Ann Romney: Housewife extraordinaire....

[lilpixieofterror]

And legally declaring that life began at conception wasn't much smarter -- isn't it interesting how dumb laws tend to work together?

Not really because you do know that many societies have counted the date of conception as the 'birth date' right? The problem with it is that not everybody was born 9 months after they were convinced, plus figuring out the conception date is a little bit of a hit and miss. The day you were born though, is more concrete, so thus the reason we tend to use that date.

Column a, column b -- some people literally aren't ready for the responsibilities; they need to be eased into it gradually.

And is treating them like children going to make them ready? There comes a time that the training wheels have to come off, plus that is what child hood is for.

Nothing random about it, really -- the political reality is that certain Republicans, especially those in power, are so intent on smearing Obama that they'll happily gut anything associated with him.

And political reality also is intent on smearing Bush with anything and everything, works both ways.

Did the same thing happen with Bush? of course, but that's not the point; Bush hasn't been relevant since 2008.

Yet I still find many things blamed on him, 4 years latter. One does have to wonder when blaming the last guy stops working...

I would suggest that it's not random stupidity, but a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Blunt got what he wanted, so he didn't look into the consequences of his actions. But we agree -- there's a lot of that going around.

Which is stupidity, for the most part.

We live in a very technical world, which is one of the reasons the laws need to be as detailed and complex as they are -- for every law, there will be a thousand people looking for a "technical" way around it.

And the reality is, you can't get around in. No matter how much you explain something, somebody will try to argue there way around it. It is harder though when laws are upfront and easy to understand.

Have we gone overboard with that? Probably -- but there are those who find too many rules to be preferable to not enough.

Which is silly thinking, too much of something is in many cases, as bad for you as too little. Iodine is something you need to live, so do you start drinking it like it's water? If you want to die, go ahead and do it. Likewise, you can die from almost anything, from water, to oxygen, to food, to meds, etc, in too large quantities. What is the moral of this? Too many rules is as destructive as too little rules.

Which is, IIRC, the only reason the bill was eventually defeated. The issue wasn't in the philosophy behind the law, but the enforcement of it.

So if it could've have been done, should it have been?

No, too many variables to get a consistent result from and in many cases, causing a miscarriage is almost as dangerous to mom as it is to baby.

By "we," do you mean we as individuals, or do you mean the government?

Anybody, why do we have the right to determine that somebody should die based on the fact they are not born yet?

Then we wouldn't be having this discussion, and we'd be none the wiser for it.

I believe it was Mark Twain who once said, "I was dead for millions of years before I was born, and it didn't inconvenience me one bit."

Which is wrong, you were not dead, you were yet to be born. To be dead, you first have to be alive. Quite silly, from the onset.

It's not always about the "good" or the "better" choice -- it's often about the more important choice between "bad" or "worse."
And that's if what you're talking about is a person who can even be "killed" -- that distinction is a no-brainer for you, but for others,It's a difficult matter which merits deliberation. You're not just proposing to do their thinking for them, you're proposing to have the government do their thinking.

No, I am proposing that life is to be protected, having the 'right' to put your own child to death for simply being an inconvenience to you shouldn't be anything right at all. It is sad really, we condemn the Romans for killing baby girls and here we are, killing the unborn in massive numbers, all because we determine that birth magically bestows the right to life upon it. What is the difference between the two? Those societies didn't have the technology to kill the unborn before they were born nor had the ability to determine the sex of their baby and thus they had to wait till they were born to find out if they were worthy of life. Yet, that is 'barbaric', but killing them before they are born isn't. Interesting how that works, isn't it? Perhaps you can explain why our society allows us to kill our children in the early stage of pregnancy, but not the later? What is the difference?

People's decisions risk the lives of others all the time. We trust them to not make such decisions without weighing all the facts -- and yet, the government is empowered by you to unilaterally make such a decision with no thought whatsoever.

That is a strawmen my dear, but if you can explain how the vast majority of pregnancies are a danger to a women's life, please do so. Modern medicine has eliminated much of the risk with pregnancy. Also, where did I say 'no thought whatsoever'? Oh, I didn't, thus the strawmen. Most pregnancies are not a serious risk to life and heath, are they?

Not when it comes to religious beliefs -- for all the fundie cries of "persecution!" The government doesn't (nor should it) put itself in the position to judge the accuracy or sincerity of religious beliefs. The JWs believe what they believe, and it's no more the government's job to tell them they're wrong any more than it is to tell the Christians.

It is when it dangers lives or do you think we shouldn't be allowed to tell those that think it is ok to sacrifice humans at the alter that they are wrong? Now can the JW's prove that blood transfusions are not 'life saving care'? Nope, so as soon as they can, they might have a point. It is equal treatment under the law because every group would be required to do the same thing and no, digging up a hack isn't going to make their case for them. A good lawyer would rip such a witness up one side and down the other.

No, in this specific case, you're in the clear -- but the law works on precedents, sometimes connected by a loose thread -- all it takes is a creative lawyer to turn your own ideas against you.

Then show it, thus far, you haven't, but asserted it. I can assert things all day, now please show that can and will happen. I'd love to see it.

I'm just saying -- have a care when you give the government the authority to judge the merits of a religious practice. You've given the government a tough leash to chew through -- limiting their power to "life-saving medical treatment," but they will try to chew through it.

Let them try, I doubt they will be able to show their case because they haven't yet to do it. I would love to watch The Watchtower try to make such a case, I doubt they would though because they haven't tried in the past cause I'm sure they know they do not have a legal leg to stand on. If they can prove that blood transfusions are not life saving care, let them, but I doubt they will or can.

Not hard at all -- and completely legitimate in the eyes of the government.

Which is fine, too bad I didn't argue against it.

So it's always a good idea to pay attention to who our "leaders" are often trying to please, and at whose expense.

They want to please those that will give them votes.

Not decent enough -- Romney's going to have to do a lot to shake his image of "just another Obama" -- the fact that that's more or less what he is (just a bit off of center, to the right instead of the left; small difference) means that he's going to have to go on the attack. And if the GOP wants to give him any hope in Hades of winning, they're going to have to join in.

