Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 98
  1. #61  
    Carter if the mother is not going to die as a result of the procedure, of course we should save the baby. Like I was saying before, why won't Bush sign an ammendmant which says that it is wrong to kill the mother to save the baby? If he did, I would be totally happy with the bill. And the largest association of doctors in the US, the AMA, also agrees with this position:

    Heilig, S. (1998). Partial-birth abortion. N Engl J Med 339, 1717.

    Abstract
    In the US, a new antiabortion strategy of using legislative and judicial forums to change the rhetoric of abortion rather than using abortion rhetoric to change the law arose out of disappointment when the 1992 Casey decision failed to overturn Roe. This new approach is crystallized by the 1995 introduction of federal legislation (vetoed by the President) to ban so-called "partial-birth" abortions. Opponents to this late-term procedure undertaken to preserve a women's life or health distinguish intact dilatation and extraction from induced labor to terminate a nonviable pregnancy (failing to recognize the lack of ethical difference) and make inaccurate political statements linking the abortion procedure to infanticide. When the ban was reintroduced to Congress in 1997, the previously silent American Medical Association agreed to support the bill if two "physician-friendly" amendments were added, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists made it clear that it is "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous" for legislative bodies to intervene into medical decision-making. The new version of the bill shifted the focus to all abortions after viability unless they are necessary to protect the mother from grievous harm to her physical (not mental) health, thus limiting the reach of the Roe decision. Clinton vetoed this bill also. Such legislation would be unlikely to prevent even one abortion, and its importance rests in its view of the proper role of government in regulating health care. This follows previous efforts to reframe the abortion debate by creating a dichotomy that marginalizes either women or fetuses and shifts the focus to another issue.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 10/11/2004 at 09:57 AM.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    You mean the sanctions that had stopped and were stopping him from obtaining WMD? The ones that were working, at least in that sense?
    peter you believe sanctions were WORKING with saddam!??!! hold on a minute,, im having an uncontrollable laughing fit here.. be back in a few hours....
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    peter you believe sanctions were WORKING with saddam!??!! hold on a minute,, im having an uncontrollable laughing fit here.. be back in a few hours....
    Saddam's WMD program was trashed while he was under sanctions. Wow what a coincidence!

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...s_041007062222

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._ea/us_iraq_12
  4. #64  
    If the intent of the sanctions was to prevent Saddam getting WMD then the ISG seems to think they were working!
    Animo et Fide
  5. #65  
    The number of partial birth abortion procedures done are incredibly low. It's a very rare procedure and is not simply done because some pregnant teen forgot to get an abortion earlier.
  6. #66  
    i just hope people vote because of the real issues. not because they saw farenheit 9/11. i rented a documentary called farenhype 9/11, i think people should watch that too. i am sure it is just as right as heit is left, but it also makes some good points. it might not change your view of bush or kerry, but you will probably think less of michael moore.
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    BigKenny, I was more interested in your signature: "get free ipod at freeipods." Since you are already taking the pain to advertise something, wouldn't it be fair to give some information? Who is sponsoring this (who the heck is freeipods.com)? What are the chances of winning? Why do they need my personal information? What would they do with it? (I am not going to apply, of course, but I am curious).
    Chick - here's some more info from wired (http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,65042,00.html)

    FreeiPods.com is one of several "customer acquisition" websites run by Gratis Internet of Washington, D.C. To get a free iPod, subscribers must sign up for various online promotions and persuade five other people to join up as well.

    Subscribers are given a choice of about 10 different offers, including trials of The New York Times, America Online or Boca Java's coffee club. The offers are typically free and easily canceled, the site claims.

    Once the trials are over -- for both the main subscriber and their referrals -- the free iPod is dispatched.

