I, personally, do not find this procedure to be a good thing.
But I understand that it's sometimes necessary. Who determines
it to be necessary? The woman's doctor. Not the legistlature,
not the courts, but a licensed, medical professional working
with a patient.
The right-wing extremists are the ones that coined the phrase
"partial-birth abortion", as there's no such terminology in the
medical world.
And who is responsible for the doctors bills...
Who is responsible for them now?
I'm supposed to know this?
But we aren't discussing a woman's right to be beautiful (or at least unscarred). We are discussing a woman's right to an abortion.
Both would be excercising their "supreme control over their own body" though
I told you that I HAVE PROOF THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD OR A SUPERNATURAL REALM. Concrete proof.
Read carefully: WHAT IS IT?
And I see how you won't post your address so that I can send you the medical/scientific proof of my sexuality. Straight or not, you have not acquired and will not provide proof that there is no such thing as God or a supernatural realm.
I didn't *go* to high-school.
I didn't think so.
No you have not. You are a lying faggot.
for us all to see. Or go fuck yourself.
LOL - your frustration in realizing you have no argument is coming through.
I don't believe i'm re-defining any terms here.
You do it constantly, my little, ignorant, moderately-educated, random-BBS-g atheist of a friend.
Again, I don't hate religious people. I think many of them are stupid an ignorant, but that is not the same as hating them. But, even so, I don't
Yes you do hate.
You have no proof of any kind to PROVE any of my beliefs or thoughts are invalid.
And when I say that BY DEFINITION science which only deals with th
natural world can not deal with matters of the supernatural (defined as outs the natural world), you can't even provide proof that THAT is invalid.
See what it all comes back to? Atheists have no proof to substantiate
any of their blind hate. None.
Excellent! I'll cite this as authoritative today when I visit the
doctor and get vast amounts of Oxycontin for, um... my headaches, okay?
It is the 'Let's assume everyone is a rascal and will abuse the
system, so as to justify changing the law to ERADICATE the
system instead of dealing with individual rascals' theory.
It is the 'Let's assume everyone is a rascal and will abuse the
system, so as to justify changing the law to ERADICATE the
system instead of dealing with individual rascals' theory.
School vouchers would attrite schools that perform poorly.
In contrast, people would make doctors who most satisfied their requirements (whatever those might be) famously rich.
Unless, of course, it is your assertion that all people are good. Or
even that all doctors are good!
Go away and come back when you have the intelligence to join in the conversation.
Without regards to the social ramifications;Frank Reid wrote to Finnigann <=-
Perhaps, but you are not the only one in your club.
Nor you in yours. Pick your poison.
Without regards to the social ramifications;Noachian wrote to Finnigann <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Finnigann to Noachian on Thu Aug 09 2007 11:17 am
BUT when they want to make it the law of the land forcing others to
also do/worship as they do the line has to be drawn.
I haven't spoken to such things, much less supported them in any of my posts--just to clarify.
Perhaps, but you are not the only one in your club.
So in that case, save your bitching for them.
God bless you
Without regards to the social ramifications;Frank Reid wrote to MysticOne <=-
I maintain that the courts have no authority to determine what
medical procedures are performed by licensed, medical doctors,
especially in matters involving a woman's right to have an
unwanted fetus inside her.
I don't give a shit about her right to remove it! Does she have the
right to kill it? And, beyond the fact that this procedure is now a crime, does that right also convey killing it in a horrific manner?
Should we bring back the "drawn and quartered" death penalty?
Without regards to the social ramifications;Deuce wrote to Finnigann <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Finnigann to Deuce on Thu Aug 09 2007 11:24 am
Dunno, is Supernatural automatically immortal?
No... but this particular god is.
Dunno... sounds like an assumption to me.
Gotta watch them assumptions, cause they could lead you astray.
It's one of the defining characteristics of him.
Without regards to the social ramifications;Angus McLeod wrote to Finnigann <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Finnigann to Angus McLeod on Thu Aug 09 2007 11:22:00
Look I've been patient with these attacks on the Easter Bunny, but I
gotta warn you, I have young kids reading this sub, they will get very
upset if you make it look as if there is no Easter Bunny!
Think of the kids...
You misunderstand me. I *totally* believe in the easter bunny. There
is actually evidence that he exists. And I don't believe he has to go
and hide his ass in any non-existent supernatural realm, either!
Without regards to the social ramifications;Angus McLeod wrote to Finnigann <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Finnigann to Angus McLeod on Thu Aug 09 2007 11:50:00
But we aren't discussing a woman's right to be beautiful (or at least unscarred). We are discussing a woman's right to an abortion.
I see a reaccuring pattern... To redefine terms when necesary/convient.
I don't believe i'm re-defining any terms here.
I believe that a woman should have the right to decide to terminate a pregnancy. But I don't think this right includes the right to select
the type of termination procedure. If the law demands that viability
be maintained if possible, then the choice may be between c-section or non- termination. The option to have a viable offspring destroyed
because it is more convenient to do so is not an inherent right,
AFAIAC. The female may be required to endure a different type of termination procedure that increases the chance of viability, without
her right to termination being denied.
Without regards to the social ramifications;Frank Reid wrote to MysticOne <=-
I, personally, do not find this procedure to be a good thing.
But I understand that it's sometimes necessary. Who determines
it to be necessary? The woman's doctor. Not the legistlature,
not the courts, but a licensed, medical professional working
with a patient.
Excellent! I'll cite this as authoritative today when I visit the
doctor and get vast amounts of Oxycontin for, um... my headaches, okay?
Without regards to the social ramifications;Angus McLeod wrote to Noachian <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Noachian to MysticOne on Fri Aug 10 2007 00:28:00
Again, I don't hate religious people. I think many of them are stupid an ignorant, but that is not the same as hating them. But, even so, I don't
Yes you do hate.
No I don't. Yes, you do. No I don't. Yes you do.
Them headaches will prolly get worse when he thumps you
on your head. (You're a grow-up, right?)