He will not be able to. I'd be quite shocked if he ends up winning. Although the numbers are showing it will be a close race.

"The Buck stops here." Obama did inherit some problems from the previous administration -- but he didn't have to mention that nearly as often as he did in the beginning of his presidency.

That is cause 'blaming the other guy' is a pretty good strategy.

Which makes it a part of our current sociopolitical reality and thus, something we are now forced to deal with.

That is because they had this thing called 'common sense' and many were not looking for a quick way to make a dollar without any work.

The most obvious solutions often have obvious and not so obvious side effects -- The Temperance Movement in America saw alcohol as a blight on society, so they came up with the most obvious solution -- supporting prohibition. That had some unforeseen consequences, didn't it?

Unforeseen to those that are unaware of history, sure. Making something illegal rarely has had the effect of making it go away or the problems that go with it.

It's funny, but I've heard that same argument used in defense of capital punishment -- they know the justice system is imperfect; they know that dozens of innocent men have been exonerated before their execution; they accept that perhaps a few innocent men have indeed been put to death -- but killing a few innocent people is an acceptable price to pay -- needless to say, none of the people who make this argument have ever pulled the lever themselves.

I'm not a fan of capital punishment just cause of that fact. It is a little different though then those that want to start a legal battle or something. They started the fight, so you might as well finish it.

So, in matters of life and death -- for example, determining what is or isn't "life saving treatment," what's the acceptable margin of error? How many innocent people are you willing to let die?

I do love appeals to emotion, but i hate to tell you this, but medicine is always going to have a margin of error, but if you can prove that blood transfusions are not 'life saving care' or that most abortions are 'life saving care' you are welcome to it. We both know though that isn't the case, is it?

Yes, but negligence is a civil matter, not a criminal one -- the only people with standing to sue wold be the patients (or patients' next of kin, if it comes to that). In this case, the patients aren't complaining.

Here's the scenario: your law as you describe it, comes to pass. A girl gets "in trouble," and finds a sympathetic doctor who is willing to say, "Susan here is at high risk for [insert medical mumbo-jumbo here], and it is my professional opinion that an abortion is a necessary and potentially life-saving measure."

maybe he's lying, maybe not -- but a court case takes time that the patient doesn't have -- if the doc's right, you lose the fetus and the girl.

Sad to say, sometimes that might have to be done? How many times would you consider acceptable?

I love emotional appeals, but it's rather easy. If it was 'life saving', why did she had to look around to find a doctor that supported what she wanted to do anyway? I know responsibility for actions, it is a lot to ask for.

[Nathan Poe]

Not really because you do know that many societies have counted the date of conception as the 'birth date' right?

I also know that ours isn't one of them, so what's your point?

And is treating them like children going to make them ready? There comes a time that the training wheels have to come off, plus that is what child hood is for.

True -- alas, while the law has drawn a hard line in the sand as to when childhood ends and adulthood begins, reality does not always comply -- some are ready sooner, some later.

And political reality also is intent on smearing Bush with anything and everything, works both ways.

What does any of this have to do with Bush? It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Now, if it's not too much trouble for you, would you care to get back on topic?

Yet I still find many things blamed on him, 4 years latter. One does have to wonder when blaming the last guy stops working...

If it ever did, I suspect that people would stop using it. Obama's problems are sometimes blames on Bush, Bush's problems were sometimes blamed on Clinton, the cycle goes on and on.

You and I, however, are smart enough to know that a president must assume responsibility for his actions during his administration -- let's stay focused.

Which is stupidity, for the most part.

To be more accurate, I'd call it shortsightedness -- a very specific form of stupidity.

And the reality is, you can't get around in. No matter how much you explain something, somebody will try to argue there way around it. It is harder though when laws are upfront and easy to understand.

Easier to understand doesn't always mean the same as short and simple -- laws need to be detailed so as to provide as little wiggle room as possible for those who would exploit them.

Which is silly thinking, too much of something is in many cases, as bad for you as too little. Iodine is something you need to live, so do you start drinking it like it's water? If you want to die, go ahead and do it. Likewise, you can die from almost anything, from water, to oxygen, to food, to meds, etc, in too large quantities. What is the moral of this? Too many rules is as destructive as too little rules.

Agreed, so if we are to err (and we will), which side shall we err on?

Truth is, I'm with you on this one -- I'd much rather have too few laws than too many. But the unfortunate reality is that six billion people are not going to play nice without some very strict ground rules... and there will always be malcontents trying to buck the system.

No, too many variables to get a consistent result from and in many cases, causing a miscarriage is almost as dangerous to mom as it is to baby.

My understanding is that shoving a coat hanger up in there isn't that much of a picnic, either. Don't underestimate what a scared and desperate young woman will do when there are no other options.

Do we at least agree that the philosophy behind the law was flawed? That it was more than simply a question of enforcement?

IF a fetus is a human life, and IF that human life dies while under the care (the closest and most intimate care possible) of the mother, then why shouldn't the police investigate that death as a possible homicide? Let's face it -- there's a very short list of suspects in such a case.

Clearly something besides enforcement is flawed in the thinking -- but what?

Anybody, why do we have the right to determine that somebody should die based on the fact they are not born yet?

For the same reasons we determine that anyone should die -- you want a fair, objective, and non-arbitrary set of criteria? I'm afraid it doesn't exist.

Warfare, capital punishment, self-defense and "stand your ground" laws -- we've given ourselves the right to kill, so long as the killing meets the standards we've set for ourselves. One can claim that we got those standards from God or some other higher power, but He's not the one pulling the trigger -- nor is He the one justifying it after (or sometimes before) the fact.

Which is wrong, you were not dead, you were yet to be born. To be dead, you first have to be alive. Quite silly, from the onset.

Emphasis mine. I couldn't agree more -- although, literalism aside, Twain raises some interesting issues (which would be off topic, so we won't go into them here).

