—cry.


Parents are complaining of airline seating policies that create "baby ghettos" in the back of planes. Even worse, families are increasingly split up, leaving small children in middle seats in the company of strangers unless passengers arrange seat swaps on board.


Michael Lyon booked seats together for his family for a trip from Washington, D.C., to Bangkok on United Airlines in July and checked his reservation frequently to make sure the seat assignments didn't change. But when he checked in, all three had been split up, and his 6-year-old son was moved to the back of the wide-body plane by himself for the 13-hour trip.


Several factors are at play. First, many seats on flights are reserved for elite-level frequent fliers or full-fare business travelers. Routinely full flights have less seat-assignment flexibility. Also, airlines are increasingly selling choice seat assignments for extra fees, an expensive option for families. And bulkhead rows at the front of coach cabins that used to be ideal for traveling with infants, offering more privacy for diaper changes and more space for restless toddlers, now have to be reserved for passengers with disabilities. As a result, families often end up separated or at the back of the plane.


"I feel like it's discrimination against families. For us, it is not an option to not be by my 2-year-old," she said.


Adding to the complexity: Several airlines, including American and United, don't let travelers add children flying free on a parent's lap to reservations online. Instead, they must call the airline or get an airport agent to add a lap child to their reservation. Southwest Airlines requires taking a lap child to a ticket counter with a birth certificate on the day of travel to verify the child is younger than 2 years old.


"Sometimes other passengers are willing to help you out. But others look at you like you are the devil for bringing a child on an airplane," said Alecia Hoobing, who works for a technology company from her home in Boise, Idaho. The evil eyes are more acute when families upgrade to first class, she and Ms. Hull agree. Malaysia Airlines decided this year to ban babies from first-class cabins of its Boeing 747 jets and next year in its new Airbus A380 super-jumbos because of passenger complaints of crying children in the expensive seats.


Ms. Hoobing thinks the hardest part of travel with kids is boarding. Airlines typically no longer let families with small children board first on flights. Instead, they often come after first class and top-tier frequent fliers. Kids and parents—lugging car seats, diaper bags, videogames and toys—clog the aisles and delay general boarding. Though airlines provide leniency, such as exempting diaper bags for carry-on bag limits and waiving checked-baggage fees for car seats and strollers, they have tightened restrictions.


“Families often end up separated or at the back of the plane”.


Since when have families become the people for “the back of the plane”???


A couple of weeks ago I was shopping at a local Wal-Mart and at the checkout counter in the electronics section the cashier started conversing with me. Friendly chit-chat ensued as her kind demeanor encouraged my talkative nature.


During the conversation a couple of kids walked by playing and teasing each other. The woman then commented as to how glad she was that they were not her children and that she did not have to deal with that. Diplomatically, I stated something to the effect that “at least they were not screaming and yelling…which would be a lot worse”. I thought that in some small way I was trying to convince her that they were not being all that bad, but I was also sad that I didn’t say something as I had felt.


I was saddened by all of this. How could someone be so bothered by a couple of little kids just being little kids? How has society grown less tolerant of children with each generation?


I have previously written about this kind of kind of issue back in July: Restaurant to Bans Kids under 6. A Good Thing or Bad? (TheWell)


So many can easily say how children our most precious thing. Commonly used by commercials and politicians. Most would probably agree, but our actions regarding children (as compared to our words) have seemed to become less tolerant.


Why do children seem to bother us so?


And if we truly treasured children as much as we think we do, then why do we continue to have fewer and fewer children with each passing year?


….as a bonus….would sitting next to this bother you??




(ORIGINAL LINK) Flying With Little Children? Go to the Back of the Plane - Yahoo! Finance

C Sections Are The Most Common Type of Elective Surgery. Why Are We Putting Our Babies At Risk?

By: Don Caldwell


Is pregnancy that bad?


Excerpts italicized:


Pregnancy is a miraculous thing, but most moms would agree that the last month of it isn't a lot of fun.


