Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 51 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 >  Last ›
   5001. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4222323)
Congress banned partial-birth abortion, the barbarity supported by many "pro-choice" extremists, including many on these boards.


Bullshit. Name one.
   5002. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4222325)
I do find it somewhat galling that abortion is primarily used as a method of contraception. The vast majority of abortions aren't performed because a woman was raped or because a woman's health would be endangered by the pregnancy but because two people failed to use contraceptives.


I wanted to address this post from last page. I think that this misses the mark when it comes to the reason for abortions. Abortion is an expensive, invasive medical procedure. Women don't get abortions because they were too lazy to obtain contraception any more than people have their scalp removed to avoid the hassle of going to the barber.

* Often, contraception fails. It's estimated that more than half of all abortions take place because of contraception failure.

* Women often feel pressured to have sex, or forego contraception, by their partners in ways that don't qualify as 'rape' according to the legal system but may result in them getting pregnant against their will.

* There are a lot of misconceptions about pregnancy out there, such as the idea that you can't get pregnant the 'first time', or that withdrawal is always effective, or that certain substances act as contraceptives, but don't.

In general, though, saying that "the vast majority" of abortions are performed as a substitute for contraception isn't that different in effect from the more traditional slut-shaming.
   5003. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4222326)
Abortions for some; miniature american flags for others.
   5004. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4222327)
########. Name one.

Several, as earlier threads on the topic make clear.

   5005. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4222328)
What reasonable argument is there to be had that those costs and implications should not be borne by the society that has determined that our theoretical 3rd party lays primary claim to the body of the 2nd party?


I have no problem with society providing free medical care to all pregnant rape victims. In practice, this is currently readily available through pro-Life charities.


Really? I didn't realize that pro life charities were so powerful. They can really prevent companies from firing or retarding a pregnant woman's career advancement? Who knew?
   5006. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4222329)
So if a cop happens to come across a man raping a woman he should just let him finish up first before arresting him?

Of course not. If you can stop the crime stop it. If you want to execute the rapist, be my guest.

My point is that once the damage has been done, you can't right the wrong by killing the baby.
   5007. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4222330)

With a life-of-the-mother exception, right?

Of course. Like all humans, the mother has a fundamental right of self-defense.


So you are in favor of abortion if the life or health of the mother is at risk, but opposed to D&E abortion? This does not compute.
   5008. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4222331)
The correct answer, of course, is no abortions after viability, abortions allowed before viability with a life-of-the-mother exception.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'd support that.
   5009. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:32 AM (#4222332)
So you are in favor of abortion if the life or health of the mother is at risk,

You added "health" there.
   5010. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:32 AM (#4222333)
Why do you keep ignoring the non-financial aspects? I mean, I can guess, but I want to see you write it.

Because there's nothing we can do about it.

Rape is going to cause trauma, it can't be undone. Killing your baby also causes trauma. There's no evidence that that trauma is less than the trauma of bringing the baby to term.
   5011. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4222334)
Killing your baby also causes trauma.

Evidence that abortion causes trauma?
   5012. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4222335)
My point is that once the damage has been done, you can't right the wrong by killing the baby.

But the damage hasn't been done it is ongoing. You don't get raped and then pop out a kid 5 minutes later. You get raped and then you have to deal with pregnancy for 9 months, child birth at the end of that, and then recovery after that. Rape doesn't end when the rapist pulls his penis out of a woman's vagina.
   5013. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4222336)
You know, I'd actually vote for a guy who had the guts to say that. Of course the chances of him ( or any politician running for national office) being even 10% as forthright as that are slim to none.


One day when I win the lottery I will run as the First Honest Politician.

In that case my BBTF posting history may actually help me.
   5014. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4222337)
Anyone who thinks the VP debates matter, that Biden vs. Ryan will materially impact the election is foolish.

I agree with this, but it doesn't make the notion that Joe Biden is going to clean Ryan's clock any less fall-out-of-the-chair hysterical.

Biden is the greatest personal life insurance policy a sitting president has ever had. Nobody with an iota of affinity for the country would even dream of laying a finger on Obama, not even his worst enemy.
   5015. Shredder Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4222338)
########. Name one.
Hell, I'll volunteer myself. It's a well trotted out canard on the right that late term abortions are all from women who just willy-nilly choose at the last second that they don't want a kid. It's not true.
My son’s condition could not have been detected earlier in the pregnancy. Far from lazy, I was conscientious about prenatal care. I received excellent medical attention from my obstetrician, one of the District’s best. Only at our 20-week sonogram were there warning signs, and only with a high-powered MRI did we discover the devastating truth of our son’s condition. He was missing the corpus callosum, the central connecting structure of the brain, and essentially one side of his brain.