However I have to admit that I think the main reason
most abortions are performed is to in fact end the life
of the embryo/fetus.
You have said you can not prove anything, so you're essentially arguing for nothing, and thus, your hate IS unjustified.
You can prove that things exist. You cannot prove that they don't.
Proving that something does not exist requires you know *everything*, a
feat well beyond current human capacity. Proving that something exists
And who is responsible for the doctors bills...
Who is responsible for them now?
I'm supposed to know this?
The point I was trying to make is that the person who is responsible for them NOW will REMAIN responsible for them. Neither you nor I have to knwo who that person is.
But we aren't discussing a woman's right to be beautiful (or at least unscarred). We are discussing a woman's right to an abortion.
Both would be excercising their "supreme control over their own body" though
I for one never claimed that a woman should expect to have "supreme
control over their own body." But I DO think she should be able to have
an unwanted splinter, bullet, tumor or baby removed from it.
Ya don't think Jesus comes in Chocolate, do ya? It would help.
Opps, not you Frank, Newborn and Noachain are especially adept at
changing an argument when it seems they are caught in a false logic
But if you can't or wont offer something, you look like the example
above.
Childish!
I don't give a shit about her right to remove it! Does she have the
right to kill it? And, beyond the fact that this procedure is now a
crime, does that right also convey killing it in a horrific manner?
Should we bring back the "drawn and quartered" death penalty?
It's used to terminate pregnancies late in gestation, after the infant
has dropped into the womb (and, ultimately, into the birth canal in anticipation of birth where it's butchered alive). It's only needed
when the infant is so large that intact removal would be uncomfortable,
thus the term "partial birth" abortion. However, if it were only *one* infant who was viable, isn't that enough to stop the practice? Wasn't
it you who suggested eliminating the death penalty because one innocent
man might be executed? Shouldn't we also apply that same compassion to
one innocent infant?
What we need are less ideologues on both ends of the spectrum trying to
pass off their lack of a moral compass as a societal norm, when it
actually represents the bitter extreme. Cut the tightrope in the middle
and let both ends fall off the cliff simultaneously, so the pendulum
stops swinging wildly and provides us tolerant humans a break.
Where is this right derived from?
Yes you do hate. You practice that which you egotistical atheists speak
out against--judging, insulting and patronizing people who don't think like you do.
At least SOME religious people that you atheists CLAIM do that, are that
way because they THINK they're following their various religious doctrines. People like you do it, just for the simple fact that you're assholes. lol
You have no proof of any kind to PROVE any of my beliefs or thoughts are invalid. And when I say that BY DEFINITION science which only deals with the natural world can not deal with matters of the supernatural (defined as outside the natural world), you can't even provide proof that THAT is invalid.
See what it all comes back to? Atheists have no proof to substantiate any of their blind hate. None.
Excellent! I'll cite this as authoritative today when I visit the
doctor and get vast amounts of Oxycontin for, um... my headaches, okay?
Aha! I missed this pearl on my first read, and I'd actually expected it from you after the first words issued from your lips a week ago! You
are so paranoid to give even one inch to the right on your extreme
viewpoint that you are willing to forsake common sense and even the
sanctity of life to hold your position on the opposite extreme. You
know what? The law of this land disagrees with you and, more
importantly, so do the majority of Americans in the middle of your tug-o-war. You and your fellow extremist ideologues need to play
somewhere else where lives aren't in the balance!
However I have to admit that I think the main reason most abortions
are performed is to in fact end the life of the embryo/fetus.
However I have to admit that I think the main reason
most abortions are performed is to in fact end the life
of the embryo/fetus.
You just scored a bunch of integrity points in my book by finally
showing the weak card in your hand. In fact, the *overwhelming*
majority of abortions are performed for that sole purpose -- to kill the infant.
The mother has no interest in bringing a healthy child into the world,
even if there are parents waiting in multi-year lines for an infant adoption.
And, Angus, Dot is certainly cuddly, cute and a great companion, but
neither he nor the meat on your plate at supper tonight can be compared
to a sentient human. Dot will never find the cure for the disease that
will kill you, but that child you just allowed a doctor to butcher might have.
The point I was trying to make is that the person who is responsible for them NOW will REMAIN responsible for them. Neither you nor I have to knw who that person is.
Ah. I feel that the person(s) who wants the baby should be responsible.
Ya don't think Jesus comes in Chocolate, do ya? It would help.
http://www.javno.com/en/lifestyle/clanak.php?id=31407
Yes, he does.
See your hypocrisy? You haven't provided proof of *anything* My medical/scientific proof of my sexuality is in the mail.
So... to prove the nonexistance of god, you need to be god?
Heh, I like it.
Without regards to the social ramifications;Frank Reid wrote to Finnigann <=-
Them headaches will prolly get worse when he thumps you
on your head. (You're a grow-up, right?)
Not if I make him rich, he won't! Supply and demand!
Without regards to the social ramifications;Deuce wrote to Finnigann <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Finnigann to Angus McLeod on Fri Aug 10 2007 12:27 pm
Ya don't think Jesus comes in Chocolate, do ya? It would help.
http://www.javno.com/en/lifestyle/clanak.php?id=31407
Yes, he does.
Without regards to the social ramifications;Noachian wrote to Finnigann <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Finnigann to Angus McLeod on Fri Aug 10 2007 12:36 pm
Opps, not you Frank, Newborn and Noachain are especially adept at
changing an argument when it seems they are caught in a false logic
I've been making the same point for hundreds of posts now, with no scientific proof from any of you good people to dispute them.
Nice try, chieftan! ??
If you want an abortion, you pay for it. Maybe your insurance pays for
You steaddfastly maintain that since no one can prove your god doesn't
exist (my offerring notwitstanding) it must be so. Also to bolster your
position, you know there is no proof and offer that bit as proof also.
I'd just be happy if people would mind their own business and
leave others alone. I won't tell you how to live your life,
you don't tell me how to live mine, and we can both be happy.
