Hello There, Guest! Registered users see far less ads! Register today and join our virtual tailgate. (Login — Register)

Post Reply 
Those in favor of killing babies
Author Message
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,844
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #21
 
KlutzDio I Wrote:We have several like them in goverment now, such as GW Bush and Tricky Dicky Cheney.
When I read comments like this, I am curious why anti-war folks (SF and Oddball) in particular don't mention Donald Rumsfeld.

He was Cheney's mentor, and he had a huge influence on Bush.

In fact, why doesn't anyone cite the Rumsfeld reports when talking about this war. Not that I'm an expert by any means...but the fact that people make no reference to them gives me the sense that they don't really know what they're talking about.

It's easy to throw out terms like "neo-con" and listen to Al Frankin, but I question the thoroughness of his research as much as people bash Hannity and O'Reiley. (Rush admits he does no research. Bah.)

If they did know what they were talking about, they would see the connectioin between the current foreign policy and these reports. If they want to bash them, so be it at least it's substantative, (not just hollow insults or choosing to believe the current hot book which couldn't even get the Weekly World News interested)..however, you still have that nagging issue that these reports were more on target about N. Korea than anyone else. (Well maybe only one dealt w/ N. Korea, see I admit I'm not an expert.)

Are they really bunk? Or were they way ahead of the game?

Anyway, I don't see much genuine research here. So why bother?
04-26-2004 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #22
 
As usual, we are "spinning" into outerspace with the abortion thread (sorry, the pro-killer thread).

And thank you for the nutjob jab! Glad to know you cannot meet my arguments and thus resort to lazy-minded name calling.

Anyway, before we discuss war (just and unjust), the social safety net of the Great Society and Western Civilization since the Magna Carta, I'd like to pose just one question:

Will people continue to seek abortions whether they are legal or not?
04-26-2004 04:09 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GrayBeard Offline
Whiny Troll
*

Posts: 33,240
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 901
I Root For: My Kids & ECU
Location: 523 Miles From ECU

Crappies
Post: #23
 
joebordenrebel Wrote:Will people continue to seek abortions whether they are legal or not?
Yes!

People seek Heroin and Crack, so should we legalize them? People seek to murder others, should we legalize murdering others? People seek to rape women, should we legalize that?

So, what is the point you are driving at?
04-26-2004 04:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #24
 
DrTorch Wrote:Why does no one mention the killing fields found in Saddam's regime?

Why does no discuss the torture rooms?

The pro-lifers "celebrate" this because it's bringing life to millions. The cost is the lives of hundreds, and no pro-lifers are celebrating that, except that some justice is being done.
The killing fields in Saddam's Iraq, along with the torture chambers have been going on for a long, long time. There was a time, throughout much of the 1980s, that the United States government, headed by both Carter in the early portion of the decade, and later Reagan, supported Saddam Hussein by providing him with materiel, money, munitions, and CIA wet teams.

Our government only began decrying the killing and torture by Saddam only after he quit playing ball with us.

Not only that, but may I remind you that torture and killing were not the justifications for invading that nation. Our justification was weapons of mass destruction, and these being a direct and forboding threat to the continental United States. Remember Bush claiming that a mushroom cloud over an American city would be too late to react ? Remember Powell waving anthrax around the United Nations General Assembly and claiming that Saddam was going to distribute this via drinking water in U.S. cities? Remember Rummie telling the American people that Saddam was going to send weapons capable drones over the U.S. to bomb us?

Killing and torture only became part of the justification for invasion after WMD's and ChemWeapons never turned up.

You say pro-Lifers celebrate killing "because it is bringing life to millions", then that wouldn't be very pro-Life then would it?

Like I said previously, killing (whether by war or abortion) comes with rationalizations. You provided some for killing during war.

Next you bring up justice. Why don't you give us a definition of justice?

On Hannity, he doesn't research, he berates much like O'Reilly.