If he survived the pregnancy and birth, the doctors told us, he would have been born into a life of continuous seizures and near-constant pain. He might never have left the hospital. To help control the seizures, he would have needed surgery to remove more of what little brain matter he had. That was the reality for me and for my family.
But it's OK to force this kind of suffering on children and parents if it makes anti-choicers feel better about themselves, since they know what's best for everyone.
   5016. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4222340)
Several, as earlier threads on the topic make clear.


I'm not familiar with the poster named several. Can't find him in the member list either.
   5017. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM (#4222342)
In general, though, saying that "the vast majority" of abortions are performed as a substitute for contraception isn't that different in effect from the more traditional slut-shaming.

I've just got anecdotal evidence here but the only women I know who have had abortions were young women who had unprotected sex. They certainly weren't blase about it and I don't think a single one of them ever thought, "well, abortion is my form of contraception" but that was the only kind of abortion I've run into.
   5018. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM (#4222343)
Attempted hijack:

What it mean when even Fox News is stunned by Ryan's rampant dishonesty?

Of course Sally Kohn doesn't speak FOR Fox...
   5019. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4222344)
One day when I win the lottery I will run as the First Honest Politician.

You'd never win. The crooks and the scoundrels and the guys that can't do anything else want it more.

And when it gets right down to it, The People like them more.
   5020. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4222346)
Biden is the greatest personal life insurance policy a sitting president has ever had. Nobody with an iota of affinity for the country would even dream of laying a finger on Obama, not even his worst enemy.

Most people don't attempt to kill the President because they are trying to protect the country. How many assassins or would be assassins thought that way?
   5021. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM (#4222348)

Evidence that abortion causes trauma?


There are numerous support groups for women who deeply regret their abortions; Rachel's Vineyard is a very prominent one. They wouldn't exist if having an abortion didn't cause psychological trauma to many women.

Also, many women who have abortions have become prominent pro-Life activists, e.g. Jane Roe (of Roe v. Wade). That seems unlikely if they were happy with their choice.
   5022. Shredder Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4222349)
Because there's nothing we can do about it.
Actually, you're in luck, because there IS something we can do about it!
In general, though, saying that "the vast majority" of abortions are performed as a substitute for contraception isn't that different in effect from the more traditional slut-shaming.
It also breaks down when you realize that many (not all) if the anti-choicers also oppose any contraception which they deem an abortificent, which is pretty much everything besides a rubber. It's not about "killing babies". It's about making those dirty sluts pay the consequences for having sex.

Somewhat related, if I had it all to do over again, I'm pretty sure I'd go to pharmacy school and also find a way to develop a conscience exception to like, every drug. Not only could I be a martyr on the wingnut welfare circuit, it would be the easiest job in the world.
   5023. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4222350)
What it mean when even Fox News is stunned by Ryan's rampant dishonesty?

Well, isn't the conventional wisdom that the hardcore right does not like nor trust Romney? Fox exists to pander to their audience and provide them with content they want to see. Fox isn't really an organ for the Republican party they are a corporation in the business of making money and they do that by providing content people want to see.
   5024. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4222351)
Hell, I'll volunteer myself.

Don't worry, you're not alone.

Only at our 20-week sonogram were there warning signs, and only with a high-powered MRI did we discover the devastating truth of our son’s condition. He was missing the corpus callosum, the central connecting structure of the brain, and essentially one side of his brain.

A 20-week old fetus isn't viable. Non-responsive.
   5025. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4222356)

I agree with this, but it doesn't make the notion that Joe Biden is going to clean Ryan's clock any less fall-out-of-the-chair hysterical.


Nobody thinks that. We are laughing at the notion that Ryan will somehow be abel to "destroy" an experienced politician like Joe Biden in a structured debate format. It will be a total non-event.
   5026. Shredder Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4222361)
A 20-week old fetus isn't viable.
So if a doctor was not able to detect this until, say, week 31, you'd be cool with forcing her term then. Noted.
   5027. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4222362)
What it mean when even Fox News is stunned by Ryan's rampant dishonesty?

It means that even a die hard left-wing lesbian can get a job working for Fox News. Is this a great country or what?
   5028. Greg K Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4222363)
Evidence that abortion causes trauma?

There are numerous support groups for women who deeply regret their abortions; Rachel's Vineyard is a very prominent one. They wouldn't exist if having an abortion didn't cause psychological trauma to many women.

Also, many women who have abortions have become prominent pro-Life activists, e.g. Jane Roe (of Roe v. Wade). That seems unlikely if they were happy with their choice.