    However, Wired News has been inundated with complaints about spam, mishandled accounts and shipping delays.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I was after this comment!
    Thanks webslappy, I appreciate this a ton
    exactly. think pyramid schemes.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Thanks webslappy, I appreciate this a ton
    Chick, isnt slappy soo cute
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The number of partial birth abortion procedures done are incredibly low. It's a very rare procedure and is not simply done because some pregnant teen forgot to get an abortion earlier.
    Well, since the barbaric practice is not done very much, I guess it must be ok.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Chick, isnt slappy soo cute
    cg - you may not be able to see it but my avatar is blushing.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    peter you believe sanctions were WORKING with saddam!??!! hold on a minute,, im having an uncontrollable laughing fit here.. be back in a few hours....
    While you are laughing I think it might be a good time to point out that because Bush did not let the UN inspectors in after the invasion, Saddam may have been able to manage getting rid of a few items of nuclear related equipment like heavy machinery. If this is true it suggests that Bush was wrong once again, not to let the inspectors back in as soon as possible.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...n_nuclear_dc_2

    on a related note, a poll from our coalition of the willing including England and Italy, and Australia show that only 1 out of 20 people polled in those countries consider themselves safer as a result of the Iraq war. The overwhelming majority think they are in greater danger.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ational_poll_5

    Are all of these great countries who helped us ignorant (I am just being rhetorical Peter), or do they realize something we don't?
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 10/11/2004 at 05:20 PM.
  13. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    on a related note, a poll from our coalition of the willing including England and Italy, and Australia show that only 1 out of 20 people polled in those countries consider themselves safer as a result of the Iraq war. The overwhelming majority think they are in greater danger.

    Are all of these great countries who helped us ignorant (I am just being rhetorical Peter), or do they realize something we don't?
    If we're going to base policy on the opinions of the uninformed masses, we should also remember that a considerable percentage of those people think that the Bush Administration and/or the Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks, too.
    Talldog
  14. #74  
    It seems like the people in Australia were pretty happy with their leader and his war efforts. He won the election easily, even after John Kerry's sister (or was it his daughter?) was there actively trying to defeat him.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    If we're going to base policy on the opinions of the uninformed masses,
    so people in England, Italy and Australia are just a bunch of soccer hooligans?

    speaking of uninformed masses, I think Bush is counting on people like this for re-election

    Quote Originally Posted by Talldog
    we should also remember that a considerable percentage of those people think that the Bush Administration and/or the Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks, too.
    REally? OK well lets see 95% of the population of each of the coalition countries does not think that the war has made them safer, about what percentage of those people think the Jews or Bush caused 911? I have no idea but lets say 50% which I am sure is a gross overestimate. Ok then we have 45% rational people thinking we are not safer versus 5% thinking we are safer, that is a 9 to 1 margin.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 10/11/2004 at 06:13 PM.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I think Bush is counting on people like this for re-election
    So true. Of course, the Kerry campaign is also counting on the ignorant masses, along with Nader and everyone else. Most campaign commercials, and debate talking points from both sides, seem to prove this fact,
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    It seems like the people in Australia were pretty happy with their leader and his war efforts. He won the election easily, even after John Kerry's sister (or was it his daughter?) was there actively trying to defeat him.
    Obviously he has a lot of other things going for him besides his position on the war, which is hugely unpopular in Australia. Fortunately for him, the campaign in Australia is not focused on the war in Iraq like it is here.

    and I agree with you about the uninformed masses in this country, they are easy pickins for any candidate. People need to really educate themselves about the issues and think for themselves, as you have said in the past.

    But a majority of people voting for something, whether or not they are uninformed, still establishes a political mandate and influences policy decisions.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    OK well lets see 95% of the population of each of the coalition countries does not think that the war has made them safer, about what percentage of those people think the Jews or Bush caused 911? I have no idea but lets say 50% which I am sure is a gross overestimate.
    Let me get this straight. You are saying that of the coalition countries, 95% of their citizens feel that the war in Iraq has not made them safer, and of that 95%, about 50% believe that the Jews and Bush were the cause of 9/11?

    Is that correct, or did you mis-speak?
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    REally? OK well lets see 95% of the population of each of the coalition countries does not think that the war has made them safer,
    why are you even considering the coalition forces in this discussion? Kerry doesn't.
  20. Talldog's Avatar
    Posts
    157 Posts
    Global Posts
    291 Global Posts
    #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    so people in England, Italy and Australia are just a bunch of soccer hooligans?

    speaking of uninformed masses, I think Bush is counting on people like this for re-election
    My point was that polls, in and of themselves, are not necessarily the source of wisdom.

    If you think otherwise, then why are you so intransigent on the issue of partial birth abortion? After all, every poll on the subject shows that an overwhelming majority oppose it.
    Talldog
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions