Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Heeeeerrrrre's Nancy!
Topic Started: Nov 9 2006, 09:16 AM (815 Views)
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
Was it gross? Yep.
Was it necessary? Probably.
Was the right thing done? In my opinion, yes.

You want to criminalize what you think was a necessary and proper procedure under the circumstances. If it's ever necessary and ever right to use, why should Washington criminalize it? Why doesn't the association of ob-gyn doctors propose some ethical considerations for practitioners? Obviously this procedure is not something to be used frequently or lightly, but who is Washington to tell my daughter's doctor she can't legally have this procedure if it's right for her?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The key is viability.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Back to the initial subject...

I also found this quite interesting about Ms. Pelosi:

Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted YES on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Regulate wholesale electricity & gas prices. (Mar 2001)
Preserve Alaska's ANWR instead of drilling it. (Feb 2001)

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Read what I just wrote above your post. It's all about judgement. I want to hear from someone why this procedure is necessary other than to save mom's life or to end that of a non-viable fetus.

I'm all ears (except for the part that's mouth).
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
David Burton
Senior Carp
apple
Nov 9 2006, 09:22 AM
speaking of abortion...

i sense a new trend.

the incidence of premature births has risen dramatically with the use of fertility treatments.

how long before it will be deemed expedient to kill the premature? It seems a possibility especially when it is thought ok to abort a full term baby...

oh dear.

i saw news stories of parents complaining of the cost of raising 3 handicapped triplets.. the bills of course wiped them out with no end in sight.

You know, this sort of bothers me. My youngest daughter was about a month premature, no problems really. But in utero my wife’s gyno wanted to abort her because she showed signs of spin bifida and hydro encephalic complications. We actually went to an alternative practitioner who probably saved our child’s life and as I say she has no problems.

As for those who have handicapped children, there really does need to be some kind of community based help-healthcare for them. See, I’m not really a do or die conservative, more as I have said, a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. It’s a matter of what constitutes the common good.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 02:34 PM
Quote:
 
Was it gross? Yep.
Was it necessary? Probably.
Was the right thing done? In my opinion, yes.

You want to criminalize what you think was a necessary and proper procedure under the circumstances. If it's ever necessary and ever right to use, why should Washington criminalize it? Why doesn't the association of ob-gyn doctors propose some ethical considerations for practitioners? Obviously this procedure is not something to be used frequently or lightly, but who is Washington to tell my daughter's doctor she can't legally have this procedure if it's right for her?

46% of medicine in the United States today is paid for by the Feds.

As George said, the government already dictates what care and procedures you will receive.

And you ain't seen nothing, yet.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 03:34 PM
Quote:
 
Was it gross? Yep.
Was it necessary? Probably.
Was the right thing done? In my opinion, yes.

If it's ever necessary and ever right to use, why should Washington criminalize it?

because people want to use that reason to justify killing a baby

duh
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
David Burton
Senior Carp
LadyElton
Nov 9 2006, 11:00 AM
Yeah, considering the Nazis were ultra-conservative.

Nope, correction, they were National SOCIALISTS, which meant that the government controlled everything. Sorry.

But fascism = modern liberalism makes a lot of sense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
I would like to see some very specific information on what, exactly, this procedure seeks to prevent in the mother, and why it is "necessary" to kill the baby (viable child, in my book, we dispense with the 'nicey nicey language' of calling it a 'fetus' when it is viable...that medical terminology is merely a device to dehumanize the baby and help people along with their denial of exactly what it is) in order to prevent whatever fatal catastrophy is threatening the mother.

George, Bach...qualified medical personnel...give us the goods.

I'll withhold further comment until I see that (I don't want links from non-doctors to "expert witness" testimony...I want frank, honest, specific medical discussion, I'm literate enough in regard to anatomy, physiology and medicine to root through and attempt to grasp anything you can throw my way)

Except to say that you'd be wrong if you think that I would choose my life over the life of my viable baby. I doubt my daughters would either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
David Burton
Nov 9 2006, 03:40 PM
But fascism = modern liberalism makes a lot of sense.

It makes about as much sense as saying that the Nazis were conservatives. Sorry. The Nazis were Nazis, that's why they called them Nazis, as opposed to Social Democrats, who were what we would today call liberals. Hitler murdered and imprisoned all the Social Democrats as he blamed them for what happened to Germany after WW1. He liked Social Democrats about as much as he liked Jews and homosexuals.