I have to mostly agree with snapper on this one. I think it's obvious that abortions can cause trauma. If we're having some kind of competition here I'd go out on a limb and say rape causes trauma more often, and to a greater degree, than abortions.
   5029. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4222364)
It also breaks down when you realize that many (not all) if the anti-choicers also oppose any contraception which they deem an abortificent, which is pretty much everything besides a rubber. It's not about "killing babies". It's about making those dirty sluts pay the consequences for having sex.


Of course you're completely wrong on the facts. Evangelicals, who make up a huge part of the pro-Life movement, are perfectly fine with contraception.

Also, there's zero reason the pill couldn't be made in a non-abortifacient form. It is a choice by the drug companies to include abortifacients in addition to the drugs that prevent ovulation.
   5030. Shredder Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4222366)
Nobody thinks that. We are laughing at the notion that Ryan will somehow be abel to "destroy" an experienced politician like Joe Biden in a structured debate format. It will be a total non-event.
1) I agree it will be a non-event, in terms of its impact on the election.

2) Ryan will "win" the debate, because it's easy to win a televised political debate when you pretty much just lie about everything and there are no on the spot fact checkers pointing out that you're a big ####### liar.
   5031. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4222367)
I have to mostly agree with snapper on this one. I think it's obvious that abortions can cause trauma. If we're having some kind of competition here I'd go out on a limb and say rape causes trauma more often, and to a greater degree, than abortions.

I would think it varies by the woman.
   5032. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4222370)
Biden is the greatest personal life insurance policy a sitting president has ever had. Nobody with an iota of affinity for the country would even dream of laying a finger on Obama, not even his worst enemy.

Biden wasn't even the best example of this in the last election, never mind all time.
I'm pretty sure the 2008 election would have been MUCH closer if McCain hadn't chosen Palin.
I'll bet that at least 1% of the voters didn't vote for McCain specifically because he could easily have a heart attack and leave her in charge.

Also, it's amazing how people's memories turn to "POTATOE" after only 20 years.
   5033. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4222371)
Most people don't attempt to kill the President because they are trying to protect the country. How many assassins or would be assassins thought that way?


Claus von Stauffenberg...

seriously, it's a "joke" it may be a lame joke, but it's been around along time, hell Nixon used to refer to Agnew as his "life insurance policy"

What really terrifies some on the right is the fact that Joe Biden very well may become President.

What fascinates me, is that Joe Biden has more and more seeming;y wandered of the reservation, starting to say what I assume he thinks, without political calculation - that could make things interesting in a debate - what if instead of fitting a canned answer into a question- he actually starts directly answering the questions put to him? What if instead of answering the questions at all, on his turn he ignores the moderator, turns to Ryan and says, "Before I answer, I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the last question, you were asked "X" but in response you gave a speech about "Y"-
and what dies Ryan do? Doe she whine that Biden is violating the rules? Or does he break the script and answer "X"? Or does he turn around and say, "You say that I ducked "Y" but I notice you're not even trying to answer "Z" which is the question just thrown out"

If there is any chance that a major candidate* goes careening off script it's Biden, and I'd want to see that.

*At the small local election level debate, you do see people go off script, but so few people watch those things, and they rarely get reported on in substance.
   5034. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4222373)
I know it is a joke it's just that it is a joke that never made sense to me.
   5035. Greg K Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4222375)
I would think it varies by the woman.

I should retract what I said earlier, and the furthest I'd go is that I'm not going to speculate what being raped or having an abortion feels like as neither have happened to me...except to say I can easily imagine both being traumatic.
   5036. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4222379)
So if a doctor was not able to detect this until, say, week 31, you'd be cool with forcing her term then. Noted.

She could induce birth and would have to induce birth anyway to have the child killed if she's 31 weeks in.

No civilized society supports the principle that one person gets to have another person murdered because the victim is deemed too "defective." That's barbarism.
   5037. SteveF Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:55 AM (#4222380)
It's estimated that more than half of all abortions take place because of contraception failure.


If true, then this would soften my opinion. I'd imagine this would be difficult to determine, but I have to account for the possibility that this figure is accurate.

* Women often feel pressured to have sex, or forgo contraception, by their partners in ways that don't qualify as 'rape' according to the legal system but may result in them getting pregnant against their will.


This I'm less sympathetic to, though I thought I made it fairly clear in my initial post that I am including the man in the equation as (obviously) at least equally (or more than equally) at fault.

In general, though, saying that "the vast majority" of abortions are performed as a substitute for contraception isn't that different in effect from the more traditional slut-shaming


Possibly, though that's not my intent (and I appreciate the way you phrased that). I was simply basing it off the CDC figures regarding the stated reasons for abortion, which doesn't account for the fact that contraception may have failed. I'll need to reconsider my view in light of the additional facts.

