| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#161
|
|||
|
|||
On 09 Nov 2004 05:36:45 EST, Tim Daneliuk
wrote: The issue ought to be "When Does The Government's Responsibility To Protect It's Citizens' Civil Rights Begin?" No one knows exactly when that moment actually is. It is *somewhere* near the end of the 2nd trimester by most estimations. I don't know where these "most estimations" come from, but I do agree that there should be a time limit. I can see lots of problems arising as a result, but that's the way it always is. One of the issues of highly premature births is that as we get better and better at keeping such babies alive we are seeing that they tend to have very serious problems as they grow: a significant percentage are born with brain damage. I am peripherally involved in a study that is looking at whether such damage is connected to certain (non-behavioral) episodes that the mother experiences during pregnancy. This in and of itself does not mean that we should not try to keep them alive but it could be that we are seeing something natural he the woman's body may be rejecting the fetus. The tragedy of the Left is that it defends 3rd Trimester abortion, argues that it's nobody's business but the woman's (what an absurd notion) and refuses to even consider the possibility of some rational compromise. This is not a tragedy "of the left," it is a symptom of a more general tragedy of lack of compromise on any major issue by any non-centrist group, be it left, conservative, or fascist. And there is no monolithic "left" view of late-stage abortions. |
|
#162
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 09 Nov 2004 05:19:05 EST, Tim Daneliuk
wrote: What about the African tribalists who made slavery possible in the first place? Are they not equally morally culpable? In fact, in the matter of the Barbary Coast pirates, African slavers actually enslaved white Europeans, though on nowhere near the same scale that they conquered and enslaved their own countrymen. The thing that always gets missed in these convenient little idelogical rants is that *everyone* through recorded history engaged in slavery at some point or another. Why was it an "idealogical rant ?" Was it false ? Nothing that you say in the above in any way, shape, or form questions the veracity of what I said. And all it boils down to is what I heard from my kids when they were 5 years old: "But HE did it TOO !" |
|
#164
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:08:04 -0500, WoodMangler
wrote: And let's not perpetuate the myth that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Among the socio-economic differences that led to war, slavery was far down the list. The emancipation proclamation freed slaves only in the confederate states, and this during the war when the confederate states did not recognize the authority of the US government. The last states to abolish slavery did so after the war, and were northern states. Massive social pressure to end slavery was gaining ground in all parts of this country before the war, and would have prevailed even if a war hadn't been fought. I can't wait for responses from those young enough to only have read "new revised" American history books. The 45 yr old American history text books we had in grade school "perpetuated the myth" quite unashamedly. |
|
#166
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 03:56:56 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:
On terrorism, yes. He wasn't talking about domestic issues, except when they included terrorism. You don't stand with the U.S. on fighting terrorism? As a citizen of the US I am, like almost all citizens of the US, believe that we should deal with terrorism. Too bad the administration doesn't pay more attention to it. |
|
#167
|
|||
|
|||
|
As a citizen of the US I am, like almost all citizens of the US,
believe that we should deal with terrorism. Too bad the administration doesn't pay more attention to it. Do you, unlike most citizens of the US, understand the root cause of terrorism, especially in the Middle East? |
|
#168
|
|||
|
|||
|
mp wrote: As a citizen of the US I am, like almost all citizens of the US, believe that we should deal with terrorism. Too bad the administration doesn't pay more attention to it. Do you, unlike most citizens of the US, understand the root cause of terrorism, especially in the Middle East? Which reason would you like to address first? Let's face it, 911 was the first clue the majority of Americans had that we weren't universally loved. And since 911 they have allowed themselves to be sidetracked into a whole slew of bull**** reasons as Bull**** reasons are easier for them to grasp and allows them to remain blameless. Oh well, they got what they asked for, problem is they didn't even know they were asking. -- Mark N.E. Ohio In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A. Mark Twain) When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense. (Gaz, r.moto) |
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
|
GregP responds:
I can't wait for responses from those young enough to only have read "new revised" American history books. The 45 yr old American history text books we had in grade school "perpetuated the myth" quite unashamedly. Mine were somewhere between 55 and 60 years old and also perpetuated the "myth." Charlie Self "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." Abraham Lincoln |
|
#171
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#172
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:50:27 -0800, "mp" wrote:
Do you, unlike most citizens of the US, understand the root cause of terrorism, especially in the Middle East? No, and I am convinced that anyone in the US who does is deceiving him/herself. |
|
#173
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article , says... Crap. The government codifies morality in legislation all the time. Why do you suppose there are laws against murder, stealing, or perjury? Because they interfere with the governments ability to maintain order and protect it's citizensb from each other. And who protects the unborn? Abortion requires the government to choose between the rights of a citizen, the pregnant woman, and a fetus that may someday become a citizen if all goes well. Seems like a simple decision to me. More specifically, to choose between the right of a pregnant woman not to be inconvenienced, versus the right of an unborn child to life itself. It is indeed a simple decision. Anything else requires the government to espouse a religious belief, which is of course the basis for your arguments. Wrong on both counts. First, it's a moral issue, not (necessarily) a religious one. Second, I am an adult convert to my faith, and my opposition to abortion, while certainly in accord with my religious beliefs, predates that conversion by about a decade. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#174
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#175
|
|||
|
|||
|
Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article , says... I say abortion, if it is to be legal, should be limited to a timeframe wherein there is almost a certainty that no citizen is being killed, say 2 months into the pregnancy. I could almost go along with that. Make it 3 months - 90% of all abortions are in the first trimester. And make exceptions for the health of the mother or the cases where a fetus is so deformed it would be unlikely to live anyway. Moreover, no public funds should ever be used to pay for it. There I disagree. It is often the poor, who can't afford contraceptive devices, who need the abortion. Not really. Abortion, at least in the US, is primarily a birth control vehicle for the middle class and above iirc (sorry I no longer have the cite). Moreover, why on earth should I be obligated to pay for something which is both: a) Against my conscience/my will and b) In no way required to preserve the sovereignty of the nation? Military spending may offend some people, but it is well within the government's purview of defending Liberty, for instance, but abortion is not. Morally contentions acts like abortion are thus both out of the government's legitimate sphere of action (beyond making sure murder does not occur) and should never be paid for with public monies. If there was an effective private means of supplying them with the needed medical attention, I'd rethink my position, but with the public outcry against any and all abortions, it'd be very difficult to keep something like that going. Or keep the providers from being shot or bombed. Hmm, you must not live in a large population center. Abortion clinics are thriving and widely available in the private sector ... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#176
|
|||
|
|||
|
Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article , otforme says... And it might do something to slow our ever growing overpopulation problem as well. We have a consumption problem, but the real population problem resides in China, India and much of what is known as the Third World. Oh, they definitely have a worse problem than us, but we have one too. The US population has been doubling every 60 years or so. That's right on the world average. If you investigate you will find that the birth rate in the US went below the replacement level around 1975 and has stayed there ever since. However there is a lag between the time that the birth rate goes below replacement level and the time that the population actually starts to decline. Further, at the current growth rate, which will continue to decline until it hits zero sometime around 2025, Zero Population Growth calculates the "doubling time" for the US population at 115 years, not the 60 that you claim. The average is lowered by the European nations, many of which have a stable or even decreasing population. I've seen studies (who knows how good they are) that give the sustained carrying capacity of the US portion of North America as anywhere from 65 million to 125 million, both of those way below our current population. And no doubt there are other studies that show it to be between 65 trillion and 125 trillion. The only way you are going to decrease the population to that level any time in the foreseeable future is by involuntary sterilization of the entire population or by use of weapons of mass destruction, so the point is moot. And every time our birthrate goes way down, the politicians increase immigration. I get the feeling our economy is one big Ponzi scheme. Just think what would happen to the housing industry if all we needed was replacement housing. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#178
|
|||
|
|||
|
WoodMangler wrote:
J. Clarke did say: WoodMangler wrote: J. Clarke did say: Geez, get a life--you're as bad as the Southerners who are still fighting the Civil War. I've lived in the Southern US most of my life and have never met one of these folks. Do you know any? Or are you just watching too much television? I was borne there, you just lived there--I suspect I've been more heavily immersed in the culture than you have. Quite an assumption on your part. And almost certainly incorrect. Maybe you've been moving in the wrong circles. At the high end you have the Sons of Confederate Veterans (this is the Ferrari driving set--I don't recall the dues but I thought my folks were nuts to pay that much), A group dedicated to remembrance of family members who fought and died in a war. (I'm eligible for membership by the way) I wouldn't say they're all "still fighting the civil war" any more than I'd say that the VFW, VVA or other groups are still fighting their war. Remembering the past certainly isn't the same as trying to relive it. in the middle a surprising number of college professors (one of my cousins is such) and other intellectuals, I would find that surprising. I do know several scholars who study the civil war. Wars are a fascinating subject to many, every conflict waged on the planet is studied and analyzed by many. Not the same as "still fighting it". and then at the low end you have the Klan, which the other two groups kind of wish would go away as it's become an embarrasment. The Klan is a hate group, white supremacists, nothing more. Their agenda has nothing to do with the American Civil War. Or maybe the folks you've encountered just don't discuss such matters around folks who they know they will offend-- The folks I encounter here are family and lifelong friends. So? Doesn't mean that they discuss such matters in front of you. But just to be clear, you have family members and lifelong friends who are members of SCV, college professors at Southern universities who study the civil war, and active members of the Ku Klux Klan? The simple fact is that if you live in the South and you have never met a single person who is stressed over the outcome of the Civil War then you don't get out much. courtesy is a Southern tradition you know. Well, it was until we discovered the internet... Now we can be as rude and anonymous as anyone. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#179
|
|||
|
|||
|
mp wrote:
Agreed. But keep in mind that the US was founded by and for Christians. Are they the same ones who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of native Indians, often for just for sport? I though that was the Aztecs. Although most of those were sacrificed to appease the volcano gods and provide tasty treats for the nobility. Only a few of them were sacrificed because they lost a ball game, but that was a regular occurrance, so one could say that it occurred "often". -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#180
|
|||
|
|||
|
Todd Fatheree wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... If you don't count the 12 million babies that were murdered last year. If you consider them to be "babies". I'm curious. When, in your opinion, does that human lifeform in the womb become a baby? When it demonstrates some characteristic that provokes my sympathy. Personally I find that sort of transparent appeal to emotion to be especially reprehensible. And I find people condoning infanticide to be without conscience. And you consider any death of a fetus, including the deaths of the ones that get tossed in the trash at fertility clinics, to be "infanticide", which is again an appeal to emotion. If everyone can just decide what's right and wrong on their own, then what was wrong with the nutjob killing your friend? What was wrong was that my friend was obeying the law, your nutjob wasn't. In case you haven't noticed, abortion in the US is a lawful activity. "Anybody" did not decide that it was "right or wrong", the Justices of the Supreme Court, who are empowered by the Constitution and customs of this nation to make such decisions, decided that it was lawful. If he thought it was OK, who are we to impose our values on him? I see. So it's OK to do something that's unlawful if _you_ think it's right, but it's so wrong to do something lawful that it is justifiable for you to act as judge, jury, and executioner to prevent them from doing it. I'm sorry, but _your_ idiot was the one who was "deciding what's right and wrong on their own". Or not as the case may be. You assume you know the mind of a deity. And you're a fellow traveller if you condone the sort of actions these whackos take. Try paying attention. Where did I say I condoned their actions? See the previous few paragraphs, in which you compared the lawful actions of a physician with the unlawful actions of a murderer and suggested that one justified the other. They better just hope there is no supreme being, because I can't think of much worse than destroying a totally innocent life. Well, now, suppose the deity disagrees with you on this? I'll just take my chances. You do that. todd -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#181
|
|||
|
|||
|
Todd Fatheree wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to make others live by his beliefs. Then he apparently doesn't have the courage of his convictions, assuming he has any core beliefs in the first place that go beyond getting elected. We're not talking about tax policy or which state gets a new highway here. He claims to believe that innocent children are being slaughtered, but chooses to do nothing to stop it, hiding behind the religous freedom of others to commit murder. You just assumed the pertinent point. Kerry, and apparently you, believe that a fetus is a human child. If we all agreed to that, there would be no abortion debate. Kerry realizes that others don't believe that a fetus is a child. You don't seem to realize that. Maybe that's what you want to force others to believe. I started out by pointing out that Kerry's position is inconsistent. Interpreting his statements, he believes that abortion is murder. But murder is OK, as long as the murderer thinks it's OK. I don't know how else to interpret his so-called beliefs. Very simple. He thinks it's murder, but the courts and the Congress and the several states seem to disagree with him on this point, so what's he supposed to do about it? Go out and shoot people? I do oppose any abortion after the fetus is capable of living on its own without extraordinary efforts and equipment. In effect, that means after about 6 or 7 months of gestation. This must be the least consistent and least logical point of view in the whole debate. "about 6 or 7 months"? Where does 5 1/2 months fit into that? What about a week before? What's wrong with killing it at 8 months if the mother wants to? It's her body, isn't it? Suddenly at 6 or 7 months you have the right to impose your will? The courts in the US have ruled "first trimester" unless there are extenuating circumstances. The state legislatures have sometimes set more lenient standards. It is their job to make such decisions and they have made them. If you want the line set elsewhere or abolished, then either come up with an argument so effective that it persuades the Congress and the States to amend the Constitution or persuades the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, or move to another country whose views are more congenial to your sensibilities. All you achieve by ****ing in the wind as you are currently doing is to annoy everyone downwind of you. Up to that point, refusing to allow a woman to abort is making her a slave to your beliefs. Come to think of it, that's probably the motivation of many. Kinder,kirche,kuchen - now who was it said that? I'd call it requiring a person to be responsible for their actions, but there's precious little of that going around these days. You're right, she really should have learned karate well enough to stand off the four guys who held her down while the fifth one "invited" that sweet little baby into her. Damned irresponsible of her not to have developed super powers. As another poster has mentioned, this argument is not amenable to reason, as it's based on opinion on both sides. How about we drop it? OK. You don't post any more and I wont respond to your posts. todd -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#182
|
|||
|
|||
|
David Hall wrote:
Fly-by-Night CC wrote in message news:onlnlowe- Why are the pro-life people not picketing and speaking out against the fertility clinics who discard unused embryos? If the implanted embryo automatically becomes classified as a baby then why not consider the frozen embryo a frozen baby and thus deserving of a womb? Probably because we can't even get a solidly enforcable ban on the practice of sucking the brains out of a 9 month old "fetus" that has been delivered except for his or her head! I think that we need to get the killing of late term babies ended before we spend too much effort on embryos. It is just so sad that you cannot even see these full term "fetuses" as babies and want to deflect the argument to fertilized eggs. You might want to look up the circumstances under which that procedure is normally performed. It is not done as a method of birth control (in the US anyway--I understand that that may not be true elsewhere), it is normally done to preserve the life or health of the mother in circumstances in which the fetus is incapable of survival. And you've even got the sequence wrong. It's not done when the fetus "has been delivered except for his or her head"--in that position you can't get at the head to suck the brains out so it's kind of silly to suggest that that is done. Since you don't seem to be aware of it the normal and preferred orientiation of the fetus at birth is head-first. Feet first can work, but it's dangerous. Butt first if he can't be reoriented is usually fatal for both without surgery. Dave Hall -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#183
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:52:44 -0500, GregP wrote:
You remind me of Catholic bishops who condoned and often abetted felony sexual attacks on minors while questioning the morality of others. Translation: I disagree with your politics therefore I equate you to pedophiles. |
|
#184
|
|||
|
|||
|
I thought it was the Maya who played handball for keeps. Any support for