Mr. Godwin's ears must really have been burning today.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 03:24 PM
JBryan
Nov 9 2006, 12:19 PM
So, my doctor thinks a .45 slug through the forehead is a necessary if rarely needed procedure. Why should a bunch of people safely ensconsed in Washington tell him any different?

I didn't know this was a medical procedure taught in medical school. And I thought doctors had an oath to do no harm.

Harm is certainly done to a baby in a PBA.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
apple
Nov 9 2006, 12:39 PM
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 03:34 PM
Quote:
 
Was it gross? Yep.
Was it necessary? Probably.
Was the right thing done? In my opinion, yes.

If it's ever necessary and ever right to use, why should Washington criminalize it?

because people want to use that reason to justify killing a baby

duh

Which people are those, Apple? Enough of the generalizing. Here's the law:

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
I note a few things:

1. Health care has always been a state matter; the feds have no jurisdiction. Unless, of course, they talk about interstate commerce. Funny, right? Notice what they did: "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion..." Anybody want to guess what that means? Does it mean that if my daughter lives in New York and has her partial birth abortion in New York, the law doesn't apply? Is it interstate commerce if she decides to use a New Jersey hospital?

2. There is no exception for the health of the mother, and here's why: "There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a "health'' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.." George, who is against the procedure, has admitted that the procedure may be necessary under certain limited circumstances. Who you gonna believe about medicine - doctors or politicians?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
1. Health care has always been a state matter; the feds have no jurisdiction. Unless, of course, they talk about interstate commerce. Funny, right? Notice what they did: "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion..." Anybody want to guess what that means? Does it mean that if my daughter lives in New York and has her partial birth abortion in New York, the law doesn't apply? Is it interstate commerce if she decides to use a New Jersey hospital?


I actually find this to be your most compelling argument against the federal ban. That "interstate commerce" trap door has been used far too often. However, on the state level I see no justification for allowing it to continue.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Nov 9 2006, 01:00 PM
Quote:
 
1. Health care has always been a state matter; the feds have no jurisdiction. Unless, of course, they talk about interstate commerce. Funny, right? Notice what they did: "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion..." Anybody want to guess what that means? Does it mean that if my daughter lives in New York and has her partial birth abortion in New York, the law doesn't apply? Is it interstate commerce if she decides to use a New Jersey hospital?


I actually find this to be your most compelling argument against the federal ban. However, on the state level I see no justification for allowing it to continue.

The federal Constitution can't be overridden by state laws or constitutions. So, as long as federal courts rule that the state laws infringe on women's US constitutional rights, the state laws will be struck down.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Nov 9 2006, 12:39 PM
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 02:34 PM
Quote:
 
Was it gross? Yep.
Was it necessary? Probably.
Was the right thing done? In my opinion, yes.

You want to criminalize what you think was a necessary and proper procedure under the circumstances. If it's ever necessary and ever right to use, why should Washington criminalize it? Why doesn't the association of ob-gyn doctors propose some ethical considerations for practitioners? Obviously this procedure is not something to be used frequently or lightly, but who is Washington to tell my daughter's doctor she can't legally have this procedure if it's right for her?

46% of medicine in the United States today is paid for by the Feds.

As George said, the government already dictates what care and procedures you will receive.

And you ain't seen nothing, yet.

Jolly: What are you talking about?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Quote:
 
Health care has always been a state matter; the feds have no jurisdiction.


That went down the tubes in 1964.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 04:04 PM
JBryan
Nov 9 2006, 01:00 PM
Quote:
 
1. Health care has always been a state matter; the feds have no jurisdiction. Unless, of course, they talk about interstate commerce. Funny, right? Notice what they did: "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion..." Anybody want to guess what that means? Does it mean that if my daughter lives in New York and has her partial birth abortion in New York, the law doesn't apply? Is it interstate commerce if she decides to use a New Jersey hospital?


I actually find this to be your most compelling argument against the federal ban. However, on the state level I see no justification for allowing it to continue.

The federal Constitution can't be overridden by state laws or constitutions. So, as long as federal courts rule that the state laws infringe on women's US constitutional rights, the state laws will be struck down.