That said, having sex without using contraception is a mistake, unless you intend to have children (or maybe even if you do*), by both people involved. I don't think it makes either person involved a slut, but there should be a degree of shame involved when you make mistakes. I don't think the option of an abortion should be denied to the woman involved as 'punishment', partly because it's not society's place to punish in that circumstance, partly because it isn't entirely her mistake (obviously, there's another person who also made a mistake), partly because having to go through an abortion is itself excessive punishment, but mostly because it's bad public policy to deny abortions in many (most) circumstances. I can go into all the reasons I think that's the case, but it's a really long list and we mostly agree on the topic.

* This is a joke.
   5038. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:55 AM (#4222382)
No civilized society supports the principle that one person gets to have another person murdered because the victim is deemed too "defective." That's barbarism.

Don't we get to pull the plug?
   5039. CrosbyBird Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4222383)
Innocent life is precious. The pro-life argument (at least the Catholic one that I subscribe to) is based on the 6th Commandment, which is properly rendered "Thou shalt not murder". Not all killing is murder. Abortion is murder b/c the child is innocent. Capital punishment is not murder b/c the competent authorities have judged the person guilty. Likewise, killing in wartime, or self-defense is not murder.

This is perfectly consistent, even though I happen to be pro-choice and against capital punishment.

The main objection I have to this anti-abortion position is the characterization of the fetus as innocent. A developing fetus inflicts harm on the woman carrying it, making demands on her body and exposing her to additional medical risk. That the fetus doesn't do this consciously doesn't mean the harm doesn't exist. That the fetus has no choice if it wants to survive also doesn't mean the harm doesn't exist.

It's very reasonable (even if not my position) to claim that the harm caused by the fetus is outweighed by the right of the developing life. It's not reasonable to act as though the fetus doesn't cause harm at all.

Also not, that if the mother needs a medical procedure to save her life, that could or would kill the baby, that is permitted. e.g. chemo therapy, removing a fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy. Direct killing of the baby is what is not permitted.

I suppose that you reject the rape and incest exemptions, then? (If I held your position that the fetus is an innocent life, I almost certainly would.)

What if a mother deliberately drinks excessive amounts of alcohol with the motive of killing her fetus? In your opinion, should that be criminalized? (Assume that she confesses to the motive so there's no issue of proof.)
   5040. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4222384)
2) Ryan will "win" the debate, because it's easy to win a televised political debate when you pretty much just lie about everything and there are no on the spot fact checkers pointing out that you're a big ####### liar.


See, this is where Biden "could" win, you have to make note of Ryan's talking points, make note of where the easily and quickly refutable whoppers are- and when Ryan spits one out, Biden at the first opportunity (even if it means cutting off or ignoring the moderator), then says, "There you go again* you keep saying that but it's not true, its been pointed out to you that its not true, but you keep saying it" and then give the rehearsed debunking spiel.

But that requires an accuracy and attention to detail to pull off that Biden may not have. My guess is Ryan will give his distortions, Biden will give his, they'll talk past each other and the twain will never engage. As usual.


*Yes that is Reagan's old debate line against Carter,
   5041. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4222385)
Capital punishment is not murder b/c the competent authorities have judged the person guilty.

Not that it's a big deal to me, but doesn't the Pope disagree with you on this one? I coud be wrong.

How about war?
   5042. The Good Face Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4222386)
But you're still not doing much to acknowledge -- much less, alleviate, compensate, or otherwise assist -- the impact on the 2nd party. Protecting this 3rd party inevitably means there will be financial implications for the 2nd party. There will be lifestyle implications for the 2nd party. There will be health implications for the 2nd party. Simply saying "What a tragedy" does absolutely nothing to address those implications.

How is this any different than any other liberal ideal? The more I pay in taxes, the lower my lifestyle. The more people have access to doctors under Obamacare, the less I'll have quick access myself. And so on and so forth.

It's funny watching liberals suddenly argue as if they're hardcore libertarians.


You've hit upon the fundamental dishonesty that underlies most of the BBTF lefties. They don't care about rights, they care about what they want. If getting what they want requires the government to hurt or inconvenience people, then tough luck, that's just part of of the cost of living in society, and if you don't like it go move to Somalia. Conversely, when the actions of the government impinge on what they want, you get posts like Zonk's above, where we're suddenly supposed to be concerned about the "lifestyle implications" of the 2nd party. I say the "rights for me but none for thee" folks can hop a slow boat to North Korea.
   5043. Shredder Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4222387)
I have to mostly agree with snapper on this one. I think it's obvious that abortions can cause trauma. If we're having some kind of competition here I'd go out on a limb and say rape causes trauma more often, and to a greater degree, than abortions.
Of course, there's the important notion of consent.
   5044. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM (#4222389)
Don't we get to pull the plug?