Hannity invites guests on his show, guests who obviously disagree with Hannity. A guest will answer a question or make a point and then Hannity resorts to insane accusations, usually cloaked in strawman arguments.

Here's an example, an actual example from Hannity and Colmes:

**a lawyer successfully defended his client, had her plead not-guilty by reason of insanity**
Hannity to guest: Do you think that the insanity defense is allowing murderers to go scot free?

Guest: Well, I don't ever favor allowing murderers to go free and my client certainly is a murderer. She will not be free, likely for the rest of her life. She will be observed and treated for her illness and this will take, perhaps, the rest of her.....

Hannity interrupts: So you think like all other libruls do that putting all murderers in comfy hospitals is an adequate reaction to the act of drowning your own children? What kind of sick idea is that? A murderer, a convicted murderer should follow the same fate of their victims and be put to death, but of course you libruls don't want that--you don't want a safe country....

Shows like Hannity, O'Reilly, along with various ABC, NBC, FOX and CNN shows are not news, these shows are infotainment. Hannity and O'Reilly are so abrasive because their job is to entertain their audience and they use current events as a backdrop.

Coulter willingly admits that she doesn't know anything about news, she's just writing to make some money.

The only really honest and news-worthy conservative pundit is G. Gordon Liddy! His past sullies his credibility, unfortunate.

Why I bother, my good Dr., is most Americans that I encounter, either via internet message board, or at the local high school baseball game, watering hole or wherever really believe that shows like O'Reilly and Hannity are hard news shows and these figures preach the absolute truth. These programs also reinforce lazy and sloppy thinking, i.e. logical fallacies.

I don't listen to Al Franken. First of all, Franken is on only one radio station in the world and that is in the liberal mecca--Paris. Secondly, I can get information from the best sources available to me, C-SPAN, BBC, the internet, and the public library.
04-26-2004 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #25
 
GrayBeard Wrote:
joebordenrebel Wrote:Will people continue to seek abortions whether they are legal or not?
Yes!

People seek Heroin and Crack, so should we legalize them? People seek to murder others, should we legalize murdering others? People seek to rape women, should we legalize that?

So, what is the point you are driving at?
So you equate a woman's right to choose whether she will carry a pregnancy to term with drug addiction? And, interestingly, rape?

How are these analogies relevant? If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy, she will. Doesn't it follow, then, that safe, affordable abortions ought to be a choice she can make? That you could associate such a choice with drug addiction or pathological violence is beyond me.

What really gets me is that this comes down to social class. A woman who gets pregnant and has the means to fly (or drive) to a country that performs safe abortions is given an undue advantage over a woman who does not have those means.

Is this the unofficial poverty draft? We have to make sure poor women aren't educated about birth control, continue to breed, carry pregnancies to term so that in 18 years we have Johnny ready for the Marine Corps?
04-26-2004 04:24 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Motown Bronco Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,165
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation: 255
I Root For: WMU
Location: Metro Detroit
Post: #26
 
Wow. I've never seen so many <a href='http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html' target='_blank'>straw men</a> packed into one thread. Too many topics to cover, so I'll bow out of this one.

To answer joe's question, though...

Quote:And what in the hell is pro-socialist preaching?

Exactly what it sounds like.

I watched the C-SPAN anti-war marches last spring. Sure, Iraq was discussed at the rally's stage podium... occasionally. Many times the topics introduced into the speeches (or, I should say, fist-waving chants) centered on universal health care, state-owned industries, the welfare state, slavery reparations, 'Free Mumia', and so on. If A.N.S.W.E.R. is going to host a Marxist rally, might as well just say, "We're going to host a Marxist rally, pick up your red flags and Che t-shirts at the door. Port-o-Potties are to your left. Vegan sandwich stand is across the field and to your right. Have a nice afternoon, comrades."
04-26-2004 05:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Guest
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #27
 
DrTorch Wrote:I am curious why anti-war folks (SF and Oddball) in particular
I don't feel like getting into the abortion debate, but I would like to correct something here. I was for invading Afghanistan. I would have been for invading Iraq if the current administration had been telling the truth, and had, as promised, built an actual coalition. The term itself, "anti-war", would seem to be a pretty silly label, as all rational, intelligent people should be against war. War is always a bad thing. It is just sometimes necessary. By the same token, if one is not ant-war, would they then be pro-war? That would take a special kind of idiot.

There Torch, I managed to work in Rumsfeld for you. :D
04-26-2004 05:39 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Motown Bronco Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,165
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation: 255
I Root For: WMU
Location: Metro Detroit
Post: #28
 
Oddball Wrote:I don't feel like getting into the abortion debate, but I would like to correct something here. I was for invading Afghanistan. I would have been for invading Iraq if the current administration had been telling the truth, and had, as promised, built an actual coalition. The term itself, "anti-war", would seem to be a pretty silly label, as all rational, intelligent people should be against war. War is always a bad thing. It is just sometimes necessary. By the same token, if one is not ant-war, would they then be pro-war? That would take a special kind of idiot.
04-bow

Well said.
04-26-2004 05:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 11,546
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 515
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #29
 
Motown Bronco Wrote:
Oddball Wrote:I don't feel like getting into the abortion debate, but I would like to correct something here. I was for invading Afghanistan. I would have been for invading Iraq if the current administration had been telling the truth, and had, as promised, built an actual coalition. The term itself, "anti-war", would seem to be a pretty silly label, as all rational, intelligent people should be against war. War is always a bad thing. It is just sometimes necessary. By the same token, if one is not ant-war, would they then be pro-war? That would take a special kind of idiot.
04-bow

Well said.
I agree.

And yours was a pretty fine post way up top, Motown. You are a clear thinker. I probably don't say that enough because we still disagree quite often.
04-26-2004 08:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #30
 
"Many times the topics introduced into the speeches (or, I should say, fist-waving chants) centered on universal health care, state-owned industries, the welfare state, slavery reparations, 'Free Mumia', and so on."

Universal health care is a socialist idea? You mean, as opposed to the wisdom of Keynesian 211% profits that we now have in our present "health care" industry? And if it's such a socialist idea, why are we setting universal health care up in Iraq?

A universal health care system sounds awfully democratic to me. All men are created equal (sing along with me here), etc.

State-owned industries? You mean, like American Airlines, United and their ilk? Or the state-owned defense industry?

The welfare state? It no longer exists. We're just pretending we have no homeless problem in America. Oh, right. I'm sure you meant corporate welfare, right?

Jews are due reparations but slaves aren't?

Is Mumia a socialist?

Anyway, I'd love to hear your explanation of how these few points you picked out represent socialism, much less why ignorning injustice is winning the hearts and minds of any American, much less Iraqi.

Back to the abortion debate, it all comes back to the nanny state, right Cons? You know what's best for all of us when it comes to sex, eh comrades?
04-27-2004 10:58 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #31
 
JBR's got a point here. The medical establishment in this nation is insanely wealthy and prices are going steadily up. Some medical firms, hospitals, suppliers, etc. are borderline monopolies, even down to the local, small-town doctor that sees everyone, whether they suffer from Herpes, want physician assisted suicide, or need that all-important prom-saving abortion.

Enter into the medical community the insurance bohemoths and their golf tournament sponsorship that bilks billions of dollars off of taxpayers and consumers alike.

After that consider the pharmaceutical barons who are exploiting the public at large, "hey look, we got a pill for everything! But don't do drugs..."

So I have some criticisms of the medical profession and all of its ancillary, parasitic corporations trying to suck off the profit(s). Does this make me a socialist? A communist?

If you ask the proto-typical neo-conservative, right-wing pigeon from outer space, say RebelKev or GrayBeard, then the answer is yes, anyone who disagrees with these clowns in anyway is a mother freakin commie SOB who deserves to die because he wants to take money from hard-working, beer-drinking, steak gobbling Amurcans and give it to crack ho's living in HUD developments so they can have abortions while smoking a rock.