That, as yet, has not happened.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Nov 9 2006, 01:06 PM
Quote:
 
Health care has always been a state matter; the feds have no jurisdiction.


That went down the tubes in 1964.

You're inscrutable today, Jolly. Stop being such a tease. What happened in 1964 that altered the balance of power between federal and state health law?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 03:11 PM
Jolly
Nov 9 2006, 01:06 PM
Quote:
 
Health care has always been a state matter; the feds have no jurisdiction.


That went down the tubes in 1964.

You're inscrutable today, Jolly. Stop being such a tease. What happened in 1964 that altered the balance of power between federal and state health law?

Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, rules.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Nov 9 2006, 01:07 PM
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 04:04 PM
JBryan
Nov 9 2006, 01:00 PM
Quote:
 
1. Health care has always been a state matter; the feds have no jurisdiction. Unless, of course, they talk about interstate commerce. Funny, right? Notice what they did: "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion..." Anybody want to guess what that means? Does it mean that if my daughter lives in New York and has her partial birth abortion in New York, the law doesn't apply? Is it interstate commerce if she decides to use a New Jersey hospital?


I actually find this to be your most compelling argument against the federal ban. However, on the state level I see no justification for allowing it to continue.

The federal Constitution can't be overridden by state laws or constitutions. So, as long as federal courts rule that the state laws infringe on women's US constitutional rights, the state laws will be struck down.

That, as yet, has not happened.

It has.

Here's one:

Michigan

and here's another big one:

Supremes 5-4 against Nebraska
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Nov 9 2006, 01:13 PM
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 03:11 PM
Jolly
Nov 9 2006, 01:06 PM
Quote:
 
Health care has always been a state matter; the feds have no jurisdiction.


That went down the tubes in 1964.

You're inscrutable today, Jolly. Stop being such a tease. What happened in 1964 that altered the balance of power between federal and state health law?

Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, rules.

You're not my wife. You can't make me beg.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 04:15 PM
JBryan
Nov 9 2006, 01:07 PM
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 04:04 PM
JBryan
Nov 9 2006, 01:00 PM
Quote:
 
1. Health care has always been a state matter; the feds have no jurisdiction. Unless, of course, they talk about interstate commerce. Funny, right? Notice what they did: "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion..." Anybody want to guess what that means? Does it mean that if my daughter lives in New York and has her partial birth abortion in New York, the law doesn't apply? Is it interstate commerce if she decides to use a New Jersey hospital?


I actually find this to be your most compelling argument against the federal ban. However, on the state level I see no justification for allowing it to continue.

The federal Constitution can't be overridden by state laws or constitutions. So, as long as federal courts rule that the state laws infringe on women's US constitutional rights, the state laws will be struck down.

That, as yet, has not happened.

It has.

Here's one:

Michigan

and here's another big one:

Supremes 5-4 against Nebraska

In both cases the laws were struck down because they provided no health exception for the mother so your language:

Quote:
 
So, as long as federal courts rule that the state laws infringe on women's US constitutional rights, the state laws will be struck down.


Is overly broad. The courts did not rule that the laws per se were unconstitutional. Only unconstitutional as written.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
You two are arguing past each other. The laws were struck down because there was no exception for protecting the mother's health. That, the courts have said, is an infringement on her Constitutional rights. It's also only one aspect of the law.

So you're both right. Yet you both need to insist that the other one is wrong.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 03:16 PM
Jolly
Nov 9 2006, 01:13 PM
Dave Spelvin
Nov 9 2006, 03:11 PM
Jolly
Nov 9 2006, 01:06 PM
Quote:
 
Health care has always been a state matter; the feds have no jurisdiction.


That went down the tubes in 1964.

You're inscrutable today, Jolly. Stop being such a tease. What happened in 1964 that altered the balance of power between federal and state health law?

Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the gold, rules.

You're not my wife. You can't make me beg.

Sorry, I was off one year. It was 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
QuirtEvans
Nov 9 2006, 04:27 PM
You two are arguing past each other.

That had actually occured to me.

Quote:
 
So you're both right.  Yet you both need to insist that the other one is wrong.


I actually agree with him in the limited sense I indicated but, as you said, that is why we are talking past each other.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3