In some instances, and with state-imposed safeguards -- but we don't allow murder of people just because one day it may be permissible to pull the plug on them.
   5045. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4222391)
It means that even a die hard left-wing lesbian can get a job working for Fox News. Is this a great country or what?


even better, she's a former "community organizer"
   5046. Shredder Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4222392)
You've hit upon the fundamental dishonesty that underlies most of the BBTF lefties. They don't care about rights, they care about what they want.
This whole post, of course is a lie, but I find it sort of funny that we're accused of caring only about "what we want" in this debate when in actuality, "what we want" is for people who 99.99999% of the time are not us to be able to decide for themselves their own course of action.
   5047. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM (#4222396)
You've hit upon the fundamental dishonesty that underlies most of the BBTF lefties.

It's an unvarnished truism that the liberty many of them support most fervently is the "liberty" of a woman to have a viable child killed without interference or intercession.

There are probably some who support only that "liberty," and no others, and there are manifestly those who support that "liberty," and no actual liberties.
   5048. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM (#4222398)
But that requires an accuracy and attention to detail to pull off that Biden may not have. My guess is Ryan will give his distortions, Biden will give his, they'll talk past each other and the twain will never engage. As usual.


*Yes that is Reagan's old debate line against Carter,


Biden is going to play the same game that they had him play in his first debate against Palin. They are going to have him play to not lose. You don't have your VP risk the election by having him take chances. Your VP is going to stand there and recite the party message over and over and that is all he is there for. To get the message out.

Neither side is really going to attack the other person in this debate. Neither side is willing to take that chance.
   5049. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM (#4222399)
What really terrifies some on the right is the fact that Joe Biden very well may become President.

Whoa, are you saying that Biden is going to run for president in 2016 and that he might actually win? You can't possibly be serious, can you? Half the democrats that I know are almost terrified at the idea of Biden being the president. If he runs again, he won't even come close to winning the nomination for God's sake.
   5050. CrosbyBird Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM (#4222400)
And why are people, especially the "fetus isn't a life" crowd, congratulating this guy for his wife being pregnant if he doesn't believe the fetus is a life?

It's the same reason that you would congratulate a person for getting called back to a second round of interviews for a job. It's not the job itself, but it's a significant step toward getting the desired result.
   5051. Jim Kaat on a hot Gene Roof Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4222401)
Capital punishment is not murder b/c the competent authorities have judged the person guilty.


I think if I were religious, I'd believe God the only authority "competent" to administer capital punishment. Definitely not the government -- which, btw don't most religious people resent the government for its incompetence? (Hell, I do and I'm a socialist.)
   5052. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4222402)
Not that it's a big deal to me, but doesn't the Pope disagree with you on this one? I coud be wrong.

How about war?


Catholic doctrine permits capital punishment and war waged by competent authorities.

See here for a letter from (then Cardinal) Ratzinger to the US bishops.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

The relevant passage in section 3.

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
   5053. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4222403)
You've hit upon the fundamental dishonesty that underlies most of the BBTF lefties. They don't care about rights, they care about what they want.


Yes, and this fundamental dishonesty is hilarious in the face of them acting all aflutter at the notion that Ryan lied.
   5054. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4222406)
This whole post, of course is a lie


What I find fascinating about some of GFs and JK's posts is their utter inability to look in a mirror while claiming that others are not looking into a mirror...

GF is particularly good at this, he will say something that describes his/ or the right's apparent thought process to a tee, project it onto those rascally lefties, and then with no apparent self awareness, will accuse the lefties of being unable to look into a mirror.
   5055. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4222407)
[5052]. Interesting. Thanks snapper. I always appreciate your erudition on theology.
   5056. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4222408)

You've hit upon the fundamental dishonesty that underlies most of the BBTF lefties. They don't care about rights, they care about what they want. If getting what they want requires the government to hurt or inconvenience people, then tough luck, that's just part of of the cost of living in society, and if you don't like it go move to Somalia. Conversely, when the actions of the government impinge on what they want, you get posts like Zonk's above, where we're suddenly supposed to be concerned about the "lifestyle implications" of the 2nd party. I say the "rights for me but none for thee" folks can hop a slow boat to North Korea.


Yes, yes... taxes are just like rape.

I don't think it's at all dishonest to see the world in more than binary code.
   5057. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4222409)
I suppose that you reject the rape and incest exemptions, then? (If I held your position that the fetus is an innocent life, I almost certainly would.)