I am not a communist, nor a socialist. I am a critic. I point out bad practices, evil-ness whereever it lurks in this nation. The medical lobby in this country is way powerful, they influence public health policy, elections and make money like it's going out of style. Then they turn around and whine about how poor they are, how their BMW needs a brake-job, how their country club membership is about to lapse, and their daughter(s) need their sorority fees for the next semester. Then they whine and cry because there's some lawyers out there they can't pay-off and have to actually hire another one to get out of some malpractice case (oh yeah, I read an interesting trail of data posted on an appeals court website that suggested that 98% of all malpractice judgements were never awarded...NEVER, meaning no one paid although a judge ordered them to). These friggen doctors and insurance companies litigate these cases forever, and consequently judgements are never awarded, even in cases settled by the defendants out of court!!

Am I advocating re-distributive wealth, or even free healthcare for all? NO!

All I am saying is, there must be some, SOME regulations on exploitative industries like medicine, pharmaceuticals, insurance, etc. They all have their hands in our back pockets, whether it's the normal prostate check at the family physician's office, the monthly insurance bill in case we get really sick, to the daily dose of Zoloft or Prozac that keeps us in bliss as we go to our suck-arse jobs to make money for doctors, State Farm, and Glaxo-Smith Kline.
04-27-2004 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GrayBeard Offline
Whiny Troll
*

Posts: 33,240
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 901
I Root For: My Kids & ECU
Location: 523 Miles From ECU

Crappies
Post: #32
 
Klutz...let me first say you make a lot of really good points/observations, and I agree with many of them. Then you take a pot shot at myself and rebelkev, way to be the big man round these parts.

So, what do you suggest to alleviate this issue? (yeah, you left out solutions)
04-27-2004 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MaumeeRocket Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,058
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #33
 
joebordenrebel Wrote:As usual, we are "spinning" into outerspace with the abortion thread (sorry, the pro-killer thread).

And thank you for the nutjob jab! Glad to know you cannot meet my arguments and thus resort to lazy-minded name calling.

Anyway, before we discuss war (just and unjust), the social safety net of the Great Society and Western Civilization since the Magna Carta, I'd like to pose just one question:

Will people continue to seek abortions whether they are legal or not?
Im sure you never engaged in name calling :rolleyes:
04-27-2004 05:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Motown Bronco Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,165
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation: 255
I Root For: WMU
Location: Metro Detroit
Post: #34
 
joe,

Universal health care = Additional forced extraction of funds from A to pay for the health insurance of B = socialist idea.

State owned industries = Additional forced extraction of funds from A to pay for industry B = socialist idea.

Slavery reparations = Forced Extraction of funds from A to pay for the harm done to B's ancestors (never mind if A's ancestors never even owned slaves, or were even in the US during that time period) = socialist idea.

Whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with these positions, each depend on a socialist component. Taking from Paul and giving to Peter, without the express approval of Paul, to "equalize society". I'm surprised I have to explain this simple concept to you.

Now, simply because someone may support universal health care or a stronger welfare system (and, yes joe, that includes corporate welfare) does not necessarily make someone a Socialist. But the above ARE socialist ideas in the rawest sense of the term.

Case in point: If I decide to forgo meat on every Tuesday, I'm not an all-out Vegetarian. But I've just added another vegetarian component to my diet.

Hope that clears things up. I can't possibly explain it any simpler.

You mentioned that universal health care "sounds pretty democratic". Well, I guess you're right. If 50.1% vote to institute a socialized health care system, then the other 49.9% have no choice but to comply.
04-27-2004 06:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wryword Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 974
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #35
 
joebordenrebel Wrote:So those in favor of choice are by definition "baby killers"? Care to explain that one, anybody?