Even under the premise that a fetus is a separate life, we've already discovered that not all life is sacrosanct -- we've got plenty of situations where the taking of life is acceptable -- of course, you probably don't agree with many of those circumstances; that's okay, neither do I. But nobody asked our opinion; those circumstances exist because we, as human beings with moral sense, put them there. Any rule we make, we can amend.

And they didn't ask our input for the original rules, so why should they ask it for the amendments?

No, I am proposing that life is to be protected, having the 'right' to put your own child to death for simply being an inconvenience to you shouldn't be anything right at all. It is sad really, we condemn the Romans for killing baby girls and here we are, killing the unborn in massive numbers, all because we determine that birth magically bestows the right to life upon it.

At the risk of going off topic, there are a lot of worse things out there in history -- the Romans of the time were among the mild ones.

What is the difference between the two? Those societies didn't have the technology to kill the unborn before they were born nor had the ability to determine the sex of their baby and thus they had to wait till they were born to find out if they were worthy of life.

They didn't need to -- they, like so many other societies (including our own) have so many other criteria to determine who is or is not worthy of life.

Yet, that is 'barbaric', but killing them before they are born isn't. Interesting how that works, isn't it? Perhaps you can explain why our society allows us to kill our children in the early stage of pregnancy, but not the later? What is the difference?

Who says there has to be? We can act all holier-than-thou at those primitive societies, and turn a blind eye to our own atrocities, or the ones of those we happen to agree with -- or worse, excuse them by saying "well, at least we're not as bad as the Romans..." All that proves is that we're hypocrites.

I for one, am not going to condemn the Romans for their practice, while at the same time, praise the Jews, for example, for their wartime atrocities. I choose not to judge ancient societies by modern standards -- as I hope future societies will choose not to judge us -- I suspect that no matter what we do, they'll find us "barbaric."

I do, hoever, count myself lucky that I was not born into one of those eras -- especially not as a woman.

That is a strawmen my dear, but if you can explain how the vast majority of pregnancies are a danger to a women's life, please do so. Modern medicine has eliminated much of the risk with pregnancy. Also, where did I say 'no thought whatsoever'? Oh, I didn't, thus the strawmen. Most pregnancies are not a serious risk to life and heath, are they?

And the ones that are, do they matter? Even if we say 1% are at risk, shall they die to protect the sanctity of life? I ask because I've met too many "pro-life" activists who are more interesting in the idea of "preserving life" than the actual practice. I'm already pretty sure that you're not one of these people, but, in the interest of being thorough, I'd like to hear you say it.

It is when it dangers lives or do you think we shouldn't be allowed to tell those that think it is ok to sacrifice humans at the alter that they are wrong?

"Sacrifice humans at the altar"? You do like your hyperboles, don't you?

Now can the JW's prove that blood transfusions are not 'life saving care'? Nope, so as soon as they can, they might have a point. It is equal treatment under the law because every group would be required to do the same thing and no, digging up a hack isn't going to make their case for them. A good lawyer would rip such a witness up one side and down the other.

A better lawyer can do the same thing even if the doctor isn't a hack -- look at what OJ's "dream team" did to the DNA evidence.

Then show it, thus far, you haven't, but asserted it. I can assert things all day, now please show that can and will happen. I'd love to see it.

It was loosely related president which legalized abortion in the first place -- Griswold v Connecticut led to Roe v Wade. Griswold v. Connecticut also had a hand in Lawrence v. Texas. So it's happened before -- a case originally involving sexual activity was then used to legalize abortion, and then, overturned every anti-sodomy law in the country, all because of the Supreme Court's recognition of a "right to privacy" which didn't exist before those cases. From a strict Constitutionalist point of view, the Supreme Court made it up.

Now, you might look at that example and say, "well, that'll never happen again," or "Well, that was completely different -- apples and oranges." I answer: Famous last words.

Never underestimate the power of a sharp lawyer.

Let them try, I doubt they will be able to show their case because they haven't yet to do it. I would love to watch The Watchtower try to make such a case, I doubt they would though because they haven't tried in the past cause I'm sure they know they do not have a legal leg to stand on. If they can prove that blood transfusions are not life saving care, let them, but I doubt they will or can.

They'll try, no doubt -- they'll fight to their last breath for their religious beliefs. Would you expect them to do any less?

It will be fun to hear them shout "persecution!" after they lose. One more voice to the cacophony of people demanding special treatment.

Which is fine, too bad I didn't argue against it.

I'm happy you didn't argue against it -- of course, if I were a sharp legal mind with questionable ethics (arguably redundant, I know) -- I might look for a way to use and abuse my power under the guise of religion.

They want to please those that will give them votes.

And the voters keep falling for it time after time. Sad, isn't it?

He will not be able to. I'd be quite shocked if he ends up winning. Although the numbers are showing it will be a close race.

It ain't over till it's over. But I'm tempted to agree -- If Romney is elected, it won't be because he won, it'll be because Obama lost. Know what I mean?

That is cause 'blaming the other guy' is a pretty good strategy.

Going all the way back to Adam and Eve, in fact:

Genesis 3:11-13
[11] And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
[12] And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
[13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Hmmm.. didn't work the first time, but people have gotten better at it since then.

That is because they had this thing called 'common sense' and many were not looking for a quick way to make a dollar without any work.

Ever hear of Tom Sawyer and the whitewashed fence? As long as there has been honest work, there have been people looking for ways to avoid it.

For every system, there will be people looking for ways to cheat it.

Unforeseen to those that are unaware of history, sure. Making something illegal rarely has had the effect of making it go away or the problems that go with it.

So the simple solution didn't work -- in fact, it backfired on a massive scale.

I do love appeals to emotion, but i hate to tell you this, but medicine is always going to have a margin of error, but if you can prove that blood transfusions are not 'life saving care' or that most abortions are 'life saving care' you are welcome to it. We both know though that isn't the case, is it?