What if a mother deliberately drinks excessive amounts of alcohol with the motive of killing her fetus? In your opinion, should that be criminalized? (Assume that she confesses to the motive so there's no issue of proof.)


Philosophically and morally, I reject the exceptions. Practically, I'm willing to accept them in laws to ban the other 98% of abortions.

If that is her intent, it's probably criminal negligence, or something of that sort.
   5058. Tilden Katz Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4222411)
Whoa, are you saying that Biden is going to run for president in 2016 and that he might actually win? You can't possibly be serious, can you? Half the democrats that I know are almost terrified at the idea of Biden being the president. If he runs again, he won't even come close to winning the nomination for God's sake.


Probably more like someone engages in a "Second Amendment solution" after they are displeased with the election result in November. Maybe after listening to a few too many Ted Nugent albums.
   5059. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:09 PM (#4222412)
That the fetus doesn't do this consciously doesn't mean the harm doesn't exist.

But the fact that it doesn't do it consciously very much does impact the morality of punishing it. We don't jail and execute the insane and the blameless, even if they kill other people.
   5060. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4222414)
It's an unvarnished truism that the liberty many of them support most fervently is the "liberty" of a woman to have a viable child killed without interference or intercession.


I would argue that the fetus described in Shredder's link is not viable.
   5061. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4222415)
Yes, and this fundamental dishonesty is hilarious in the face of them acting all aflutter at the notion that Ryan lied.


I assume Ray Ray has me on ignore, but I'd like to take the time in light of Ray's repeated demands that I apologize to him awhile back, to state that I apologize to Dan for saying some stuff about Dan's arguments the other day that triggered the nanny. Among other things, claiming that Dan's position/argument was bullshit was both unproductive, unfair and impolite.

   5062. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4222419)
Probably more like someone engages in a "Second Amendment solution" after they are displeased with the election result in November.

I don't think that was what he meant, but yes, the idea of something happening to Obama and Biden becoming the president is indeed pretty terrifying. To almost the entire country.
   5063. Shredder Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4222420)
No civilized society supports the principle that one person gets to have another person murdered because the victim is deemed too "defective." That's barbarism.
That's fine. Just wanted to make sure you were on the "pro-forced suffering" side.
Not that it's a big deal to me, but doesn't the Pope disagree with you on this one? I coud be wrong.
I don't know where this Pope stands. The last Pope basically said that capital punishment theoretically was reserved on for cases where it was impossible to keep someone from being a threat to society, but for all practical purposes, with the facilities available to modern criminal justice systems, there was no practical need for capital punishment in this day and age.
   5064. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM (#4222422)
The main objection I have to this anti-abortion position is the characterization of the fetus as innocent. A developing fetus inflicts harm on the woman carrying it, making demands on her body and exposing her to additional medical risk. That the fetus doesn't do this consciously doesn't mean the harm doesn't exist. That the fetus has no choice if it wants to survive also doesn't mean the harm doesn't exist.

It's very reasonable (even if not my position) to claim that the harm caused by the fetus is outweighed by the right of the developing life. It's not reasonable to act as though the fetus doesn't cause harm at all.


But the "harm" the fetus causes is WAD, that's the way God or Nature (your pick) designed pregnancy.

Plenty of people cause harm to others by their existence (e.g. a late stage Alzheimer patient inflicts tons of suffering on his family), that doesn't mean you get to kill him to stop the harm.
   5065. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM (#4222423)
Neither side is willing to take that chance.


Which is a pity. I want entertainment.

   5066. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4222424)
That's fine. Just wanted to make sure you were on the "pro-forced suffering" side.

What does that even mean?
   5067. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4222425)
I assume Ray Ray has me on ignore,


Incorrect. I've never put anyone on ignore, and if I were to start, you wouldn't be in the top 100.

but I'd like to take the time in light of Ray's repeated demands that I apologize to him awhile back,


I don't recall that I asked you to apologize for your lies; I recall me simply pointing out that they were lies.
   5068. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4222427)
But the fact that it doesn't do it consciously very much does impact the morality of punishing it. We don't jail and execute the insane and the blameless, even if they kill other people.

We also don't just shake our heads and go "oh well' either. We take steps to prevent death from happening.
   5069. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4222428)
I don't know where this Pope stands. The last Pope basically said that capital punishment theoretically was reserved on for cases where it was impossible to keep someone from being a threat to society, but for all practical purposes, with the facilities available to modern criminal justice systems, there was no practical need for capital punishment in this day and age.

see the quote in [5052].