Just because you disapprove of something I do, or I disapprove
of something you do, gives neither of us the right to ban the
other's chosen actions.
If it's extreme to want to live my own life, free of the
religious nonsense and arbitrary morals that others preach,
then I'm guilty as charged. I don't expect anything more
from you than I'd expect of myself. If you don't want an
abortion, don't get one. Easy, huh?
No. What she wants is her pregnancy ended. Usually early in
the term, which makes survival unlikely, but if medical science
could devise a way to nurture the fetus through gestation in an
artificial environment, do you really think that the mother
would insist that this technique *not* be used and the fetus
destroyed?
First, the child I just allowed a doctor to 'butcher' might just
as easily be the next Cpl. Schicklgruber. Second, the person who
was going to find the cure for the disease that will kill me, was
killed last week in Iraq.
Her right to remove it is the issue. If the fetus isn't sufficiently
developed enough to survive on its own, then it's an abortion. If it
is, you deliver it and put it up for adoption.
I ask you again to give me some evidence that this procedure
is used the majority of the time to kill viable, healthy fetuses,
soley because the mother is too vain to undergo a C-section.
Without regards to the social ramifications;Noachian wrote to Finnigann <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Finnigann to Noachian on Fri Aug 10 2007 07:47 pm
You steaddfastly maintain that since no one can prove your god doesn't
exist (my offerring notwitstanding) it must be so. Also to bolster your
position, you know there is no proof and offer that bit as proof also.
Here, you fool. You have not been able to grasp my points over
hundreds of posts. Let me try one more time before I right all
atheists off as stupid as you are...
I AM NOT SAYING THAT BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD THEN HE MUST EXIST.
I AM SAYING YOU ARE WRONG IN YOUR JUDGEMENT OF BELIEVERS AND BLIND
HATRED OF BELIEVERS WHEN YOU SIMPLY CAN NOT PROVE HE DOES NOT EXIST.
Get it? Spanish? Swahili?
I think you atheists are so full of your egotistical ramblings, that
you have completely forgotten the functionality of logic and debate.
God bless you. I pray that you will some day come to actually study
and learn about the various concepts you think you're successfully incorporating into your stupid comments.
Without regards to the social ramifications;Frank Reid wrote to MysticOne <=-
I'd just be happy if people would mind their own business and
leave others alone. I won't tell you how to live your life,
you don't tell me how to live mine, and we can both be happy.
Just because you disapprove of something I do, or I disapprove
of something you do, gives neither of us the right to ban the
other's chosen actions.
Even if that activity results in the death of someone else?
Without regards to the social ramifications;Frank Reid wrote to MysticOne <=-
Her right to remove it is the issue. If the fetus isn't sufficiently
developed enough to survive on its own, then it's an abortion. If it
is, you deliver it and put it up for adoption.
What do you figure are the odds of viability if you've reached in,
crushed its skull and siphoned out its brains before it makes it
through?
Where is this right derived from?
It isn't derived from anything. All rights are reserved by the people with the exception of those granted to the federal or state governments via the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't give one of those groups the authority to infringe on a specific right, they have no legal authority to do it.
If it's extreme to want to live my own life, free of the religious nonsense and arbitrary morals that others preach, then I'm guilty as charged. I don't expect anything more from you than I'd expect of myself. If you
don't want an abortion, don't get one. Easy, huh?
You are now discussing a business transaction between the actual parent9s) and the adoptive parents. I was thinking about the cost of abortion on
it's own.
Ya don't think Jesus comes in Chocolate, do ya? It would help.
http://www.javno.com/en/lifestyle/clanak.php?id=31407
Yes, he does.
Naw, I was thinking of something more like this:
http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/jesii/230/
If you want an abortion, you pay for it. Maybe your insurance pays for
She'll pay for it alright,one way or another!
You steaddfastly maintain that since no one can prove your god doesn't
exist (my offerring notwitstanding) it must be so. Also to bolster your
position, you know there is no proof and offer that bit as proof also.
Here, you fool. You have not been able to grasp my points over hundreds of posts.
Let me try one more time before I right all atheists off as stupid a
you are...
I AM NOT SAYING THAT BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD THEN HE MUST EXIST.
I AM SAYING YOU ARE WRONG IN YOUR JUDGEMENT OF BELIEVERS AND BLIND HATRED OF BELIEVERS WHEN YOU SIMPLY CAN NOT PROVE HE DOES NOT EXIST.
I think you atheists are so full of your egotistical ramblings, that you hav completely forgotten the functionality of logic and debate.
Guess what! Your viewpoint is irrelevant, because the procedure is
illegal now. And, given the current balance of our Supreme Court...
No. What she wants is her pregnancy ended. Usually early in
the term, which makes survival unlikely, but if medical science
could devise a way to nurture the fetus through gestation in an artificial environment, do you really think that the mother
would insist that this technique *not* be used and the fetus
destroyed?
You are absolutely dead wrong in this assumption.
First, the child I just allowed a doctor to 'butcher' might just
as easily be the next Cpl. Schicklgruber. Second, the person who
was going to find the cure for the disease that will kill me, was
killed last week in Iraq.
Life's a crapshoot, but you can certainly increase your odds by not
killing as many children.
Her right to remove it is the issue. If the fetus isn't sufficiently developed enough to survive on its own, then it's an abortion. If it
is, you deliver it and put it up for adoption.
What do you figure are the odds of viability if you've reached in,
crushed its skull and siphoned out its brains before it makes it
through?
Monkey-Boy had something to do with that, right?
What's your fucking problem, Frank? Don't you get it? Crushing
it's skull and siphoning out it's brains is a *technique*. If
you don't like that technique, them make the *technique* illegal.
If it's extreme to want to live my own life, free of the religious nonsense arbitrary morals that others preach, then I'm guilty as charged. I don't expect anything more from you than I'd expect of myself. If you don't want abortion, don't get one. Easy, huh?