I don't need to prove that "most abortions" are life saving care -- I just need to find one doctor who will testify that this one patient (let's call her Susan Smith) needs a "life saving abortion." That shouldn't be too hard -- how will you prove that the doctor is lying? Do it quickly -- Ms. Smith can't afford to wait very long.

I love emotional appeals, but it's rather easy. If it was 'life saving', why did she had to look around to find a doctor that supported what she wanted to do anyway? I know responsibility for actions, it is a lot to ask for.

How do you know she had to look around? You only know because I told you. Fact is, all you know is that Ms. Smith shows up in court with a doctor on one side and a lawyer on the other; you know know where or why she chose him. How much time are you willing to waste to investigate? Hint: Don't dawdle -- the clock is ticking.

You said you'd allow life-saving measures. We both agree that abortions are usually not life saving measures -- but sometimes they are.

I presented you with one such case, and you rejected it. Which is a shame, because it turns out that this doctor is one of the few specialists in [insert medical mumbo-jumbo here].That's why she had to look around and find him. And just so you know -- he was right. Too bad you wasted all that time trying to prove him wrong. And for what?

I love emotional appeals too -- I'll especially enjoy the one Ms. Smith's next of kin gives to have your law repealed.

[lilpixieofterror]

I also know that ours isn't one of them, so what's your point?

It is just a line in the sand, we just draw age at birth cause it is easier to do.

True -- alas, while the law has drawn a hard line in the sand as to when childhood ends and adulthood begins, reality does not always comply -- some are ready sooner, some later.

And it has been my observation that those parents that are over protective are the ones that go wild when free from their parents.

What does any of this have to do with Bush? It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Now, if it's not too much trouble for you, would you care to get back on topic?

What does Obama have to do with this?

If it ever did, I suspect that people would stop using it. Obama's problems are sometimes blames on Bush, Bush's problems were sometimes blamed on Clinton, the cycle goes on and on.

You and I, however, are smart enough to know that a president must assume responsibility for his actions during his administration -- let's stay focused.

You brought it up.

To be more accurate, I'd call it shortsightedness -- a very specific form of stupidity.

Same thing, different name.

Easier to understand doesn't always mean the same as short and simple -- laws need to be detailed so as to provide as little wiggle room as possible for those who would exploit them.

Has making laws as detailed as possible stopped any exploiting going on? Nah, it just makes it easier because nobody really knows what is going on. If you do not know what the rules really say, how do you know if they are being exploited or not? You don't.

Agreed, so if we are to err (and we will), which side shall we err on?

Truth is, I'm with you on this one -- I'd much rather have too few laws than too many. But the unfortunate reality is that six billion people are not going to play nice without some very strict ground rules... and there will always be malcontents trying to buck the system.

Hummm, laws are getting more and more complex as we speak and yet... has that made the problems go away or are they still around? Too much is just as bad as too little, as everything around us shows. Rain is a good thing, but too much causes massive flooding. Wind blows in pollen and seeds across the world for plants to reproduce with, but it also was one of the causes of the dust bowel. You can have too much of anything, including laws.

My understanding is that shoving a coat hanger up in there isn't that much of a picnic, either. Don't underestimate what a scared and desperate young woman will do when there are no other options.

And yet, when I asked for evidence of this happening or will happen, none is presented. That is largely an urban legend that has no support behind it at all. It was made up, on the spot, to justify abortions with.

Do we at least agree that the philosophy behind the law was flawed? That it was more than simply a question of enforcement?

A misunderstanding of biology was the critical flaw in the plan. I don't know of too many ways, beyond an abortion, that will not cause serious harm to mother as well as baby.

IF a fetus is a human life, and IF that human life dies while under the care (the closest and most intimate care possible) of the mother, then why shouldn't the police investigate that death as a possible homicide? Let's face it -- there's a very short list of suspects in such a case.

Clearly something besides enforcement is flawed in the thinking -- but what?

This has already been explained, miscarriages are something that just happens and I know of no real cases where it is done on purpose in anything more then urban legends and myths that have little to no support behind them. In most cases, it is pretty obvious, pretty fast, if it was self inflicted or not and any hospital worth its reputation is going to run test to determine the reason. Police would be chasing their tails with all the cases.

For the same reasons we determine that anyone should die -- you want a fair, objective, and non-arbitrary set of criteria? I'm afraid it doesn't exist.

Warfare, capital punishment, self-defense and "stand your ground" laws -- we've given ourselves the right to kill, so long as the killing meets the standards we've set for ourselves. One can claim that we got those standards from God or some other higher power, but He's not the one pulling the trigger -- nor is He the one justifying it after (or sometimes before) the fact.

Yet, you're missing the point of this conversation, wars, capital punishment, self defense and stand your ground are done because there is already a grounds for killing of some type to go on, IE defense or a person committed a crime already. What did a baby do, beyond what naturally happens as the results of sex? Nothing, night and day my friend. There is a difference between shooting and killing a would be robber and going to an abortion clinic to get an abortion.

Emphasis mine. I couldn't agree more -- although, literalism aside, Twain raises some interesting issues (which would be off topic, so we won't go into them here).

Even under the premise that a fetus is a separate life, we've already discovered that not all life is sacrosanct -- we've got plenty of situations where the taking of life is acceptable -- of course, you probably don't agree with many of those circumstances; that's okay, neither do I. But nobody asked our opinion; those circumstances exist because we, as human beings with moral sense, put them there. Any rule we make, we can amend.

Too bad that the examples you produced, are night and day examples. Did a baby commit a crime and killed people? No. Did a baby go to war with a nation? No. Did a baby break into a house? No. Did a baby threaten your life? No. Sorry, none of these examples are valid in the case, unless you want to claim the unborn are a threat to life...

And they didn't ask our input for the original rules, so why should they ask it for the amendments?

Whatever that means...

At the risk of going off topic, there are a lot of worse things out there in history -- the Romans of the time were among the mild ones.

Which doesn't change my point. It is interesting that killing your children after they are born is wrong, but killing them before they are born is right. Why does birth magically bestow the right to live?

They didn't need to -- they, like so many other societies (including our own) have so many other criteria to determine who is or is not worthy of life.