You're uncomfortable, to say the least. You can't sleep, thanks to the tiny bundle of wonder practicing his or her best kicks at night. And then there's the heartburn, swelling, around-the-clock trips to the bathroom, and more.


Is it any wonder that so many women wish they could avoid as much of that last month as possible? Given that elective inductions and Cesarean sections have been on the rise for years, it seems as though many new moms are doing just that.
"I have seen women induced or have a scheduled C-section because they have family scheduled to be in town, because they want the baby to be born on an anniversary or someone else's birthday, because they want the baby born prior to Jan. 1 for tax purposes, or because they are simply sick and tired of being pregnant," Dr. Elaine St. John, associate professor of pediatrics in the Division of Neonatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told ABC News in 2009.


Cesarean sections account for 32 percent of all births in the United States, and is the most common operation performed in U.S. hospitals. According to the National Institutes of Health, a "normal" pregnancy can last from 38 to 42 weeks, but recent studies confirm that babies born before 39 weeks gestation haves an increased risk for a host of medical problems, including breathing issues, hypoglycemia, infection, developmental delays, feeding complications, and jaundice

First of all, I am a man….not a woman…so anything I say needs to be taken in that context. (I would also like to avoid the obvious “you are not a woman” comments ...lol). I cannot comment, with any authority, as to what pregnancy is like. But I would imagine it to be a uniquely beautiful time between mother and child. One that should be appreciated….


The Article highlights how many hospitals are trying to buck the trend of C-Sections for various reasons, but I think the bigger story is how C-Sections have become so common place.


Why has a potentially dangerous surgery become so common in light of the potential dangers to both mother and child (granted labor and delivery are not without its own dangers.)? Has this need for convenience taken precedence over the wellbeing of the child itself? If so, what does that say about that relationship?


If love could be defined as caring about another more than your own self, then could this really be based on true love of a child? Or are we as a society moving towards “shades of love” while gradually putting ourselves first and foremost?


What does a baby mean to you?

(ORIGINAL LINK) More Hospitals Banning Elective C Sections | Parenting - Yahoo! Shine

Huge Payments To Doctors Raise Questions. Should Companies Pay Doctors to Pick Their Treatments for you?

By: Don Caldwell


How much is your life worth?


Excerpts italicized:


Orthopedic surgeons have received hundreds of millions of dollars from joint implant manufacturers in recent years, according to a recent report.


In 2007, five device makers said they had paid surgeons more than $198 million, with 43 payments exceeding $1 million.


While the number of payments appears to have dropped since 2007, the average dollar amount has gone up, based on data from the three manufacturers that disclosed physician payments made in the last several years.


Those financial ties represent anything from consulting fees to royalties to research support. Some argue they are necessary to drive medical innovations, but others fear they could end up harming patients as well.


Doctors getting industry money could be quicker to use implants from the companies paying them, for instance, or downplay the side effects of those products in their research.


The new results come as the U.S. Senate investigates whether surgeons paid by Medtronic, a medical device maker not included in the current study, failed to report sterility and other complications stemming from the company's bone-growth implant Infuse.

We all can reason our way through almost anything given the proper desire / motivation, but can we also recognize how our perceptions can be biased due to personal gain?


The financial incentives surrounding the decisions our healthcare providers make at best cloud their decision making abilities. Giving our doctors the benefit of the doubt and assuming that most are unaffected by this, we must recognize that a sizable minority have their decisions influenced by these financial incentives.


It can be difficult to take a side in this issue, but I imagine no one would want to be on the receiving end of decision clouded by this….


Should Your Treatment Be Dictated By How much money you will make your Doctor?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Million-Dollar Payments To Surgeons Raise Questions | Fox News

Proposed Law Lets Some Buy Citizenship. Should Citizenship Only Be For The Rich?

By: Don Caldwell


How much should US citizenship cost?


Excerpts italicized:


The reeling housing market has come to this: To shore it up, two Senators are preparing to introduce a bipartisan bill Thursday that would give residence visas to foreigners who spend at least $500,000 to buy houses in the U.S.


