|
New Clinton email controversy
|
 (October 31, 2016 at 6:59 am)Whateverist Wrote:(October 31, 2016 at 6:55 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: If I could roll my eyes any harder, my retinas would detach... Yep, people of that status would never been brought up on charges. If your wealthy and connected you will rarely see jail time for most any type crime you commit. You just pay a lawyer and write some nice checks and your off the hook.  RE: New Clinton email controversy
October 31, 2016 at 9:40 pm
(This post was last modified: October 31, 2016 at 10:56 pm by account_inactive.)
(October 31, 2016 at 9:35 pm)abaris Wrote:(October 31, 2016 at 9:25 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: I'm pro-choice. I somewhat agree with that and can see what you mean, but let's just say for example, there's a young pregnant women. She's put off having an abortion and the baby is almost developed yet she still doesn't want to have it - what is stopping her from going to a shady, "backstreet" place to have an illegal procedure done? That puts the mother at risk too. I don't really know what the answer is to be honest. 
The answer is for the government to tell the jesus fucks to shut up and get out of the business of interfering in personal medical decisions.
 (October 31, 2016 at 9:40 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: I somewhat agree with that and can see what you mean, but let's just say for example, there's a young pregnant women. She's put off having an abortion and the baby is almost developed yet she doesn't want to have it - what is stopping her from going to a shady, "backstreet" place to have an illegal procedure done? That puts the mother at risk too. There are instances where someone should make up their mind in time. There's ample time to do that. While I fully stand behind pro choice, I draw the line at almost developed babies. ![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
 (October 31, 2016 at 3:40 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:(October 31, 2016 at 11:07 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Ah I see. Eww, on so many levels...
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken. New Clinton email controversy
October 31, 2016 at 9:51 pm
(This post was last modified: October 31, 2016 at 9:52 pm by LadyForCamus.)
Doh! I meant to say pro-CHOICE in my above response to CL. *face palm*
I'm pro-choice. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.  (October 31, 2016 at 9:12 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:(October 31, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am fairly familiar with this because I was borderline preeclamptic when I was pregnant (due to the placental abnormalities) which can be life threatening and is only "cured" once the baby is out. If the mother's life is in immediate danger, the moral thing to do would be to induce labor or perform a C section. Abortion at late stages like this involve dismemberment and that is very painful for the baby who already has the nervous system fully intact. Luckily in my case, the baby died before it got to the point where we'd have to induce him while he was still alive. He wouldn't have survived outside the womb anyway because of how sickly he was, so at least he went peacefully on his own terms while he was still inside. But I do believe Tib is correct that late term abortion can also happen if the mother for whatever reason decides she no longer wants the baby (down syndrome or other birth defects, life changes, etc). States have different restrictions on abortions. Some have more conservative restrictions, others are more liberal. It depends on the abortionist too, and whether or not he/she deems the reasons "good enough" to warrant a late abortion. If a woman walks in asking for an abortion while she's pregnant with a baby on her 3rd trimester and she's an emotional mess because she lost her job and her baby's father broke up with her and she has clinical depression on top of it all, in some states it would be up to the abortionist's judgement whether or not to abort the baby. Other "reasons" could be if the baby was discovered to have some sort of disability that the parents did not want to deal with. As far as life threatening reasons go, as I said, I think the only justifiable option there would be to induce labor or to do a C section to try to save them both. Awareness/sentience in human development is on a sliding scale. It isn't an on/off switch. And even if it was, I don't see how not having awareness makes someone not human. Genetics determines an entity's species, not awareness. If someone was in a comma for 9 months and unresponsive and unaware during that time, does that mean it'd be ok to end their life without their consent? I don't think so.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh  (October 31, 2016 at 9:14 pm)abaris Wrote: Yeah, but that's not legal anywhere in the world. Apart from a life threatening condition of the mother and her giving consent. Um yes they are, under certain medical conditions. Anyway you do realise this is an issue that isn't even debated any more in most of the civilised world that isn't the USA or Ireland, right?
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK "That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke  (October 31, 2016 at 9:43 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The answer is for the government to tell the jesus fucks to shut up and get out of the business of interfering in personal medical decisions. But just before the jesus fucks (interesting turn of phrase there, by the way) do shut up, I would beseech them to explain why some of their Biblical edicts and strictures have to apply to EVERYONE, but some of those other edicts and strictures don't. And then there are some strictures that don't even apply to the faithful anymore. See where this scriptural cafeteria leads? God/Jesus/Holy Ghost aren't running the show, calling the shots, refereeing the game, or leading the way. It's the poohbahs, back room guys, the 'elders', and chieftains and captains directing the enterprise. And if the flock doesn't coalesce and capitulate to their way of doing things, we see another schism happening and then we have 2 back rooms with poohbahs and their ilk calling the shots, not GOD. It's tough to work up much allegiance/respect for such a system. The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