Which doesn't make them anymore right, plus you forget the bases of the laws, self protection and/or criminals being punished. Are either two applicable in the case of abortion? Nope.

Who says there has to be? We can act all holier-than-thou at those primitive societies, and turn a blind eye to our own atrocities, or the ones of those we happen to agree with -- or worse, excuse them by saying "well, at least we're not as bad as the Romans..." All that proves is that we're hypocrites.

We are, we should strive to be better then them, if we really want to show ourselves as being more moral. All we have done is drawn the line where they couldn't. That is it.

I for one, am not going to condemn the Romans for their practice, while at the same time, praise the Jews, for example, for their wartime atrocities. I choose not to judge ancient societies by modern standards -- as I hope future societies will choose not to judge us -- I suspect that no matter what we do, they'll find us "barbaric."

Well, when we kill our children in the massive numbers we do. Should we see it as anything other then terrible and barbaric?

I do, hoever, count myself lucky that I was not born into one of those eras -- especially not as a woman.

Yep, me too, but we should strive to do better.

And the ones that are, do they matter? Even if we say 1% are at risk, shall they die to protect the sanctity of life? I ask because I've met too many "pro-life" activists who are more interesting in the idea of "preserving life" than the actual practice. I'm already pretty sure that you're not one of these people, but, in the interest of being thorough, I'd like to hear you say it.

Yes they do and it is just like any other decision a doctor has to make when they have a choice between mom or child, do the best they can and be sure that they make the right decision they can at the time.

"Sacrifice humans at the altar"? You do like your hyperboles, don't you?

It was a religious belief that was practiced in human history.

A better lawyer can do the same thing even if the doctor isn't a hack -- look at what OJ's "dream team" did to the DNA evidence.

You mean how badly the prosecution fumbled up and made many mistakes that allowed OJ to go free? That and how many people have the funds OJ did at the time?

It was loosely related president which legalized abortion in the first place -- Griswold v Connecticut led to Roe v Wade. Griswold v. Connecticut also had a hand in Lawrence v. Texas. So it's happened before -- a case originally involving sexual activity was then used to legalize abortion, and then, overturned every anti-sodomy law in the country, all because of the Supreme Court's recognition of a "right to privacy" which didn't exist before those cases. From a strict Constitutionalist point of view, the Supreme Court made it up.

Now, you might look at that example and say, "well, that'll never happen again," or "Well, that was completely different -- apples and oranges." I answer: Famous last words.

Never underestimate the power of a sharp lawyer.

Slippery slope fallacy.

They'll try, no doubt -- they'll fight to their last breath for their religious beliefs. Would you expect them to do any less?

It will be fun to hear them shout "persecution!" after they lose. One more voice to the cacophony of people demanding special treatment.

It would be quite fun to watch, but they are left with the burden of proof, modern medicine has already shown the use of blood transfusions on saving lives and the fact they do not base their belief in science anyway wouldn't help their case at all.

I'm happy you didn't argue against it -- of course, if I were a sharp legal mind with questionable ethics (arguably redundant, I know) -- I might look for a way to use and abuse my power under the guise of religion.

Last I checked, the slippery slope was a fallacy.

And the voters keep falling for it time after time. Sad, isn't it?

Many people are quite gullible.

It ain't over till it's over. But I'm tempted to agree -- If Romney is elected, it won't be because he won, it'll be because Obama lost. Know what I mean?

Yep.

Going all the way back to Adam and Eve, in fact:

Genesis 3:11-13
[11] And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
[12] And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
[13] And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Hmmm.. didn't work the first time, but people have gotten better at it since then.

Well, we are not battling the all knowing God either so well...

Ever hear of Tom Sawyer and the whitewashed fence? As long as there has been honest work, there have been people looking for ways to avoid it.

For every system, there will be people looking for ways to cheat it.

And has has the ever increasing complexity of our laws

So the simple solution didn't work -- in fact, it backfired on a massive scale.

Strawmen, where did I argue it will ALWAYS work and why is prohibition the 'simplest solution'? I think you might need a history lesson behind the temperance movement. In short, they believe alcohol conniption was a major factor in the abuse of women by their husbands or in child abuse, so they proposed that prohibition was to be enacted. The problem is that their argument is flawed from the start, granted many cases do involve alcohol to some degree, but the issue isn't the alcohol, all alcohol simply shuts down that filter between our actions/mouths and the brain and causes people to lose control. A better and simpler solution to prevent the problem of husbands abusing their wives and children is to teach women the tall tale signs of a future abuser, for us to raise our sons to respect the women in their lives, and to nail abusers to the wall when caught.

I don't need to prove that "most abortions" are life saving care -- I just need to find one doctor who will testify that this one patient (let's call her Susan Smith) needs a "life saving abortion." That shouldn't be too hard -- how will you prove that the doctor is lying? Do it quickly -- Ms. Smith can't afford to wait very long.

Where did I say a thing about calling the courts? The good doctor just better be willing and able to support his claim that it was 'life saving' when the time comes.

How do you know she had to look around? You only know because I told you. Fact is, all you know is that Ms. Smith shows up in court with a doctor on one side and a lawyer on the other; you know know where or why she chose him. How much time are you willing to waste to investigate? Hint: Don't dawdle -- the clock is ticking.

You said you'd allow life-saving measures. We both agree that abortions are usually not life saving measures -- but sometimes they are.

I presented you with one such case, and you rejected it. Which is a shame, because it turns out that this doctor is one of the few specialists in [insert medical mumbo-jumbo here].That's why she had to look around and find him. And just so you know -- he was right. Too bad you wasted all that time trying to prove him wrong. And for what?

Since I said not a darn thing about a court needed to make a decision right at that moment, this is non applicable. He just better be able to support his decision, when the time comes.

I love emotional appeals too -- I'll especially enjoy the one Ms. Smith's next of kin gives to have your law repealed.

I also love the ones that try to make me argue for things I never argued for. If you can show where I said a thing about calling a court for anything, you'd have a point. Where did I say that though?