The provision is part of a larger package of immigration measures, co-authored by Sens. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Mike Lee (R., Utah), designed to spur more foreign investment in the U.S.


Foreigners have accounted for a growing share of home purchases in South Florida, Southern California, Arizona and other hard-hit markets. Chinese and Canadian buyers, among others, are taking advantage not only of big declines in U.S. home prices and reduced competition from Americans but also of favorable foreign exchange rates.


To fuel this demand, the proposed measure would offer visas to any foreigner making cash investment of at least $500,000 on residential real-estate
The measure would complement existing visa programs that allow foreigners to enter the U.S. if they invest in new businesses that create jobs

This bill (with support from both parties) highlights (perhaps) how cheap we have turned the process of citizenship into.


Should citizenship be made available with those who have more money ahead of those who do not? An ordinary foreigner must go thought a long and perhaps expensive lottery process of trying to become a citizen of the United States. What does it say about a government who hands out visas to the highest bidder? Is it any worse if an immigration official helps someone get citizenship if they get an “under the table” bribe? Is such a practice less immoral if it becomes the policy of a nation?


Granted, the intent of this program is to spur the American economy, but isn’t it always? Are there not similarities between this and “grease payments” (aka bribes)?


Would it be okay for the United States to accept bribes?


Can we really call this the land of opportunity or the land of the connected?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Bill Would Give U.S. Visas to Foreign Home Buyers - WSJ.com

Red Light Cameras Favored According To Surveys. Big Brother…Do You Like Them?

By: Don Caldwell


How much freedom are you willing to give up for the sake of safety?


Over the past few years you may have noticed all of those traffic cameras that have gone up in towns and cities across America. Local governments have been making a great deal of money off of these cameras, with some bringing in up to 2 million dollars for a single camera per year.


Some would argue the effect this has on safety, while others would argue how this has become an excuse for local governments to find additional ticketing revenue.


Excerpts italicized:


In order increase safety and reduce crashes at intersections, a number of cities have been using red light cameras to catch drivers who violate the law and run through them. This controversial practice has been called an invasion of privacy by some, but now a new survey found that there is high support from drivers for these efforts and fatalities in those cities have dropped.


The survey by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that two-thirds of drivers in 14 major cities who have red-light cameras support their use. This study is a follow up to the recent finding that these cameras have reduced fatal red-light-running crashes by 24 percent in the same cities.


Critics of the red-light cameras are quite vocal saying they are an invasion of privacy and that the cameras are meant to make more money for the cities, not increase safety.


More than a quarter of respondents said the cameras can make mistakes and some noted that they make the roads less safe. Voters in eight cities have rejected the cameras in the past three years.


Last year, IIHS noted that speeding and running red lights were the most important traffic safety issues that needed to be addressed to help reduce the deaths on America’s roads.

Benjamin Franklin once said “trade freedom for safety”


You can have either a society focusing on freedom or one that focuses on safety but not both. As we give greater power and responsibility to our governments to control the various aspects of our lives (health care, education, social security, etc.) we lose freedom in the process. Obviously complete freedom is a state of anarchy, but a people should keep in mind that by the time you realize you don’t have much freedom, it is probably a little too late to do much about it.  As it is always twice as hard to get something back once you’ve lost it than to have kept it in the first place.


Then you should question whether you would prefer to live in a free society or a socialist society. They both may be democratic, but only one has freedom.


Which do you choose?


P.S. One last thing of note. In New Jersey, the state recently did away with the annual “safety” aspect of bi-yearly car inspections. Where now the only aspect of one’s vehicle checked are of emissions. You could be driving a car with missing airbags, three wheels, and a missing seatbelt, but all that the state really cares about is if you are putting out too much carbon dioxide.


I am not saying that either is not important, but wouldn’t a greater emphasis be placed on driver safety…or is it the bottom line?

(ORIGINAL LINK) Support for big brother: Survey finds use of red light cameras favored

Home Births Drastically Rising. Why Are So Many Avoiding The Hospital?