That opinion of JP2 was personal, not doctrinal. The letter linked in [5052] was written by the current Pope, acting for the former Pope is his capacity as head of the CDF, and represents official Church doctrine.
   5070. The Good Face Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4222429)
GF is particularly good at this, he will say something that describes his/ or the right's apparent thought process to a tee, project it onto those rascally lefties, and then with no apparent self awareness, will accuse the lefties of being unable to look into a mirror.


I'm good at most things, but I confess I don't know what you're talking about here. Examples?
   5071. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4222430)
We also don't just shake our heads and go "oh well' either. We take steps to prevent death from happening.

Right, and we should take steps to ensure the health of the mother during pregnancy.
   5072. CrosbyBird Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4222431)
Congress banned partial-birth abortion, the barbarity supported by many "pro-choice" extremists, including many on these boards.

I am opposed to the ban, not because I think partial-birth abortions are great, but because I feel that politicians without medical training should not be passing generalized law that overrides the judgment of a trained medical professional in a specific case.

We are talking about a very rare procedure that, in some cases, is the safest way to terminate a pregnancy without causing permanent damage to the woman's cervix. If a trained medical professional determines that the fetus and mother are unlikely to survive delivery and that a partial-birth abortion is the safest way to terminate the pregnancy, the procedure should be permitted even if there is an alternate method that doesn't threaten the life of the mother (but merely is likely to cause significant medical harm).
   5073. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4222432)
Plenty of people cause harm to others by their existence (e.g. a late stage Alzheimer patient inflicts tons of suffering on his family), that doesn't mean you get to kill him to stop the harm

Because for the most part we can take steps to prevent them from harming others. But you yourself said you are pro-death penalty in cases in which society cannot keep a person from harming others. A fetus that harms the mother should be such a case.
   5074. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4222434)
We don't jail and execute the insane and the blameless, even if they kill other people.



Ahem.


Ignoring its own ruling that prohibits the execution of mentally retarded individuals, the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the appeal of a Texas man with an IQ of 61 convicted of murdering a police drug informant.

Following the high court's denial, 54-year-old Marvin Wilson was executed by lethal injection at the state prison in Huntsville, Texas. Wilson was pronounced dead 14 minutes after being injected with a single deadly drug; he was the secondTexas prisoner killed using the state's new single-drug protocol.

...

Wilson's attorneys based their appeal on the fact that his IQ was determined to be 61, well below 70, the threshold for mental retardation. Wilson's IQ places him in the very bottom 1% of individuals for intellectual capacity. His reading and writing level was determined to be that of a 7-year-old child's, and he could not hold down a job or even properly dress himself


EDIT: to add

In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the US Supreme Court ruled that executing such individuals was a violation of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
But Texas simply redefined retardation, based in part on the fictional character Lennie Small from John Steinbeck's novel "Of Mice and Men."
In establishing what are known as the Briseno factors, which Texas uses to determine whether an individual is retarded or not, the state implicitly asserts that anyone less mentally impaired than Steinbeck's Lennie is fit for execution.




   5075. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4222438)
Right, and we should take steps to ensure the health of the mother during pregnancy.

Such as terminating pregnancy?
   5076. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:21 PM (#4222439)
Probably more like someone engages in a "Second Amendment solution" after they are displeased with the election result in November. Maybe after listening to a few too many Ted Nugest albums.


I suspect that IF Obama is re-elected (which I do not see as a given) the reaction of many of his most fervent haters will be stunned inactive shock for awhile- I saw this in 2004, when many big city lefties were absolutely dumbfounded and could not comprehend that W was re-elected.

We here tend to forget that most people do not follow polls- at all- they have no idea that Nate Silver has Obama's odds at 70% or that RCP has Obama up a point or two- to the Anti-Obama faction, Obama has been an unmitigated disaster, and they have no clue that others do not see it that way*- their initial reaction to an Obama victory will be shock.


*Ever see that Dubya themed T-shirt that says, "miss me yet?"- the people who cam up with that, and the people who bought that shirt had no idea that for the vast majority the answer straight through to now, is and was, "no"
   5077. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:21 PM (#4222440)
Because for the most part we can take steps to prevent them from harming others. But you yourself said you are pro-death penalty in cases in which society cannot keep a person from harming others. A fetus that harms the mother should be such a case.

The death penalty is obviously for intentional harm.

But, I've also already described the principal of "double effect". If medical treatment is necessary to save the life of the mother, but will also kill the baby, it is permissible. What's not permissible is directly killing the baby.

So, if a pregnant woman needs chemo or radiation for cancer, go ahead with the treatment, and if the baby dies, it's no one's fault. What you can't morally do is kill the baby first, and then do the treatment. To refuse treatment to save the baby is heroic virtue (see St. Gianna Molla), not morally required.
   5078. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4222442)
Such as terminating pregnancy?