the Toltec or Aztec? As to the noble Amerinds, ask any other tribe what they thought of the Huron. "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... mp wrote: Are they the same ones who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of native Indians, often for just for sport? I though that was the Aztecs. Although most of those were sacrificed to appease the volcano gods and provide tasty treats for the nobility. Only a few of them were sacrificed because they lost a ball game, but that was a regular occurrance, so one could say that it occurred "often". -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#185
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:59:48 -0500, George wrote:
I thought it was the Maya who played handball for keeps. Any support for the Toltec or Aztec? As to the noble Amerinds, ask any other tribe what they thought of the Huron. .... or ask the northwest Washington and other nearby tribes what they thought of the Haidas. -Doug |
|
#186
|
|||
|
|||
|
GregP did say:
And of course, while fraud may be difficult to detect after the fact, there are many ways to prevent it, including: - requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote - requiring positive identification when voting - keeping voter registration lists updated when voters move or die That is very true. But unless the public becomes willing to pay decent taxes to properly fund such operations, and gov'ts become willing to operate them properly, and citizens take actions to make sure they do (instead of simply whining), nothing much is likely to change `xcept whiners whining. DECENT TAXES!!?? You think the American public is paying too little tax? -- New project = new tool. Hard and fast rule. |
|
#187
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 09 Nov 2004 17:39:04 EST, Tim Daneliuk
wrote: [snip] |You argument is Ad Hominem and false. I am never for killing "innocent" |people, unborn or otherwise. The central issue is whether or not war |is justfied in a given set of circumstances. "Innocent" people were |killed in WWII by the Allies but that did not inherently make the war |immoral. Unless you are ideologically a Pacifist - and believe that ALL |killing of innocents is wrong, and war is never justified - you have to accept |that wartime has unpleasant consequences for non-combatants. In that |case, we have an obligation to minimize such collateral killings as best |is possible. Depends. In WWII practically the whole populations of Germany and Japan were engaged in supporting the war. I submit that if they are working in a munitions factory, they are fair targets. I say this from the perspective of one who spent 33 years working in the defense industry, where I supported our war efforts by designing and building such things as the TOW, Maverick and Tomahawk missiles. If an enemy of ours had the capability of targeting the plant where I worked, I would expect him to try and destroy it, and me with it. | |Your comments are also entirely context-free. Where was the Drooly Left |when Sadaam was butchering his own people? Where are the neocons when genocide is (by Powell's own tardy admission) being perpetrated upon the people of Darfur? We'll be invading Syria and Iran soon, but where a real moral imperative exists, fuggetaboutit. [snip] |
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
|
J. Clarke did say:
WoodMangler wrote: J. Clarke did say: WoodMangler wrote: J. Clarke did say: Geez, get a life--you're as bad as the Southerners who are still fighting the Civil War. I've lived in the Southern US most of my life and have never met one of these folks. Do you know any? Or are you just watching too much television? I was borne there, you just lived there--I suspect I've been more heavily immersed in the culture than you have. Quite an assumption on your part. And almost certainly incorrect. Maybe you've been moving in the wrong circles. At the high end you have the Sons of Confederate Veterans (this is the Ferrari driving set--I don't recall the dues but I thought my folks were nuts to pay that much), A group dedicated to remembrance of family members who fought and died in a war. (I'm eligible for membership by the way) I wouldn't say they're all "still fighting the civil war" any more than I'd say that the VFW, VVA or other groups are still fighting their war. Remembering the past certainly isn't the same as trying to relive it. in the middle a surprising number of college professors (one of my cousins is such) and other intellectuals, I would find that surprising. I do know several scholars who study the civil war. Wars are a fascinating subject to many, every conflict waged on the planet is studied and analyzed by many. Not the same as "still fighting it". and then at the low end you have the Klan, which the other two groups kind of wish would go away as it's become an embarrasment. The Klan is a hate group, white supremacists, nothing more. Their agenda has nothing to do with the American Civil War. Or maybe the folks you've encountered just don't discuss such matters around folks who they know they will offend-- The folks I encounter here are family and lifelong friends. So? Doesn't mean that they discuss such matters in front of you. But just to be clear, you have family members and lifelong friends who are members of SCV, college professors at Southern universities who study the civil war, and active members of the Ku Klux Klan? WOW! That's so twisted and ridiculous I don't know where to start. You should probably hit the crack pipe AFTER reading the newsgroup. The simple fact is that if you live in the South and you have never met a single person who is stressed over the outcome of the Civil War then you don't get out much. Perhaps you and I hang out in different places. My friends and family tend to be normal human beings. I can only assume that you hang out in Klan biker clubs or are incarcerated with the Aryan nation. I DO believe you when you say that you know people who are all stressed out about a war that happened over a hundred years ago. They have medication for these conditions now. |