By: Don Caldwell


Why are so many mothers avoiding Hospitals?


Excerpts italicized:


A rather significant trend is gripping the United States in the way we go about giving birth to our children. More frequently are expectant mothers choosing to avoid the Hospital in favor at giving birth at home. Many different reasons bring about such a decision (high cost, lack of personalized care, etc.), but (like with anything) this is perhaps both a good thing and a bad thing.


One mother chose home birth because it was cheaper than going to a hospital. Another gave birth at home because she has multiple sclerosis and feared unnecessary medical intervention. And some choose home births after cesarean sections with their first babies.


Whatever their motivation, all are among a striking trend: Home births increased 20 percent from 2004 to 2008, accounting for 28,357 of 4.2 million U.S. births, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released in May.


White women led the drive, with 1 in 98 having babies at home in 2008, compared to 1 in 357 black women and 1 in 500 Hispanic women.
Sherry Hopkins, a Las Vegas midwife, said the women whose home births she's attended include a pediatrician, an emergency room doctor and nurses. "We're definitely seeing well-educated and well-informed people who want to give birth at home," she said.


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which certifies OB-GYNs, warns that home births can be unsafe, especially if the mother has high-risk conditions, if a birth attendant is inadequately trained and if there's no nearby hospital in case of emergency. Some doctors also question whether a "feminist machoism" is at play in wanting to give birth at home.


But home birthers say they want to be free of drugs, fetal monitors, IVs and pressure to hurry their labor at the behest of doctors and hospitals.


Some home birthers cite concerns over cesarean sections. The U.S. rate of C-sections in hospitals hovers around 32 percent, soaring up to 60 percent in some areas. In some cases, there's a "too posh to push" mentality of scheduled inductions for convenience sake


Gina Crosley-Corcoran, a Chicago blogger and pre-law student, had a C-section with her first baby and chronicled nightmarish pressure from nurses and doctors to abandon a vaginal birth with her second. She followed up with a third child born at home in April.


"I do think there's a backlash against what's happening in hospitals," she said. "Women are finding that the hospital experience wasn't a good one."
By some accounts, in 1900, 95 percent of U.S. births took place at home. That slipped to half by 1938 and less than 1 percent by 1955.


A study in the British Medical Journal based on nearly 5,500 home births involving certified professional midwives in the United States and Canada. The study, considered one of the largest for home births, showed 88 percent had positive outcomes, while 12 percent of the women were transferred to hospitals, including 9 percent for preventive reasons and 3 percent for emergencies.
The study showed an infant mortality rate of 2 out of every 1,000 births, about the same as in hospitals at the time

This issue brings attention to several different problems facing us today.


The high (and rising) cost of health care, has led many to seek cheaper (and possibly more dangerous) alternatives to the exorbitant costs associated with most health care and hospital deliveries.


The lack of proper care in a hospital, as mothers are spending less and less time in hospitals after delivery as health care providers attest to the lack of need to stay more than a day or two. (One has to wonder whether or not this is motivated more by a financial reason as compared to the well-being of the mother.)


Are unnecessary C-Sections being pushed by hospitals for conveniences’ sake?
It is also interesting how many professional health care providers are joining this trend. I, like many, would prefer to do what the doctor does not just what he (or she) says.


Why are so many more white women doing this as compared to other minorities? Are white women given lesser quality care? Is care for a white woman more expensive? One could argue that white women tend to be more affluent and therefore have higher quality (or more likely to have) health insurance. Then why are they 3.5 times more likely than African-American women and 5 times more likely than Hispanic women to do so?


Why is the mortality rate (about 2 in every 1000 births) with home-births about the same as in hospitals? Shouldn’t the level of care be higher?


But, as noted in the article (and as any history teacher can attest), people have been having babies for thousands of years without the need of a hospital without the need for C-Sections. The article even points that out (5 percent in 1900). Do we really need (outside of complications of course) to continue to go to Hospitals?