[Nathan Poe]

It is just a line in the sand, we just draw age at birth cause it is easier to do.

And we choose whether not to move those lines in the sand.

And it has been my observation that those parents that are over protective are the ones that go wild when free from their parents.

I've seen that happen myself -- but I've also seen it work.

What does Obama have to do with this?

It is his law hat's being challenged -- by you and by people like Blunt. At least your changes are motivated by something besides spite.

You brought it up.

Fair enough -- then let's let it drop.

Same thing, different name.

It helps to be specific. Besides, there are many reasons one would neglect being circumspect -- stupidity is only one.

Has making laws as detailed as possible stopped any exploiting going on? Nah, it just makes it easier because nobody really knows what is going on. If you do not know what the rules really say, how do you know if they are being exploited or not? You don't.

And if the rules don't say something, who's going to say what's going on?

See my point? we replace one set of problems with another -- neither solution is perfect; we've just choen to err on one side as opposed to the other.

Hummm, laws are getting more and more complex as we speak and yet... has that made the problems go away or are they still around? Too much is just as bad as too little, as everything around us shows. Rain is a good thing, but too much causes massive flooding. Wind blows in pollen and seeds across the world for plants to reproduce with, but it also was one of the causes of the dust bowel. You can have too much of anything, including laws.

Just as you can have too few. Again, I agree with you -- obviously we'd all prefer just the right amount of laws, but if we're going to err, I'd rather we erred on the side of too few rahter than too many. But I can see why society in general has chosen to err the other way. I don't agree with it, but I get it.

And yet, when I asked for evidence of this happening or will happen, none is presented. That is largely an urban legend that has no support behind it at all. It was made up, on the spot, to justify abortions with.

So coat-hanger abortions are an urban legend? Would you say that all self-induced (I hesitate to use the term "back-alley," but there you go) abortions are similarly fictitious?

A misunderstanding of biology was the critical flaw in the plan. I don't know of too many ways, beyond an abortion, that will not cause serious harm to mother as well as baby.

And yet it wasn't a misunderstanding of biology which eventually defeated the bill -- nor, I am ashamed to admit, was the underlying philosophy that every miscarrying woman should be treated as a murder suspect -- it was simply the issue of the cost of enforcing the law that shot it down.

This has already been explained, miscarriages are something that just happens and I know of no real cases where it is done on purpose in anything more then urban legends and myths that have little to no support behind them. In most cases, it is pretty obvious, pretty fast, if it was self inflicted or not and any hospital worth its reputation is going to run test to determine the reason. Police would be chasing their tails with all the cases.

A quick google search showed me that self-induced abortions are far more than an urban legend. But if you say they don't happen, then I suppose there'd be no reason to pass laws against it.

Yet, you're missing the point of this conversation, wars, capital punishment, self defense and stand your ground are done because there is already a grounds for killing of some type to go on, IE defense or a person committed a crime already.

And who decided that that was grounds for killing? We did.

We decided that self defense was grounds for killing someone (which I wholeheartedly agree with, but that's not the point)
We decided that people who committed certain crimes forfeit their right to live -- and we decided which crimes those are (in a system we we both have some issues with, but again, that's not the point)

We made the rules without caring how "barbaric" they seem to others. And there are others out there who consider the United States' use of capital punishment to be nothing short of "barbaric," not that we care about their opinion)

What did a baby do, beyond what naturally happens as the results of sex? Nothing, night and day my friend. There is a difference between shooting and killing a would be robber and going to an abortion clinic to get an abortion.

Only a difference because some of us decided there was one. We as a society made the rules, we'll change them for whatever reason we want, regardless of the feelings of certain individuals such as you or I, my friend.

If we can say that a criminal can forfeit the right to live, or that a person with a terminal disease can voluntarily surrender that right, we can say that a person who has not yet been born has not yet earned that right. We draw the lines in the sand -- we can move them at any time for any reason.

Too bad that the examples you produced, are night and day examples. Did a baby commit a crime and killed people? No. Did a baby go to war with a nation? No. Did a baby break into a house? No. Did a baby threaten your life? No. Sorry, none of these examples are valid in the case, unless you want to claim the unborn are a threat to life...

Are those the only reasons a person will surrender their right to live? They are to you, but are they the only reasons, period?

Whatever that means...

never mind, then.

Which doesn't change my point. It is interesting that killing your children after they are born is wrong, but killing them before they are born is right. Why does birth magically bestow the right to live?

The line has to be drawn somewhere, does it not? we're just squabbling as to where -- a minor point in the big picture, really.

Which doesn't make them anymore right, plus you forget the bases of the laws, self protection and/or criminals being punished. Are either two applicable in the case of abortion? Nope.

Those are the justifications we put down to kill people. Why not put one more? Again, if the right to live can be given up or taken away, there must come a point where it has not been bestowed yet -- birth (or to be more specific, about six months before birth) is where the current line has been legally drawn.

We are, we should strive to be better then them, if we really want to show ourselves as being more moral. All we have done is drawn the line where they couldn't. That is it.

We're already more moral than them as long as we try to hold them to our morality. I don't know about you, but my morality exists independently of other people's -- I don't need to compete and show myself to be better than _____; living up to my own moral code is sufficient.

Well, when we kill our children in the massive numbers we do. Should we see it as anything other then terrible and barbaric?

Did the ancient Romans? Did the Old Testament Jews?

Yep, me too, but we should strive to do better.

Agreed -- let's be better, but not better than them, better than who we are now.

(As you can probably figure, comparing us to ancient cultures doesn't really make for a convincing argument for me)

Yes they do and it is just like any other decision a doctor has to make when they have a choice between mom or child, do the best they can and be sure that they make the right decision they can at the time.

So let's let the doctors make that decision and not the lawyers and politicians.

It was a religious belief that was practiced in human history.

So why did you bring it up here?