And what in the hell is pro-socialist preaching?
Yes, JBR, by definition, those who favor "choice" favor baby-killing.

In 1973, when Roe was decided, much turned on notions of "viabiliity", or so the Court thought. In a pathetic attempt to show that this was not that strange of an idea, the Court went back as far as Republican Rome searching for something like precedent. But the distinction is irrational. Viability is not a precise moment or term of art, and in any event, there is no time from conception to birth that the embryo and then fetus is not uniquely human. That it may not be able to fend for itself for some months after conception is a fact, but hardly one that would then justify the position that it is not "human", and thus unworthy of the protection of the laws. The fact is that science cannot answer the question of when life begins. This being so, the Court was utterly insane then to conclude that there was some point after conception where life had not begun. Viability cannot be the measure of life. If it is, then on what ground would you object to our killing those who have been born but are not "viable",on account of disease or accident? What makes viability the end of the discussion? Should a person fall into a coma, is he less a person, unworthy of the protection of law? Why treat a fetus differently from one who was born? Viability? That is the distinction?

Also about viability: Any parent here knows that a fully developed baby is not viable,in the sense of being able to care for itself. It is a silly distinction to make "viability" in this "choice" context determinative when in fact no newborn is "viable", except with constant care.

Because there is no point after conception that the embryo that will become a child is not human and will develop into a "viable" child, absent some tragedy, every "choice" is baby killing. Conception to birth is a continuum, not just a series of trimesters.

In 1973, no one would have dared to advocate "choice" as a basis for partial term abortions. Yet now that horrid procedure is routine. Those children killed in this fashion could be "viable", had they been born prematurely instead of being pulled from the womb and stabbed to death. I am glad the slippery slope argument is laughed at, because surely it is not proved here--right? So tell me more about the dignity of the "choice" argument. What we do now is baby-killing, in a literal sense. What we are doing is a grave evil, and I for one hope that each member of the Supreme Court who voted with Blackmun, and Blackmun especially, spends all eternity seeing and hearing the souls of the tens of millions for whom they signed death warrants. Indeed, it would be just if they were required to spend eternity suffering that cruel fate, again and again.

Had the citizens of the country been consulted, if they were consulted now, a thing the Death March people would never do, it would be a matter left to the individual states to determine, which is as it should be. By their legislatures or by referendum. I believe a sizeable majority would reject this hideous practice. It would not make "choice" any less evil, but at least the citizens of those states could choose whether to have a slaughter of innocents. They could choose whether to have the blood of "products of conception" upon their head. And these "products of conception" do have blood to shed, old boy.

I think one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard, and hear often, is the thing that, well, we have to protect women against back alley coat hanger abortions. Now we know that the statistics presented to the Supreme Court in this regard were false -- highly overstated. But beyond this, would we indeed make burglary a legal thing to do because some burglars get shot while in the act? This is what those fools of the "choice" crowd argue. If I were you, JBR, I'd rather keep more intelligent company.
04-27-2004 06:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #36
 
GrayBeard Wrote:(yeah, you left out solutions)
About the pot shots, if you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

JBR and myself deal with all the insults launched at us, insults far worse than "right-winged pigeons from outer space..."

Insults directed at me and JBR have been of the far too personal variety, i.e. Anti-American, America-haters, commie bast*rds, etc. (do you all realize exactly how inappropriate it is to call some one anti-American or America-haters? That is the worst insult one can levy at me because I love this country. If I didn't love it, I wouldn't be so critical, I'd just wouldn't say sh*t about problems we have as a nation if I truly hated this country).
Then there are the ever more personal insults, i.e. insane, nutjobs, wackos, loose cannons, etc.

Because you and other conservatives may disagree with JBR and myself, this leads to you guys insulting us, yet that does very little to discredit the comments, observations and arguments we post. You may dislike and disagree with what we say, but if a certifiably insane person said 2+2=4, then what that insane person said is still true, regardless of the fact they are insane.