|
#189
|
|||
|
|||
|
Todd Fatheree wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Larry Blanchard" wrote in message ... He also believes he doesn't have the right to use the force of law to make others live by his beliefs. Then he apparently doesn't have the courage of his convictions, assuming he has any core beliefs in the first place that go beyond getting elected. We're not talking about tax policy or which state gets a new highway here. He claims to believe that innocent children are being slaughtered, but chooses to do nothing to stop it, hiding behind the religous freedom of others to commit murder. You just assumed the pertinent point. Kerry, and apparently you, believe that a fetus is a human child. If we all agreed to that, there would be no abortion debate. Kerry realizes that others don't believe that a fetus is a child. You don't seem to realize that. Maybe that's what you want to force others to believe. I started out by pointing out that Kerry's position is inconsistent. Interpreting his statements, he believes that abortion is murder. But murder is OK, as long as the murderer thinks it's OK. I don't know how else to interpret his so-called beliefs. Very simple. He thinks it's murder, but the courts and the Congress and the several states seem to disagree with him on this point, so what's he supposed to do about it? Go out and shoot people? No. But if he believes it to be murder you would think he would at least be actively against it and trying to outlaw it, not saying in effect that the murders occurring all around him are just none of his business. I do oppose any abortion after the fetus is capable of living on its own without extraordinary efforts and equipment. In effect, that means after about 6 or 7 months of gestation. This must be the least consistent and least logical point of view in the whole debate. "about 6 or 7 months"? Where does 5 1/2 months fit into that? What about a week before? What's wrong with killing it at 8 months if the mother wants to? It's her body, isn't it? Suddenly at 6 or 7 months you have the right to impose your will? The courts in the US have ruled "first trimester" unless there are extenuating circumstances. The state legislatures have sometimes set more lenient standards. It is their job to make such decisions and they have made them. If you want the line set elsewhere or abolished, then either come up with an argument so effective that it persuades the Congress and the States to amend the Constitution or persuades the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade..... In case you missed it, a few days ago we took a big step in that direction if we can keep W. on track and boot Spectere. Up to that point, refusing to allow a woman to abort is making her a slave to your beliefs. Come to think of it, that's probably the motivation of many. Kinder,kirche,kuchen - now who was it said that? I'd call it requiring a person to be responsible for their actions, but there's precious little of that going around these days. You're right, she really should have learned karate well enough to stand off the four guys who held her down while the fifth one "invited" that sweet little baby into her. Damned irresponsible of her not to have developed super powers. I am not one that says it has anything to do with personal responsibility. But you have to notice that it certainly wasn't the baby's fault and he or she (or they as the case may be) are the only ones in the whole sad senerio that are being asked to forfeit their lives. Dave Hall |
|
#190
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:47:30 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote: On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 08:46:23 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote: That would then deny the heritage of the country. No one is converted by the symbols but they were put there for a reason. I don't see a good enough reason to systematically remove them. If it troubles someone that the country was predominately Christian they should learn to accept history and facts for what they are, not what they want them to be. I would encourage you to look on the back of a one dollar bill. Look at the pyramid on the left hand side. Read the semi-circular inscription below the pyramid. What do you think it means? New Secular Order. Regards, Tom. Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker, ret. tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
|
#191
|
|||
|
|||
|
You might want to look up the circumstances under which that procedure is