You mean how badly the prosecution fumbled up and made many mistakes that allowed OJ to go free? That and how many people have the funds OJ did at the time?

point fingers all you want, but you've just helped me illustrate what good (and bad) lawyers are capable of. Imagine what would happen if the JWs were able to hire the Dream Team? It's not like they can't afford it; and with their religious beliefs being challenged, why wouldn't they hire the best?

Slippery slope fallacy.

Except 1: our legal system is based on precedent, so the potential consequences of a legal decision are not automatically a fallacy, but in fact something whcih should be considered, and 2: slippery slope fallacy only applies to future events -- I'm talking about events that already happened -- providing the evidence that you asked for; if it happened once before, it can happen again.

It would be quite fun to watch, but they are left with the burden of proof, modern medicine has already shown the use of blood transfusions on saving lives and the fact they do not base their belief in science anyway wouldn't help their case at all.

Modern medicine has also shown the value of DNA -- but the dream team creamed the prosecutors who dropped the ball on that one.

All a lawyer would have to do is point out a few cases where things went bad (blood type mismatches, failure to screen for AIDS, etc.), and argue that their clients' religious beliefs prohibit them from taking such risks -- no matter how small.

You might think this is ridiculous, and I would agree -- but so was the Twinkie Defense.

Last I checked, the slippery slope was a fallacy.

Check again -- exploring the potential consequences of one's actions is hardly a fallacy -- as much as I would hate to bring Senator Blunt back into the discussion, why were you against his amendment again?

Many people are quite gullible.

No argument there.

Well, we are not battling the all knowing God either so well...

Another reason it's gotten easier -- people are gullible, after all.

Strawmen, where did I argue it will ALWAYS work and why is prohibition the 'simplest solution'? I think you might need a history lesson behind the temperance movement. In short, they believe alcohol conniption was a major factor in the abuse of women by their husbands or in child abuse, so they proposed that prohibition was to be enacted. The problem is that their argument is flawed from the start, granted many cases do involve alcohol to some degree, but the issue isn't the alcohol, all alcohol simply shuts down that filter between our actions/mouths and the brain and causes people to lose control. A better and simpler solution to prevent the problem of husbands abusing their wives and children is to teach women the tall tale signs of a future abuser, for us to raise our sons to respect the women in their lives, and to nail abusers to the wall when caught.

A better solution, but a more complicated one -- education is difficult; banning is easy.

Don't get me wrong; I agree with you on all points -- but it turns out that complicated problems often have complicated solutions. Who knew?

Where did I say a thing about calling the courts? The good doctor just better be willing and able to support his claim that it was 'life saving' when the time comes.

And where shall he show up to support his claim? You've proposed the law -- who do you think is responsible for enforcing it? Who shall answer the challenges to it?

Since I said not a darn thing about a court needed to make a decision right at that moment, this is non applicable. He just better be able to support his decision, when the time comes.

Support it to whom? Who shall he answer to if not the courts?

You put this into our legal system -- like it or not, it's going to end up in the courts.

I also love the ones that try to make me argue for things I never argued for. If you can show where I said a thing about calling a court for anything, you'd have a point. Where did I say that though?

You didn't say it, because you didn't think it through. Don't worry -- I'll call it shortsightedness on your part, not stupidity.

You want a law; who else but the courts is going to enforce it? How did you think this was going to play out? Who is that doctor going to explain himself to?

[nickcopernicus]

Problem is Nick, two of your three examples are quite wealthy when compared to the situation of many people in the US. I don't know about too many starving, homeless, and car less brain surgeons and pilots, you? School bus drives are not as wealthy, but that is also because it's a lower skilled job then the other two. If you think anybody can be a CEO, try it and see how easy it must be.

Nick:
I gave more examples to show that there are plenty of middle class or poor people’s occupations that involve being responsible for other people’s lives. I never said being CEO was easy. I am only pointing out that they don’t have the exclusive domain of responsibility.

LPOT:
And I somehow doubt they are going to be left without a penny and on the streets. I doubt they are going to have to worry about if their transmission goes out of if their water heater starts to leak. By your logic, they would know nothing about real struggles.

Nick:
Yes, I doubt they will be on the streets. My original point was that a great deal of wealthy people (Buffett notwithstanding) will leave a great sum of money to their children. Hence, a great deal of wealthy people’s fortunes are dynastic. Of course, there are plenty of counterexamples to this claim. I would guess that many athletes and musicians earned their money on their own. Either way, there’s evidence both ways.

Nick:
I don’t think they’re bad people, they’re just beneath my station.

LPOT:
Why? What makes them so bad? Ann Romney isn't stupid, she has multiple degrees, and she seems to be rather active outside the home. Doesn't sound like Peggy Bundy to me at all.

Nick:
Since I specifically said I did not consider them (housewives) bad people, I’m not sure what you mean when you ask me what makes them ‘so bad.’
As to why they’re beneath my station, it’s simple. My social class is superior to theirs. Hence, they’re beneath my station.
I don’t recall saying Lady Romney was stupid. That fact that she has multiple degrees simply makes her an educated housewife.

LPOT:
I have a huge family group myself Nick. I have a mother, father, grandparents, brothers, uncles, aunts, and cousins and quite a few at that. Trust me, it's a lot different to leave your husband/wife and children behind then it is to leave your parents behind when you deploy. I've done both and no doubt, the later of the two is the hardest to do.

Nick:
I often hear that it’s different when one has a spouse or children of one’s own. Because I have neither I can only speculate on which one would be harder for me. Suffice it to say that it pains me greatly to be away from my family and friends.
Either way, I’m freaking tired of this place and will probably return to America near the end of this year or beginning of next.

LPOT:
You're the one that brought up that she is 'sitting around'. I don't see any evidence showing that, if anything she is a far from the stereotype housewife (IE Peggy Bundy) as night is from day.

Nick:
I don’t remember writing that she was sitting around the house. But it’s been a long thread and I probably did write something like that. So my bad.