Even if that activity results in the death of someone else?
Guess what! Your viewpoint is irrelevant, because the procedure is
illegal now. And, given the current balance of our Supreme Court and
the unlikelihood of change in the foreseeable future, I expect you'll
have much more to grumble about real soon now.
What do you figure are the odds of viability if you've reached in,
crushed its skull and siphoned out its brains before it makes it
through?
Episiotomy, more likely. However, it doesn't really matter *what* the reason is now, does it? A doctor may use the procedure only if not
using it would cause the death of the mother. Otherwise, he goes to
jail for two years. Pretty simple choice. We're all about choice,
right?
That paragraph makes no sense at all to me. We are obviously working under different deffinitions of what a "right" is.
Don't want your unborn child aborted because your ex doesn't want to be pregnant for a cruise this summer? Tough. It's her "right" to abort.
What's your fucking problem, Frank? Don't you get it? Crushing it's
skull and siphoning out it's brains is a *technique*. If you don't like that technique, them make the *technique* illegal.
Without regards to the social ramifications;Frank Reid wrote to Angus McLeod <=-
What's your fucking problem, Frank? Don't you get it? Crushing
it's skull and siphoning out it's brains is a *technique*. If
you don't like that technique, them make the *technique* illegal.
I get it perfectly, and that's exactly what we did. We made this (and only this) technique illegal. The other side continues to insist it should not be!
Also, to my knowledge, IDX was banned, but not late-term abortions altogether. So you've removed a procedure which accounts for
approximately 3000 late-term abortions a year (1.4% of all
late-term abortions). Other procedures are still legal, and will
probably be used. So ... where's your victory? Or is it your
desire to have the government make all your decisions for you?
Also, to my knowledge, IDX was banned, but not late-term abortions altogether. So you've removed a procedure which accounts for
approximately 3000 late-term abortions a year (1.4% of all late-
term abortions). Other procedures are still legal, and will
probably be used. So ... where's your victory?
It's a start. Hopefully, we can get all forms of late-term
abortion criminalized, with limited medical exceptions.
You are now discussing a business transaction between the actual parent9s and the adoptive parents. I was thinking about the cost of abortion on it's own.
I thought were were talking about the costs of a non abortion.
What's your fucking problem, Frank? Don't you get it? Crushing
it's skull and siphoning out it's brains is a *technique*. If
you don't like that technique, them make the *technique* illegal.
I get it perfectly, and that's exactly what we did. We made this (and
only this) technique illegal. The other side continues to insist it
should not be!
This country is going further toward becoming a nation of
fundamentalist Christians, and it's very worrisome.
The problem with that is that the technique does have legitimate uses,
and that's why it's a bad thing for the government to ban it's use.
http://www.javno.com/en/lifestyle/clanak.php?id=31407
Yes, he does.
Blank page. Pity, too! I could use me some chocolate jesus!
http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/jesii/230/
1) A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy at any point.
2) The legislature and judiciary has no place making medical decisions for people.
A right isn't something given to you, but something that isn't supposed to be taken away. The Constitution does not grant us rights, we grant rights to the government to manage our society with limited infringement upon our rights.
I'm not sure what your definition of a right is, so you'd have to
elaborate.
Don't want your unborn child aborted because your ex doesn't want to be pregnant for a cruise this summer? Tough. It's her "right" to abort.
Yep, that it is. I seriously doubt something like that is the cause for
the majority of abortions, though.
I thought were were talking about the costs of a non abortion.
Well, if you are not having an abortuion, what costs are involved? How
much does it cost to walk past the hospital and *NOT* go in for an operation?
Frankly, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about any more. Every time I *think* I know what we're talking about, you go off on a tangent to that line of reasoning and leave me lost.
It's a start. Hopefully, we can get all forms of late-term abortion criminalized, with limited medical exceptions.
Oh, before you get up-in-arms, I want to caveat this by saying
criminalizing late-term abortions where the infant is otherwise viable
*and* in conjunction with providing adoption and related services when
the mother does not want any responsibility for the child. In other
words, the net result for the mother is the same. If she doesn't want
the child, it isn't foisted upon her.
Alton Brown said to the chef, "So, it's made from the heads of hogs?" and the guy said "Oh, no! You're *NOT*ALLOWED* to use hogs heads any more!
it's been banned!"
One more piece of evidence to prove that Americans are the most pussy- whipped bunch of sissies you could ever find. You can't ride a bicycle without a helmet, you can't sail a boat without a lifejacket, and you
can't make <gag> "Hogs Head Cheese?" WTF is that?
I rode my first bicycle back in single figures. I've been on boats (power and sail, large and small) all my life, off and on. I've *never* worn a helmet on a bike in my entire life, and I've *never* worn a lifejacket.
And no sumbitch is gonna make me! And what's more, the next time I see a plate of souse, I'm gonna take a BIG FUCKING BITE!
Without regards to the social ramifications;Frank Reid wrote to MysticOne <=-
Also, to my knowledge, IDX was banned, but not late-term abortions altogether. So you've removed a procedure which accounts for
approximately 3000 late-term abortions a year (1.4% of all late-
term abortions). Other procedures are still legal, and will
probably be used. So ... where's your victory?
It's a start. Hopefully, we can get all forms of late-term abortion criminalized, with limited medical exceptions.
So you have a "right" to kill someone, but the government has the "right"
to punish you for it.
I'm not sure what your definition of a right is, so you'd have to elaborate.
Something that the ability to do is guaranteed by law. Rights do not exist without law, they are a basis for the formulation of laws.
Nobody has put forward any cause for a majority of abortions. That one works as well as anything else until something better comes along.
Besides, you are defending her right to do that.
Without regards to the social ramifications;Deuce wrote to Finnigann <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Finnigann to Deuce on Fri Aug 10 2007 07:30 pm
http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/jesii/230/
Who why don't they use THAT for communion?