Nonetheless, I find it laughable that you are now bellyaching about pot shots (taken in good fun) toward you and RebelKev given that the conservative crowd over here gets far, far more personal and innappropriate with their insults of those they may disagree with. At least my insults directed at you and other neo-con pigeons are creative and funny.

On solutions, did you read the post? I mentioned REGULATIONS.

There must be some independent watch-dog kind of agency to oversee the medical profession, insurance companies and pharmaceutical bohemoths like Glaxo-Smith Kline.

Are you aware of the Food and Drug Administration? You know, the government org. set up to test drugs before releasing those experimental drugs for public consumption. Their intent was to make pharmaceuticals safer for the general public and when this org. was created, politicians claimed it was to be an independent org. so that its findings would maintain credibility.

Do you know who approves drugs for the FDA? A panel of pharmaceutical representatives from the nations largest corporations, i.e. Johnson and Johnson, Dow-Hickam, Bristol-Myers and Eli Lilly. The latter company has more products on the market today, more new drugs such as anti-depressants, and Eli Lilly recently paved the way for opening up prescriptions of SSRIs to children as young as six years old. This, of course, doesn't account for the pharmaceutical companies that have been giving school aged kids drugs such as Adderall and Ritalin for years.

In case you don't know, Adderall and Ritalin is speed--amphetamines. It is not much different from the stuff junkies cook up in the trailer parks.

The FDA has relaxed their own rules at urging from FDA panel members, who are also employed by the aforementioned pharmaceutical companies. One example of a relaxed rule was prescription drug advertising on television. Since this rule was overturned in roughly 1994, today almost every other commercial on TV is for some pill that will make you feel great, i.e. Zoloft, Viagra or Celebrex.

Consequently, Americans collectively spend more on prescriptions than have ever before in our country's history. One dot-gov. site estimated that a typical family of four with median age at 33 spends roughly 45% of their annual income on prescriptions.

Don't believe me, see http://www.breggin.com and click on the link he has about the FDA.

Now, about physicians, those dudes are in collusion with the insurance bohemoths. I caught them once double-dipping.

I went to a quickie medical clinic on a Saturday once (part of a hospital; the clinic being set up to take heat off the emergency room). After seeing the doctor, I told them I had insurance (I did), but I didn't bring my card with me, and just paid with a check.

They then sent me from the clinic to the hospital for an MRI, claiming the insurance would reimburse me for the expense. After I paid over $1500 medical bills with a personal check and never received the paper work to file with the insurance, hospital billing said they'd file it for me, nevermind that I didn't have my card and they didn't have my information.

Nonetheless, I paid the hospital bill with a check, and low and behold four months later, my insurance company had been billed for the same procedures. They sent me a note saying they paid the claim, meaning they paid the clinic and hospital after I paid them with a personal check. What the fock?

Consequently, I was never repaid for the MRI despite having already met my deductible that year. To add insult to injury, you know how they got my insurance information? They contacted my regular physician and his office sent them a copy of my Blue Cross insurance card.

I confronted a lackey at hospital billing about this, showing them all the pertinent paper work. After they heard me out, they asked why I was there. I told those bee-atches that I knew they double dipped and had the evidence to prove it, and I'd be turning them in to the state insurance commissioner. The lackey behind the counter became very defensive and threatened to call security. I was calm, collected yet confrontational and the lackey told me she was calling security because I was levying an accusation against the reputation of the medical center. What B.S.!!

Well, I turned them in and found out later the insurance commissioner was investigating over 50,000 other such cases in Mississippi alone--cases in which hospitals and/or doctors charged both the patient and the insurance company for the same bill.

So, solution: regulation!!!

The state insurance commissioner has a skeleton staff in Mississippi--because their budgets have been cut by Kirk Fordice &reg;, Ronnie Musgrove (D), and now by Haley Barbour &reg;.

So how can regulatory agencies regulate without a staff, and how can safety agencies look out for consumers when their reps are part of the drug supplier?