normally performed. It is not done as a method of birth control (in the US anyway--I understand that that may not be true elsewhere), it is normally done to preserve the life or health of the mother in circumstances in which the fetus is incapable of survival. Yeah, I take a lot of comfort in all of those "normally"s in the above. I also like the old "health of the mother" dodge when depression or other short term issues are sufficient. Remember the debates when trying to pass the law to make such abortions illegal when using the words "serious impact on the mother's health" were unacceptable to the right-to-lifers. And you've even got the sequence wrong. It's not done when the fetus "has been delivered except for his or her head"--in that position you can't get at the head to suck the brains out so it's kind of silly to suggest that that is done. Since you don't seem to be aware of it the normal and preferred orientiation of the fetus at birth is head-first. Feet first can work, but it's dangerous. Butt first if he can't be reoriented is usually fatal for both without surgery. You seem to be the one uninformed here. The body is delivered but the head remains in the mother. The medical tools are inserted at the base of the head and into the brain. The suction tube is then inserted and the brains are sucked out and the skull collasped to allow the head to be removed without the types of impact on the woman that would normally occur in head last birth. Head first is certainly the preferred orientation for an intended live birth. Dave Hall -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
|
#192
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have a friend who is a mining engineer. He has a T-shirt with a
beautiful picture of the earth, in large script it says, "EARTH FIRST". Below that in small script is, "We'll mine the other planets when were done". So far as abortion is concerned, I am a proponent of postnatal abortion until the age of eighteen. It would do wonders in getting the kids to behave, go to school and be polite and respectful of their others. "Kill rotten kids, not innocent babies". Charlie Self wrote: Larry Blanchard writes: And every time our birthrate goes way down, the politicians increase immigration. I get the feeling our economy is one big Ponzi scheme. Just think what would happen to the housing industry if all we needed was replacement housing. Ayup. The mantra of business is growth. I've often wondered if any of them have a clue as to what is going to happen the day there is neither room nor material with which to grow. That day is a lot less far off than it was a few years ago. Charlie Self "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." Abraham Lincoln |
|
#193
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
... Todd Fatheree wrote: I started out by pointing out that Kerry's position is inconsistent. Interpreting his statements, he believes that abortion is murder. But murder is OK, as long as the murderer thinks it's OK. I don't know how else to interpret his so-called beliefs. Very simple. He thinks it's murder, but the courts and the Congress and the several states seem to disagree with him on this point, so what's he supposed to do about it? Go out and shoot people? I'd settle for speaking out against it instead of talking out of both sides of his mouth. This must be the least consistent and least logical point of view in the whole debate. "about 6 or 7 months"? Where does 5 1/2 months fit into that? What about a week before? What's wrong with killing it at 8 months if the mother wants to? It's her body, isn't it? Suddenly at 6 or 7 months you have the right to impose your will? The courts in the US have ruled "first trimester" unless there are extenuating circumstances. According to Planned Parenthood, 9% of all abortions are performed in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. That's about 173,000 per year. The state legislatures have sometimes set more lenient standards. It is their job to make such decisions and they have made them. If you want the line set elsewhere or abolished, then either come up with an argument so effective that it persuades the Congress and the States to amend the Constitution or persuades the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, or move to another country whose views are more congenial to your sensibilities. Electing President Bush was a step in that direction. He'll likely nominate 1-4 justices to the Supreme Court. All you achieve by ****ing in the wind as you are currently doing is to annoy everyone downwind of you. I couldn't care less how many people are annoyed. I find your position offensive, yet you don't mind stating it. I'd call it requiring a person to be responsible for their actions, but there's precious little of that going around these days. You're right, she really should have learned karate well enough to stand off the four guys who held her down while the fifth one "invited" that sweet little baby into her. Damned irresponsible of her not to have developed super powers. Excellent red herring. The number of abortions performed due to rape in the US are approximately 1% of the total. Frankly, I'm not even in favor of abortion in this case, but if it will save the other 99%, I'll take the lesser evil. As if it's the unborn child's fault that he/she came into being in that way. I don't have much middle ground here...my only concern is protecting the innocent unborn. If someone gets inconvenienced by that, generally through their own consent, too bad todd |
|
#194
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#195
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cool map, county by county...