LPOT:
We didn't spend anywhere close to 50,000 dollars Nick. Only an idiot that doesn't know how to shop and compare would end up spending that much. Ours wasn't even 1/10th of that price and that includes the wedding, the dress, the dress for everybody, the wedding party gifts, the reception, the catering, the cake, the place we got married, etc. Weddings do not have to be expensive and just like shopping for a car, do you buy the first car you see? Of course not, you look and compare and that is where we took the most time, looking and preparing. Those who spend 50,000 on a wedding are either big spenders, Hindus (they love big weddings, remember that if you ever date a Hindu girl), or just plain idiots that do not know how to shop and compare.

Nick:
Well, having never even so much as attended a wedding in my life, I have no idea how much they cost. They look expensive in most movies. Plus I was factoring in the price of the engagement ring. I know those can cost between $100 and the $5 million () that Jay-Z spent on his wife’s ring.
Either way, there’s a lot of better ways to spend money.

As for me marring a Hindi girl, that doesn’t seem likely, even though real™ Indians sure are good looking. I believe India is having a problem because those idiots are aborting a great deal of female feti. Both India and China value little boys over little girls. We’ll see how that works out for them when all they have is a bunch of dudes……gay.

Cheers,

Nick

[The Moonshield]

I don’t recall saying Lady Romney was stupid.

I doubt that stupid woman even knows how to pump gas.

[lilpixieofterror]

I gave more examples to show that there are plenty of middle class or poor people’s occupations that involve being responsible for other people’s lives. I never said being CEO was easy. I am only pointing out that they don’t have the exclusive domain of responsibility.

And if I would have said that only they have responsibility, you'd have a point. Since I didn't say that, you are responding to a strawmen. There's often a reason people pay CEO's lots of money, they are at the helm of a company and that job brings stress to go with it. I sure is something I wouldn't want to do.

Yes, I doubt they will be on the streets. My original point was that a great deal of wealthy people (Buffett notwithstanding) will leave a great sum of money to their children. Hence, a great deal of wealthy people’s fortunes are dynastic. Of course, there are plenty of counterexamples to this claim. I would guess that many athletes and musicians earned their money on their own. Either way, there’s evidence both ways.

Even if Buffett left 1% of his wealth to his kids, they would still have a ton of money more then most people would have (1% of 44 billion is still millions of dollars). Also, from what I've read, more rich have earned their money though their efforts then though inheritance. If you think this is wrong, go ahead and prove it.

Since I specifically said I did not consider them (housewives) bad people, I’m not sure what you mean when you ask me what makes them ‘so bad.’
As to why they’re beneath my station, it’s simple. My social class is superior to theirs. Hence, they’re beneath my station.
I don’t recall saying Lady Romney was stupid. That fact that she has multiple degrees simply makes her an educated housewife.

So your own prejudice is what makes it. You're the one that said that she didn't do anything, do I need to pull up the quotes, from this very thread to prove that?

I often hear that it’s different when one has a spouse or children of one’s own. Because I have neither I can only speculate on which one would be harder for me. Suffice it to say that it pains me greatly to be away from my family and friends.
Either way, I’m freaking tired of this place and will probably return to America near the end of this year or beginning of next.

I've done both Nick, it was easier to go when it was just my parents and brothers I was leaving then it is now.

I don’t remember writing that she was sitting around the house. But it’s been a long thread and I probably did write something like that. So my bad.

Well you did before Rogue produced a list that showed that was wrong.

Well, having never even so much as attended a wedding in my life, I have no idea how much they cost. They look expensive in most movies. Plus I was factoring in the price of the engagement ring. I know those can cost between $100 and the $5 million () that Jay-Z spent on his wife’s ring.
Either way, there’s a lot of better ways to spend money.

Rings depend all upon what you get. Mine isn't the cheapest one nor the most expensive one. It really depends on what you get, the regular bands are roughly 100-300 depending on what you get. One's with diamonds are about 300-700 and again, it all depends on what you get. Plus you got the material of the ring, the type of jewels (if any), the size of the jewels, the popularity, the rarity, etc. As for weddings, I've attended quite a few (that is what happens when you have lots of aunts, uncles, and cousins) and their cost all depends on those factors too. Plus, most of the wedding expenses are really not on the wedding itself, but on the reception (aka party) at the end.

As for me marring a Hindi girl, that doesn’t seem likely, even though real™ Indians sure are good looking. I believe India is having a problem because those idiots are aborting a great deal of female feti. Both India and China value little boys over little girls. We’ll see how that works out for them when all they have is a bunch of dudes……gay.

You've been to the middle east and far east, you know as well as I do what the rule there is about men and women (I think it's gross, but I will not repeat it here on T web just in case I get moded for it). Plus, the numbers in some of those countries is what, 85% men? In the west, I know that women are starting to outnumber men (lucky for you). Anyway, I mention Indian weddings cause they are some of the most elaborate and expensive weddings around. So if you're looking for simple, you might just want to move on (plus there is a number of Indian's here in the US too).

[nickcopernicus]

Nick:
Well, I guess I did. That's what happens when one is too lazy to check one's facts first.

[OtherCheek]

This thread and the comments I've seen thus far, appears to be mostly an attack on success. Jealousy that someone has been successful. More successful than themselves. If you want to see America follow the path of proven failures of Socialism in every situation it has every been tried, then vote for Obama.

[OtherCheek]

Women aren't aborted, fetuses are. You think God doesn't know what He's doing when those fetuses are created for Heaven?

How callous.

[OtherCheek]

I find it more amusing that a man who up until he became president never actually worked in his entire life, inside or outside his home would knock someone else for not working.

Community Organizing is hard work. Just ask Obama.

[Jaecp]

This thread and the comments I've seen thus far, appears to be mostly an attack on success. Jealousy that someone has been successful. More successful than themselves. If you want to see America follow the path of proven failures of Socialism in every situation it has every been tried, then vote for Obama.

Really?

I suggest you re-read the thread then.

[OtherCheek]

Really?

I suggest you re-read the thread then.

I appears to have changed after page 3 or so.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And she's doing the work of ten wives, at least.

[OtherCheek]

Ann Romney talks motherhood, illness and ordinary life
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...nary-life.html