So, I guess you will claim regulations are a.) communist, b.) a tax boondoggle, c.) unnecessary because I'm freakin' crazy, or d.) doctors and insurance focks deserve to get rich off of joe public like myself.

Taxes are a great thing. Everytime we bomb a nation, those pilots and their support staff are getting taxpayer dollars in their paychecks. B2's don't bomb for free.

So my solution is, quit focking bombing other countries and worrying about their problems until we fix our own!! And in response to that statement, don't give me any garbage about how the Iraqis were sailing up the Potomac about to sack Washington. 05-nono
04-27-2004 06:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DukeofDrums Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 703
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Western Hills
Post: #37
 
Let's see, the same ones who march to kill babies...
march to protest war so we don't kill the enemies babies...

So they want to kill our own, and save the world's population...

Makes sense to me...I guess...umm...

:space:
...:beam:...
04-27-2004 09:07 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 52,971
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2415
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #38
 
There are stages of abortion where the fetus isn't alive.

Are you not in favor of abortion in the case of:
- Rape
- Incest
- Under 21

?

And because I can hear objections to under 21 already... it's more times than not unsafe, and almost always unplanned. Condoms break. Pills don't work. The day after pill doesn't alwasy work. Etc. In today's very sexual society, it happens more. Instead of ruining a teens education and chances at a respectable life... give them another option.

I also find it stunningly pompous to say what other people can and can't do. Legit arguments start when the fetus can be considered a live organism with rudamentary thought.
04-27-2004 09:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Offline
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 11,546
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 515
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #39
 
Wryword Wrote:Because there is no point after conception that the embryo that will become a child is not human and will develop into a "viable" child, absent some tragedy, every "choice" is baby killing. Conception to birth is a continuum, not just a series of trimesters.
Most reasonable people would not see aborting a zygote as the ethical equivalent of baby killing.

You are correct in that there is a continuum. It is an ethical continuum as well. And I don't trust the government to draw bright lines in what is a sea of ethical grey.

Quote:In 1973, no one would have dared to advocate "choice" as a basis for partial term abortions. Yet now that horrid procedure is routine.&nbsp;

Just 1.4 percent of abortions occur after the 20th week. It is only in the 21st week or so that a so-called "partial birth" abortion could even be performed.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, estimated about 2,200 dilation-and-extraction abortions were performed in 2000, up from 363 in 1996.

"Routine" doesn't strike me as an appropriate word here.

It is noteworthy that the ban Bush signed into law last year contains no exception to protect the health of the mother. Abortion-rights groups argue this is usually the reason this procedure is used.

Quote:By their legislatures or by referendum.&nbsp; I believe a sizeable majority would reject this hideous practice.&nbsp;

It appears to me you are arguing here that sizable majorities oppose the right to an abortion, period.

This is not the case. A majority of Americans support some right to an abortion.
04-27-2004 09:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MaumeeRocket Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,058
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #40
 
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:There are stages of abortion where the fetus isn't alive.

Are you not in favor of abortion in the case of:
- Rape
- Incest
- Under 21

?

And because I can hear objections to under 21 already... it's more times than not unsafe, and almost always unplanned. Condoms break. Pills don't work. The day after pill doesn't alwasy work. Etc. In today's very sexual society, it happens more. Instead of ruining a teens education and chances at a respectable life... give them another option.

I also find it stunningly pompous to say what other people can and can't do. Legit arguments start when the fetus can be considered a live organism with rudamentary thought.
Im not aginst abortion on the following grounds, a charge of rape, the womans life is in danger, or incest. However im against people man and women or just women being irresponsible one night and taken that as being excuse to cover up for their mistake. Their are many people in the world that cant have children, maybe instead of some of these people only thinking of how a baby is going to ruin their life, why not think of the pople that want a child and would be willing to adopt.
04-28-2004 12:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread:


Copyright © 2002-2026 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group.