Without regards to the social ramifications;Angus McLeod wrote to Deuce <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Deuce to Angus McLeod on Sat Aug 11 2007 03:31:00
You are now discussing a business transaction between the actual parent9s and the adoptive parents. I was thinking about the cost of abortion on it's own.
I thought were were talking about the costs of a non abortion.
Well, if you are not having an abortuion, what costs are involved? How much does it cost to walk past the hospital and *NOT* go in for an operation?
Frankly, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about any more.
Every time I *think* I know what we're talking about, you go off on a tangent to that line of reasoning and leave me lost.
Something that the ability to do is guaranteed by law. Rights do not exist without law, they are a basis for the formulation of laws.
Rights are not guaranteed by law. Rights exist before law, and law is the curbing of those rights in an effort to give some perceived advantage. For example, the US Constitution grants the federal government the right to pursue foreign relations (trade and such). Neither states or individuals have that right now, because they've been assigned to the federal
government instead.
Anyway. Basically, you can do anything, except for the things the government has been told it has control over (or can make laws regarding). There are a lot of people who say the whole Roe vs Wade issue never should've been in the federal courts at all since the Constitution doesn't give the federal government any authority in such cases. But, well ...
what it says and what it's interpreted to mean are two different things.
Hooray, then we can move on to other medical procedures where we
want to enforce or morals on others!
Then... why not leave the decision up to the doctor and the mother,
since essentially it still is anyway?
Without regards to the social ramifications;MysticOne wrote to Frank Reid <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Frank Reid to MysticOne on Sat Aug 11 2007 05:31 pm
It's a start. Hopefully, we can get all forms of late-term abortion criminalized, with limited medical exceptions.
Hooray, then we can move on to other medical procedures where we want
to enforce or morals on others!
http://www.javno.com/en/lifestyle/clanak.php?id=31407
Yes, he does.
Blank page. Pity, too! I could use me some chocolate jesus!
Huh? Worked for me then and still works now.
And what's more, the next time I see a plate of souse, I'm gonna
take a BIG FUCKING BITE!
Well, it's one way of sticking it to the man! Sort of ... :)
As an example, raw milk cheese is illegal in the US due to the possibility o bacterial contamination. There are farmers that still produce it, but they can't sell it as cheese. They sell it as animal food, people buy it, and people eat it. So... what is the point of banning it?
I over look it as he's a bud of DM. (-:
I really don't give a crap what people do, unless and until it
intersects and impacts upon my own freedoms. I'm not trying to enforce
a moral ethos on society, beyond preserving our most fundamental
American principle -- opportunity.
If the law read something like...
"During your first two trimesters of pregnancy, if you decide parenthood isn't for you for any reason, just drop by the corner clinic for a quick outpatient procedure, such as dilation and curettage, and we'll get it
out painlessly. However, if you carry into your third trimester, and
your unborn child has already developed to the point where it can
feasibly survive a premature delivery, the abortionist will make every attempt to extract the child as a live birth."
So, for instance, my G/F terminating a pregnancy impacts upon
YOUR own freedoms... how exactly?
So, for instance, my G/F terminating a pregnancy impacts upon
YOUR own freedoms... how exactly?
When we abridge the rights of any individual, we abridge the rights of
all.
And whose rights were being abridged in the theoretical
situation described above? The pea-sized piece of
protoplasm that you hope will one day vote for your party?
Now I have given you my evidence. Your remark which I re-quote from above:
Cool.
Supernatural:
1: of or relating to an order of existence BEYOND the visible observable universe
2: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to TRANSCEND THE LAWS OF NATURE
I trust you're a proponent of euthanasia as well? And, no, you're
wrong. I really don't give a crap what people do, unless and until it intersects and impacts upon my own freedoms. I'm not trying to enforce
a moral ethos on society, beyond preserving our most fundamental
American principle -- opportunity. Killing an otherwise viable unborn
child is no different than telling a black man he must ride at the back
of the bus, except the child apparently doesn't have any representation.
"During your first two trimesters of pregnancy, if you decide parenthood isn't for you for any reason, just drop by the corner clinic for a quick outpatient procedure, such as dilation and curettage, and we'll get it
out painlessly. However, if you carry into your third trimester, and
your unborn child has already developed to the point where it can
feasibly survive a premature delivery, the abortionist will make every attempt to extract the child as a live birth."
Given your defense of parental rights/responsibilities on the different thread, you might also interject your verbiage that the father *and* the mother be levied with financial responsibilities for the newborn's
medical care until it is placed with an adoptive family. However, I'm
just concerned with saving the child and could care less who pays for
it. Hell, I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that fund than most
other "charities" they now support.
I don't think they are waiting. Stem cell research is a case on point.
When we abridge the rights of any individual, we abridge the rights of
all.
Absolutely. I support the right of any person to choose to
take their own life. I don't think it's a happy thing, and
I think most people would not consider that option unless
there's some extreme circumstances, but ... it's their
decision. Who am I to tell someone they have to live if
they don't want to?
Because I don't support *any* law that curtails the rights of the
mother in this case. If she's going to get an abortion, she's
going to do it one way or another. The difference is that rather
than in a sterile, controlled medical environment, it'll be in a
back alley somewhere and we increase the risk of losing the
mother's life.
I haven't ever said that the father and mother should be required
to pay the financial responsibilities of the newborn's medical care
until it's adopted.
Of course, were are society truly civilized, paying for medical
care would be a thing of the past.
You've just made my point. The problem with your logic is that
a fetus is not considered an individual.
But, if we abridge the right of the mother in such circumstances,
it affects *all* of us because it sets the precedent for the
government to intervene in our medical affairs.
"...the kind you have to wind-up on Sundays..."
How atheistically typical and arrogant of you to assume that I was speaking about any one religion in particular.
I thought you folks had a problem with religious people who aren't accepting open-minded and compassionate?
