next »

[Baron von Bone]

They're called Republicans (Sorry, that was just too big a softball not to take a swing at!)

Yeah, but you missed! 

He's right, Russ.
 
They're TEA Party/hardliner types.
 
The adult Republicans have just lost control of the nursery ... for now.

[ronkny]

Yep. This is nothing whatsoever to do with science.

That's exactly what it is. Up until that group of cells can survive by itself outside the woman's body, it is simply part of her body. The body itself may decide to dispose of it. Only the advance of medical facilities has enabled extremely premature babies to survive and, unfortunately, can also ensure the survival of premature babies which, having had insufficient time in the womb, will never become viable human beings. You can even enable the survival, if only temporarily, of babies which have developed without brains. Revolting.

Human beings have no particular right to survive. They are just animals which, in many parts of the world, are dispatched by other animals (often their neighbours) with no care or thought whatsoever. Indeed, many Americans will blast away at their neighbours and feel themselves completely justified in doing so, and are also happy to see them disposed of by the prison system or in wars, or to let them die because they can't afford medical care. There are far too many human beings in the world anyway, so why so much fuss about a few unwanted blobs of tissue?

And what has ANY of this to do with whether things can be stuffed up inside a woman with no medical justification for the procedure?

Ultrasounds, abortions, pregnancy and mental health have nothing to do with science?  Maybe not in England but definitely in the rest of the world. 
So it's a blob until birth?  Trying to understand the new developmental biology. 
Why all the fuss about really old people?  Lets knock them off too.  And there are too many trumpet players in the world so we'll kill them too. 
A few abortions?  How about 50 million a year in the world.
1 every 24 seconds in the US or about 1.3 million a year.
How many Itzak Perlman's or Sir George Solti's or Mozart's or Barak Obama's are aborted each year?  Or scientists that could cure cancer or heart disease?  We'll never know.

[BGuttman]

...
1 every 24 seconds in the US or about 1.3 million a year.
How many Itzak Perlman's or Sir George Solti's or Mozart's or Barak Obama's are aborted each year?  Or scientists that could cure cancer or heart disease?  We'll never know.

Or how many Muslim terrorists, serial rapists, muggers, murderers, and Mafia Hitmen?

It works both ways, buddy.

[ronkny]

Or how many Muslim terrorists, serial rapists, muggers, murderers, and Mafia Hitmen?

It works both ways, buddy.

True. But I'm an optimist. 

[Baron von Bone]

Or how many Muslim terrorists, serial rapists, muggers, murderers, and Mafia Hitmen?
 
It works both ways, buddy.

Yeah, if you're gonna use that one you have to consider the odds, if you're honest ... so right Wingnuts can freely use it, I suppose, without recognizing how transparently disingenuous and feeble it really is.

[RedHotMama]

So it's a blob until birth?  Trying to understand the new developmental biology. 

You aren't talking science. You are intimating that a God-created "soul" suddenly appears when two cells fuse (conception itself being a random act, often occurring through ignorance, thoughtlessness or cruelty). I dispute this and maintain that, until the foetus is viable, i.e. can survive outside its mother's body, it is merely a PART of her body. I also dispute your concept of human beings as being "special". The overwhelming majority of the human race, including me and you, is an enormous, sprawling, ugly, selfish, mindless, destructive waste of space and resources, and the most terrible plague on an otherwise beautiful and innocent planet.

[BGuttman]

I might even expand on your statement and say that "soul" is learned over the first 2 decades of life after birth.

ronkny, you have a quote from Reagan about babies and government.  You should think about the implication.  How can you say that a baby has anything except a large appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other?

[Baron von Bone]

You aren't talking science ...

Clearly, but how do you know? You're keen to accuse me of "claiming to own a topic", or some such, when I recognize you're doing much the same thing. I've actually had to explain to you, multiple times (until the benefit of doubt was ground into oblivion), how those who understand a topic can tell when those who don't try to ignore that little detail and freely opine away in obvious ignorance.

[RedHotMama]

That has got to be the ultimate post in this benighted section.

BvB supporting ronkny because I made a post refuting his obnoxious and reactionary comments.

I didn't realise you despised me THAT much, Byron.

[Baron von Bone]

Byron supporting ronkny ...

I'm pretty sure you can read better than that.
 
 ... though perhaps not when your emotions have hijacked your intellect.

[RedHotMama]

I think intellect plus emotions make a complete person and therefore should not be separated.

Ask Mr Spock.