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/ Renata On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:05:45 -0600, Prometheus wrote: There's that Out-Of-Step (tm) line again. Christ, you'd think part of New England voted 50% for Kerry, and the rest of the country voted 100% for Bush. Almost every state in the nation was split down the middle. If we're out of step, it's only because we don't don jackboots and start goosestepping with the fearless leader down the road to hell. -snip- |
|
#196
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 04:15:55 -0500, Greg G. wrote: Juergen Hannappel said: (Sbtypesetter) writes: A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiates 10:2 Best reason I know not to be a leftist, communist, socialist, democrat, et al. As we in Germany say: "Oh Herr, lass Hirn regnen!" (Oh Lord, let there be a rain of brains) Looks like we are in a severe drought... ;-) Now, that made me laff. Renata Greg G. |
|
#197
|
|||
|
|||
|
WoodMangler wrote:
: J. Clarke did say: : WoodMangler wrote: : : J. Clarke did say: : : WoodMangler wrote: : : J. Clarke did say: : : Geez, get a life--you're as bad : as the Southerners who are still fighting the Civil War. : : I've lived in the Southern US most of my life and have never met one of : these folks. Do you know any? Or are you just watching too much : television? : : I was borne there, you just lived there--I suspect I've been more heavily : immersed in the culture than you have. : : Quite an assumption on your part. And almost certainly incorrect. : : Maybe you've been moving in the wrong circles. At the high end you have : the Sons of Confederate Veterans (this is the Ferrari driving set--I : don't recall the dues but I thought my folks were nuts to pay that much), : : A group dedicated to remembrance of family members who fought and died in : a war. (I'm eligible for membership by the way) I wouldn't say they're all : "still fighting the civil war" any more than I'd say that the VFW, VVA or : other groups are still fighting their war. Remembering the past certainly : isn't the same as trying to relive it. : : in the : middle a surprising number of college professors (one of my cousins is : such) and other intellectuals, : : I would find that surprising. I do know several scholars who study the : civil war. Wars are a fascinating subject to many, every conflict waged on : the planet is studied and analyzed by many. Not the same as "still : fighting it". : : and then at the low end you have the : Klan, which the other two groups kind of wish would go away as it's : become an embarrasment. : : The Klan is a hate group, white supremacists, nothing more. Their agenda : has nothing to do with the American Civil War. : : Or maybe the folks you've encountered just don't discuss such matters : around folks who they know they will offend-- : : The folks I encounter here are family and lifelong friends. : : So? Doesn't mean that they discuss such matters in front of you. But just : to be clear, you have family members and lifelong friends who are members : of SCV, college professors at Southern universities who study the civil : war, and active members of the Ku Klux Klan? : WOW! That's so twisted and ridiculous I don't know where to start. You : should probably hit the crack pipe AFTER reading the newsgroup. : The simple fact is that if you live in the South and you have never met a : single person who is stressed over the outcome of the Civil War then you : don't get out much. : Perhaps you and I hang out in different places. My friends and family tend : to be normal human beings. I can only assume that you hang out in Klan : biker clubs or are incarcerated with the Aryan nation. : I DO believe you when you say that you know people who are all stressed : out about a war that happened over a hundred years ago. They have : medication for these conditions now. Those type people/conditions exist all over the world. For example Northern Ireland, the Protestants every year insist on marching thru Catholic neighborhoods to celebrate their ancestor's victories hundreds of years ago. Maybe the solution is to medicate the whole world. |
|
#198
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Renata wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:42:58 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , GregP wrote: Exit polling may be the only way to tell if fraud is being committed. Exit polling is utterly useless to determine if fraud is being committed, unless you have some means to force the voters to tell the pollsters the truth. And of course, while fraud may be difficult to detect after the fact, there are many ways to prevent it, including: - requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote - requiring positive identification when voting - keeping voter registration lists updated when voters move or die Funny how you don't include anything to verify that the vote cast is actually the vote counted. Fine, add that to the list if you want; I wasn't attempting to present an exhaustive list, as a careful reading of what I wrote should make clear. I'd like to point out, though, that it's difficult at best, if not intrinsically impossible, to perform such verification while simultaneously preserving ballot secrecy -- which is exactly the reason I left it off. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. |
|
#199
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#200
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:02:10 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote: In article , Prometheus wrote: Almost every state in the nation was split down the middle. Absolutely not true. Geography does not equal population. Most of those blue counties are major population centers. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm for a county-by-county breakdown. Aut inveniam viam aut faciam |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Footings/Foundation Walls in Wrong Position! | Home Ownership | |||
| Need advice! WRONG GRANITE TOP WAS INSTALLED IN MY KITCHEN!! | Home Ownership | |||
| "Sorry I dialed the wrong Number." Calls ???????? | Home Repair | |||
Linear Mode