Pot --> kettle --> black
I AM SAYING YOU ARE WRONG IN YOUR JUDGEMENT OF BELIEVERS AND BLIND HATRED OF BELIEVERS WHEN YOU SIMPLY CAN NOT PROVE HE DOES NOT EXIST.
Get it? Spanish? Swahili?
What do you figure are the odds of viability if you've reached in, crushed its skull and siphoned out its brains before it makes it through?
You made it...
You've just made my point. The problem with your logic is that
a fetus is not considered an individual.
Entirely your opinion, and I'd be very interested on the exact metrics
you use to determine that. I bet I can debunk each one.
Of course, were are society truly civilized, paying for medical
care would be a thing of the past.
I've yet to hear of any model for this that doesn't cost me much more
than I now pay and suck far worse that I now have, but I'm listening.
And whose rights were being abridged in the theoretical
situation described above? The pea-sized piece of
protoplasm that you hope will one day vote for your party?
Man, I can tell you have no children! FYI, a child always vote contrary
to a parent, no matter the issue. I think it's one of them there inheritated thangs.
2: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to TRANSCEND THE LAWS OF NATURE
"...so as to appear to..." is the key distinction you're not seeing.
Absolutely. I support the right of any person to choose to
take their own life.
What if that were a standard offering to anyone condemned to life in prison...
How about if we offered it as an alternative to our teenagers who felt they're at the end of their ropes and their lives were meaningless?
Without regards to the social ramifications;MysticOne wrote to Finnigann <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Finnigann to MysticOne on Sun Aug 12 2007 01:12 am
I don't think they are waiting. Stem cell research is a case on point.
Embryonic stem cell research isn't banned, you just can't use federal money to fund it. If you're using private funding, you can do pretty
much anything you want with a few limitations. I'm not entirely sure
on this, but I think there've been a few federal laws passed that have made it illegal to clone a human, implant it in a woman, and attempt to develop it fully.
Of course, were are society truly civilized, paying for medical
care would be a thing of the past.
I've yet to hear of any model for this that doesn't cost me much more than I now pay and suck far worse that I now have, but I'm listening.
Take half of the military budget away and pay for health care with that.
What if that were a standard offering to anyone condemned to life in prison... Spend the rest of your days in here or enjoy this sumptuous
last meal, take this injection and never wake up. How about if we
offered it as an alternative to our teenagers who felt they're at the
end of their ropes and their lives were meaningless? I'm really trying
to see where you actually draw the line on this philosophy.
Whoa... What? Why would she go to a back alley? She's still
terminating her pregnancy. Which of her "rights" have been curtailed in
my scenario? Her "right" to kill the unborn child?
Hmm... I got a distinctly different impression from a separate thread in which I've refrained from expressing opinion. I thought you felt it legitimate that the father had long-term financial obligations to
support the child, regardless of whether his original preference was
that the mother aborted the fetus. Did I misunderstand you? Basically,
as soon as the father "stuck it in", he was responsible for the child
until it was 18 no matter what the mother chose? What's different if
our society, as a whole, makes that decision not to abort? Why would
that magically alleviate the father of his financial responsibilities?
In fact, why would we not also apply the same guidelines and make the
mother contribute to the child's welfare until it was 18? You seem to
be all over the map on your logic on this.
Of course, were are society truly civilized, paying for medical
care would be a thing of the past.
I've yet to hear of any model for this that doesn't cost me much more
than I now pay and suck far worse that I now have, but I'm listening.
You've just made my point. The problem with your logic is that
a fetus is not considered an individual.
Entirely your opinion, and I'd be very interested on the exact metrics
you use to determine that. I bet I can debunk each one.
You still haven't explained to me how her rights are abridged! She's
still terminating her pregnancy, which is her right. And we had
consensus that she had NO right to kill the fetus. So, what right is it that we impact?
Take half of the military budget away and pay for health care with that.
What I was trying to say is that EMBRYONIC stem cells are no longer
needed. But the delay has put US research behind the world in getting
cures that might be availible to Americans without paying
European/[Pacific nation] prices.
Private research carried on, and made some progress. BUT it could have
gone on at a faster pace if NIH were able to fund research.
Billions instead of millions...
If you have a desease that might be affected with some results from
that work, I'm sure days seemsed like years...
Over what? Because of why? Religion... BS
Come on, Frank. He never said that suicide was something that
should be encouraged, and he never said it should be *offered*
to anyone. Prison inmates and teenagers take their lives all
the time. No special agency or facility is required to cause
that to happen.
What I was trying to say is that EMBRYONIC stem cells are no
longer needed. But the delay has put US research behind the
world in getting cures that might be availible to Americans
without paying European/[Pacific nation] prices.
If you ban all late-term abortions, so that the woman cannot get
an abortion legally, she will get one illegally if she wants it.
This is one of the justifications behind keeping abortion legal.
The problem with our system now is that if she can't afford the
care, but isn't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, she's screwed.
She also can't jump to another insurance company because she has a pre-existing condition, and many of them would refuse to take her.
You'd think that nowadays, we would be past stuff like that.
I think you're confusing my support of the choice with being a
proponent of the act. I do not think people should be killing
themselves. But, I think they should be able to decide for
themselves if they want to live or die. Who are you (and who
am I, for that matter) to tell them they can't make their own
decision?
At which point is it "alive"? It which point does it receive
rights? Who makes this determination, and on what is it based?
You've abridged her right to choose the medical procedure sheundergoes.
I don't think the father should be required to support a child that he does want. However, with our present social system, I don't see any alternative the current practices. The purpose of child support and such is not to puni the father, but to ensure the child is cared for. I don't think it's fairly distributed between parents in many cases, and judges seem to make the decis of support rather arbitrarily. But, that's a somewhat different issue.
Take half of the military budget away and pay for health care with that.
But... but... 9/11! War on terror! Umm... Al Qaeda!
I guess I'm confused on how you can have unqualified support for a
procedure that results in death when the victim has *NO* say, but
qualify your support for a procedure where they have ultimate decision-making authority.