This is what enables me to appreciate you as an intelligent and reasoning human being, Byron, but still want to knee you in the proverbials....

[Baron von Bone]

I think intellect plus emotions make a complete person and therefore should not be separated.
 
Ask Mr Spock.

And if your emotions are out of control they're a serious intellectual handicap ... ask Mr. Spock about that. Or, better, consult the Interwebs. Wikipedia is a good springboard, and for you, Google Scholar is useful for more scholarly material (not that I suspect you aren't already wise to them ... the Peanut Gallery is listening).
 

This is what enables me to appreciate you as an intelligent and reasoning human being, Byron, but still want to knee you in the proverbials....

Yes, you do seem to have issues with uncontrollably jerky knees.
 
It's also what prevents you, pretty completely now, apparently, from dealing with pretty much anything I write, rather than the straw men it seems you can't help but see instead.

[Russ White]

This is the equivalent to the State of Washington requiring that before you  replace a cap in a patients mouth, you are first  required do a pocket reduction on every tooth. whether the patient needs it or agrees to let you do it.

And, back on topic, still waiting for the dentist to explain how this would be different than the Va. law.

[Baron von Bone]

In this one the Catholics have it right and the Protestants are just flailing about rhetorically in protest.

[RedHotMama]

It's also what prevents you, pretty completely now, apparently, from dealing with pretty much anything I write, rather than the straw men it seems you can't help but see instead.

Looking back over our shared history, Byron, I think you started it.

No I didn't.

Yes you did.

No I didn't.

Y... oh, never mind.

[Baron von Bone]

Looking back over our shared history, Byron, I think you started it.
 
No I didn't.
 
Yes you did.
 
No I didn't.
 
Y... oh, never mind.

Heh ... I may very well have started it, though I clearly have a very different concept of it, and have mostly ignored it in recent years, generally only delving into it when my name is mentioned or when it lands too near me to avoid the offense to my personal sensibilities.

[ronkny]

And, back on topic, still waiting for the dentist to explain how this would be different than the Va. law.

"This is the equivalent to the State of Washington requiring that before you  replace a cap in a patients mouth, you are first  required do a pocket reduction on every tooth. whether the patient needs it or agrees to let you do it. "
That would be required if the patient had advance periodontal disease.  You don't place a "cap" on a tooth that has a poor foundation.  And since Perio disease in one pocket can affect the entire mouth, you make sure that no other areas have disease.
An ultrasound is diagnostic.  Perio pocket reduction therapy is  treatment.  
Nice try though.
Doing an ultrasound would let the patient see what they are about to kill so they totally understand the consequences.  Why a vaginal vs an abdominal, I don't know.

[ronkny]

That has got to be the ultimate post in this benighted section.

BvB supporting ronkny because I made a post refuting his obnoxious and reactionary comments.

I didn't realise you despised me THAT much, Byron.

"BvB supporting ronkny because I made a post refuting his obnoxious and reactionary comments."

I think I disagree or agree.  Most of what he writes is unintelligible by design or by a poor education.  I don't know which.  Don't be fooled by long run on sentences, hanging participles, fragmented sentences and other blatant grammatical errors that are so puzzling, one could come to the conclusion that his intelligence is beyond reproach and We are just too stupid to comprehend.  It's not.

[sly fox]

The Virginia Gov now wants the bill changed:

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.cfm?id=1148

. . . Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill. I am requesting that the General Assembly amend this bill to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily. I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age. Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision.

I have requested other amendments that help clarify the purposes of the bill and reflect a better understanding of prevailing medical practices. It is my hope that the members of the General Assembly will act favorably upon these recommendations from our office. We will await their action prior to making any further comments on this matter."

[Najataagihe]

! ! ! STOP THE PRESSES ! ! !

DIG OUT YOUR CALENDARS AND MARK THIS DAY ! ! !


BRUCE AND I AGREE ON SOMETHING ! ! !


To wit:

I don't believe I have any legal standing dictating my views to the stranger.  And neither do you.

Nunya.


Take out the word "legal" and you have the entire Truth Of The Matter.

Abortion is not the government's business.

Neither is religion, firearm ownership, marriage and a host of other activities wherein folks try to force their opinions on everybody else by using "the Law" as a weapon.

Had legislators had the good sense to do their jobs, instead of pursuing personal enrichment, this nonsense would never have seen the light of Congress.


ANY time a law is proposed "for someone's own good," it should be tossed into the trash, immediately.

The result of not doing so is the kind of silliness documented in various places throughout this thread.