Or has God / evolution done a good job of designing the process as it is?

­(ORIGINAL LINK) Home birth on the rise by a dramatic 20 percent - Yahoo! News

Restaurant to Bans Kids Under 6. A Good Thing Or Bad?

By: Don Caldwell


Are parents doing a worse job then they used to, or are we living in a less child-friendly society? What about both?


Excerpts italicized:


During an interview with the owner, patrons apparently favored this action 11 to 1, noting that most of the complaints came from other parents themselves looking to enjoy a quiet dinner….


The owner also notes that children have begun to become more disruptive due to lack of parenting.


A restaurant in western Pennsylvania says it's no longer allowing children under age 6.


McDain's Restaurant and Golf Center in Monroeville says the new policy will take effect July 16.


Restaurant owner Mike Vuick said there's "nothing wrong with babies, but the fact is you can't control their volume." He said all that screaming and crying disturbs many of his customers.


Some restaurant customers said they support Vuick's right to set rules that he thinks are best for his business. But others said they're offended by the policy.
Vuick said that children might be the center of their parents' universe, as it should be. But he says they're not the center of everyone else's universe too.

Do restaurants have the right to create the atmosphere they want? The people seem to have agreed with the actions of this particular restaurant, but what does that really say?


It generally seems as though kids are becoming less” well behaved” as parenting skills take a nosedive, but is this also a reflection on a society that is less family oriented?


In the western world, people are having fewer and fewer kids (per capita) which every passing year, and those same children are spending more and more time being raised by secondary care-givers ( i.e. day-care). One could argue that the lack of parenting (both in times spent with children, and with parenting style) has led to children becoming more “disruptive”.


If our children are (what most would consider…consciously) the most important things in the world, then why can we not give them the most important thing we have to give…our time?
 
(ORIGINAL LINK) Noise Prompts Pennsylvania Restaurant to Ban Kids Under 6 - FoxNews.com
(VIDEO LINK) Video Interview With PA Restaurant Owner - FoxNews.com

Russian Ship Sinks, Ships Pass By, Ignore Calls To Help, 9 Dead, 90 Missing.

By: Don Caldwell

If someone was in danger of dying, would you stop and help?

Excerpts italicized:

An overloaded Russian passenger ship sank in a local river, killing many with many more missing. The worst part was that 2 ships just passed them by as the passengers and crew waved and (presumably) radioed for help.

Rescuers scoured the wide waters of a Volga River reservoir on Monday, searching with dimming hopes for survivors after an aged, overloaded cruise ship sank amid wind and rain. Nine people were confirmed dead, but more than 90 remained missing.

Exactly how many people were aboard the two-deck Bulgaria when it set off for a cruise on Sunday remains unclear but it was certain to be carrying more than its licensed maximum? Officials say anywhere from 185 to 196 people were aboard the ship that should have carried no more than 120.
Many children were aboard the boat, and Russian news reports cite survivors as saying about 50 children had gathered in the ship's entertainment hall shortly before it sank Sunday afternoon.

One survivor told the national news channel Vesti 24 that other ships refused to come to their aid.
"Two ships did not stop, although we waved our hands," said the man in his 40s, who stood on the shore amid weeping passengers, some of them wrapped in towels and blankets. He held another man, who was weeping desperately.

Did you think that something like this could not happen? Do you think something like this can happen here?

How many lives could have been saved if those two passing ships stopped to help?

So many of us would think that something like this could never happen, but it does every day. I mean, every time I see a movie or a TV show, they always stop and help. But how often do people really stop and help, how much do we really care about another person when we don’t have an audience watching us.

Maybe you thought they already called for assistance, or maybe you were running late. I would imagine the 2 passing ships just though the “sinking” ship just broke down and was stranded, and didn’t want to be bothered with the responsibility.

When was the last time you pulled over to stop and check on a car stranded on the side of the road?

What is the difference?

(ORIGNAL LINK) 9 Dead, More Than 90 Missing in Russian Ferry Sinking - FoxNews.com