If suicide is a viable alternative to life, why not make it a
ubiquitously available choice as you're advocating for abortion?
I for one am not convinced that an early-term fetus is a
'victim' since I am of the opinion that it is not a person
as yet.
Without regards to the social ramifications;Daemon wrote to Finnigann <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Finnigann to Frank Reid on Sat Aug 11 2007 03:16 am
What do you figure are the odds of viability if you've reached in, crushed its skull and siphoned out its brains before it makes it through?
You made it...
*chuckle*
Without regards to the social ramifications;Deuce wrote to Frank Reid <=-
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Frank Reid to MysticOne on Sun Aug 12 2007 07:49 pm
Of course, were are society truly civilized, paying for medical
care would be a thing of the past.
I've yet to hear of any model for this that doesn't cost me much more
than I now pay and suck far worse that I now have, but I'm listening.
Take half of the military budget away and pay for health care with
that.
Take half of the military budget away and pay for health
care with that.
I heard that all of the EXTRA money was being funneled into
special education for the-one-known-with-a-single-initial.
I for one am not convinced that an early-term fetus is a
'victim' since I am of the opinion that it is not a person
as yet.
I'm glad you put it that way.
I just want to know how this organism can be a "fetus" one second, and
then ten seconds later be considered a "person". Certainly we aren't crediting the doctor's slap on the ass for that, are we?
From my perspective, the only thing that makes scientific sense (and I
know we're all keen on that) is that the "fetus" becomes a "person" when
it can live viably outside the womb.
Now I may be wrong on this, and there may be something more
scientifically fundamental that I'm overlooking, so I'm soliciting your perspective.
Man, I told myself I was going to avoid this argument!
FYI, the entire defense budget for fiscal year 2007 was about $420B.
Big chunk of change, to be sure. In contrast, the Medicare/Medicaid
budget line for FY-07 was $550B which, if I recall, covers less than 10%
of our population (which I'll concede is disproportionately senior and disabled).
Medical technique improves over time, so perhaps ex-uterine
viability will be pushed earlier and earlier. Popular
literature talks of 'test-tube' or 'bottle' babies, where
ex-uterine viability is possible from conception.
Interesting.
Would the deliberate destruction of a petri-dish
bearing a microscopic spot of cell-growth be considered
murder?
But you *know* you can't!
How much of that was for insurance coverage?
FYI, the entire defense budget for fiscal year 2007 was about $420B.
Big chunk of change, to be sure. In contrast, the Medicare/Medicaid budget line for FY-07 was $550B which, if I recall, covers less than 10% of our population (which I'll concede is disproportionately senior and disabled).
How much of that was for insurance coverage?
Traditional Japanese culture states that the baby does not become a human being until 30 days *AFTER* birth. This came about because infant
mortality was so high, a child of less than 30 days age was not considered viable.
I guess I'm confused on how you can have unqualified support for a
procedure that results in death when the victim has *NO* say, but
qualify your support for a procedure where they have ultimate decision-making authority. If suicide is a viable alternative to life,
why not make it a ubiquitously available choice as you're advocating for abortion?
Again, beyond the legalities (which are inherently governmental and apparently distasteful to you anyway), I'm curious what metric you use
to assess the physical, medical, emotional or whatever difference
between a "fetus" at Week 39 versus a newborn at Week 41. Does it
become a human the second it leaves the womb?
Whoa, wait a minute now. We've established she has a right to terminate
her pregnancy. No where did we qualify that to suggest she has a right
to dictate the exact procedure! Capital punishment advocates would love that. Using that same rationale, they could dictate execution by being drawn and quartered!
For me the issue is this: If the child is optional. why is the father
still held responsible for the next 18 years, if he opted NOT to have the child in the first place?
If you and your friends to dinner, dutch treat, at a good restaurant and
one of your friend insists in ordering an $800 bottle of wine, you can
make it plain to them that you don't intend to pay for that.
But... but... 9/11! War on terror! Umm... Al Qaeda!
I was so looking for a smiley at the end of that!
We should've continued a-bombing that island.
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Ralph Smole to Angus McLeod on Mon Aug 13 2007 09:30 pm
We should've continued a-bombing that island.
Now I know you're a hypocrite.
-- MysticOne
Popular literature talks of 'test-tube' or 'bottle' babies, where ex-uterine viability is possible from conception.
Agreed, and not entirely implausible. Technology can certainly take us there. Once the zygote is formed, I have no doubt we can stabilize and
even improve the chemical processes that follow naturally thereafter
during in-utero development.
Would it be a menacing turn of events? Hard to tell.
Would it make sense to raise infants to adolescence institutionally
anyway?
You can certainly bet that someone's recent parody -- "sorry you don't qualify for a child now" -- would become reality.
Would the deliberate destruction of a petri-dish bearing a
microscopic spot of cell-growth be considered murder?
I suspect the success rate would be astronomical, as genetic
deficiencies would be identified early. On the other hand, I suspect we would never know.
How much of that was for insurance coverage?
I think all of it, unless I'm not understanding the question.
You may not have to cut the military budget after all, you already have a surplus there of half of the military budget (perhaps social security
PAYS for half of the defence budget?)
Traditional Japanese culture states that the baby does not become a human being until 30 days *AFTER* birth. This came about because infant mortality was so high, a child of less than 30 days age was not considere viable.
We should've continued a-bombing that island.
The problem is that sex has known risks. For a man, one of these risks is t possibility of conceiving a child when you may not want one. While the woma has the additional option of abortion, a man does not have this ability sinc his say comes before the act of intercourse.
Perhaps there needs to be some legal framework where a man can make his desi known up front, have a legally binding agreement that he will accept no parental rights and no parental responsibility should a child be conceived, the woman has to agree to it (notarized and everything) *before* they have s
If you and your friends to dinner, dutch treat, at a good restaurant and one of your friend insists in ordering an $800 bottle of wine, you can make it plain to them that you don't intend to pay for that.
Sure, and if they order it anyway and skip out on you, you're stuck with the bill.
You know, I'm not sure you're right. If you and I go to a
restaurant together and at the end of the meal you slip off
to the washroom and take a powder, why would *I* be
responsible to the waiter for anything other than what I
ordered? But I digress...
I was trying to find out what fraction of the US healthcare
bill went towards treating patients, and what proportion
went to guard against malpractise lawsuits.
That would have done WONDERS for their infant mortality rate.
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Ralph Smole to Angus McLeod on Mon Aug 13 2007 21:30:00
Traditional Japanese culture states that the baby does not become a hu being until 30 days *AFTER* birth. This came about because infant mortality was so high, a child of less than 30 days age was not consid viable.
We should've continued a-bombing that island.
That would have done WONDERS for their infant mortality rate.
I for one am not convinced that an early-term fetus is a
'victim' since I am of the opinion that it is not a person
as yet.
I'm glad you put it that way. What this really boils down to (for me,
at least) is the "science" that supports your position. I'm not trying
to be a dick (well, not deliberately at least), but I just can't wrap my head around the scientific "event" that makes the fetus become a person.
I think if someone being executed wants to be executed a certain way, they should be allowed to choose that way. Whether or not there's anybody to perform it, though, is a different story.
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: Angus McLeod to MysticOne on 3
For me the issue is this: If the child is optional. why is the father still held responsible for the next 18 years, if he opted NOT to have the child in the first place?
The problem is that sex has known risks. For a man, one of these risks is t possibility of conceiving a child when you may not want one. While the woma has the additional option of abortion, a man does not have this ability sinc his say comes before the act of intercourse.
You may not have to cut the military budget after all, you already have
a surplus there of half of the military budget (perhaps social security PAYS for half of the defence budget?)
Now, don't tell me that comes as any surprise?
You know, I'm not sure you're right. If you and I go to a restaurant together and at the end of the meal you slip off to the washroom and take
a powder, why would *I* be responsible to the waiter for anything other
than what I ordered? But I digress...
A little. I had the impression that it was a horrible money sink in the USA
Why? To reflect the myriad choices their victim's had to choose from?
The woman's "say", as you lay it out here, comes before intercourse, as well. The "additional option" is exactly that - additional, and it does not justify itself.
You know, I'm not sure you're right. If you and I go to a
restaurant together and at the end of the meal you slip off
to the washroom and take a powder, why would *I* be
responsible to the waiter for anything other than what I
ordered? But I digress...
Happen a lot? ;)
We should've continued a-bombing that island.
That would have done WONDERS for their infant mortality rate.
I was being facetious.
You know me better than that :-)
You know, I'm not sure you're right. If you and I go to a restaurant together and at the end of the meal you slip off to the washroom and take a powder, why would *I* be responsible to the waiter for anything other than what I ordered? But I digress...
If the other person skipped out, you were a party to the crime, and would probably be involved in some way.
I don't know exactly how it'd play out, because it's something I'd
prefer not to discover by first-hand experience.
Which is roughly equivalent to a large portion of today's Christianity -- greater portion call themselves Christians because they were "born/baptiz Christian" and that's ALL they have for their basis -- clearly not what J was talking about, when he said one needs to experience a significant per transformation ("be born again" in his words); there's no skating into He in Jesus' universe!
It's WORK, HARD work, and a dedicated COMMITMENT to obedience & trust in Creator!
I agree, George. I have actually never been baptized. I have however, experienced a significant personal transformation.
Which 4-year-old child in the homes bordering the gully is more loved?
A) Jimmy, whose parents set rules/boundaries, including building a fence OR
B) Johnny, whose parents just leave little 4-year-old Johnny to his own devices, until one day he tumbles into the gorge & dies?
Question:
Are Jimmy's parents invisible? Do they actually say that they have given him free will but punish him for exercising it? Do thet instruct Jimmy to stay away from the gully but couch these instructions in a book of fairy tales? Is it their practice, when ever Jimmy transgresses, to punish him by throwing him into a bonfire and keeping him there *forever*?
Re: Re: The Only Way
By: George Pope to MysticOne on Mon Aug 06 2007 11:38 am
A) Jimmy, whose parents set rules/boundaries, including building a fence. OR
B) Johnny, whose parents just leave little 4-year-old Johnny to his own devices, until one day he tumbles into the gorge & dies?
It depends on which one threatens them with eternal damnation if they don't everything they say.
The Bible said, at THAT TIME, "no man HAS SEEN the face of God and lived. and I beileve that to be 100% true.
But someone did see his ass... Ahem... "Hind Parts"
Surely. Assuming that the 'skipper' placed his order with the waiter directly, which I believe is the norm, I think you could stick to your
guns and be responsible only for YOUR order. But who knows how bad the lawyers have screwed things up by now?
From Jimmy's perspective, "Don't play in the gorge, or you'll die." is equivalent to eternal damnation (ie. dead for as long as you can envision your future life.)
The Bible said, at THAT TIME, "no man HAS SEEN the face of God and lived. and I beileve that to be 100% true.
But someone did see his ass... Ahem... "Hind Parts"
And lived just fine, and, so, your point is. . . ?
From Jimmy's perspective, "Don't play in the gorge, or you'll die." is equivalent to eternal damnation (ie. dead for as long as you can envision your future life.)
I disagree. Being warned is different than being actively punished. "Be careful playing near the gorge because you might fall in, and if you fall yo may die" is a lot different from "Play near that gorge and I'll kill you. B it's your choice, of course."
okay, you choose to believe the RCC's interpretations of the Bible, rather than what God's Word says itself, eh?
Can't debate that logic.
okay, you choose to believe the RCC's interpretations of the Bible,
rather than what God's Word says itself, eh?
Can't debate that logic.
| Sysop: | MCMLXXIX |
|---|---|
| Location: | Prospect, CT |
| Users: | 333 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 15:35:23 |
| Calls: | 574 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Messages: | 235853 |