No, medical care, for both the mother and baby.
   5079. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4222443)
Incorrect. I've never put anyone on ignore, and if I were to start, you wouldn't be in the top 100.


sigh, I'd say I need to work harder, but then I'd probably turn into Sam or something.
   5080. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4222445)

You added "health" there.


Just to be clear: A woman is pregnant, her doctor says that if she gives birth she has a 50% chance of permanent paralysis, and recommends a late-term abortion, you think that should be illegal, correct?
   5081. CrosbyBird Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4222446)
But the fact that it doesn't do it consciously very much does impact the morality of punishing it. We don't jail and execute the insane and the blameless, even if they kill other people.

If someone is unconsciously threatening the life of another person, we certainly are willing to kill them to protect the victim. If there's a less extreme solution, of course we'd prefer that, but if some legally insane person is swinging a knife at someone, we don't question the right to shoot him.

But the "harm" the fetus causes is WAD, that's the way God or Nature (your pick) designed pregnancy.

So what? Just because something is natural doesn't erase the consequence.

Plenty of people cause harm to others by their existence (e.g. a late stage Alzheimer patient inflicts tons of suffering on his family), that doesn't mean you get to kill him to stop the harm.

The family is not legally obligated to care for that patient, so it's a poor analogy. While morally repulsive, it is not illegal to drop off a late-stage Alzheimer's patient in an emergency room and drive away.
   5082. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4222447)
It's an unvarnished truism that the liberty many of them support most fervently is the "liberty" of a woman to have a viable child killed without interference or intercession.

There are probably some who support only that "liberty," and no others, and there are manifestly those who support that "liberty," and no actual liberties.


This is why the "war on women" resonates with so many women.

Obviously, the physical differences between the gender mean that one gender bears the brunt of implications of conception - but it's this steadfast refusal to acknowledge the central concept that you're talking about policy that inherently, wholly, and entirely impacts one gender... and while yes, I'm quite aware there are plenty of pro-life women -- the fact is, this discussion is taking place between men. The national political discussions take place between men. When restrictions on abortion are debated then signed into law, you invariably see men making up the overwhelming majority of those voting for those restrictions and signing them into law.

Call me metrosexual, call me a feminist, whatever... I just know that if historical and physiological gender roles were reversed - you're damn right I'd have a big problem with the way this issue that impacts the female "me" and not the male "you" is discussed.

As I said, I understand the theological thrust of all degrees of the pro-life movement. I understand the concept of this theoretical "3rd party". What I don't understand - and will damn well make political hay out of for electoral purposes - is the steadfast and bullheaded refusal to even discuss the role of the 2nd party, about whom there is NO debate about personhood and who is supposedly - bequeathed equally with the same rights as the opposite gender.
   5083. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4222450)

But, I've also already described the principal of "double effect". If medical treatment is necessary to save the life of the mother, but will also kill the baby, it is permissible. What's not permissible is directly killing the baby.

So, if a pregnant woman needs chemo or radiation for cancer, go ahead with the treatment, and if the baby dies, it's no one's fault. What you can't morally do is kill the baby first, and then do the treatment.


And I don't agree with that view. I think if a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother she most certainly should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy. And really aren't you just torturing the baby by simply letting it fend for itself against these medical procedures?
   5084. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:26 PM (#4222452)
Just to be clear: A woman is pregnant, her doctor says that if she gives birth she has a 50% chance of permanent paralysis, and recommends a late-term abortion, you think that should be illegal, correct?

It wasn't asked of you but how taking a stab at this one, Snapper? Is the only option for the mother to roll the dice?
   5085. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:28 PM (#4222454)
Pardon me...can someone point me towards the thread where we debate treason charges against members of the GOP for repeatedly lying to large groups of people in a deliberate effort to destroy them?
   5086. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4222455)
If a trained medical professional determines that the fetus and mother are unlikely to survive delivery and that a partial-birth abortion is the safest way to terminate the pregnancy

That's a mighty big "if," and not the law actually at issue. The procedure isn't self-defense procedure (*), and isn't supported to further a woman's right to self-defense. It speaks volumes that people have to default to pretending that it is.

(*) Though it can be.
   5087. SteveF Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4222456)
If someone is unconsciously threatening the life of another person, we certainly are willing to kill them to protect the victim. If there's a less extreme solution, of course we'd prefer that, but if some legally insane person is swinging a knife at someone, we don't question the right to shoot him.


But they'd still be innocent. You started this by objecting to the fact that some refer to the unborn as innocent, not by pointing out that it's permitted to do harm to innocent people in a variety of circumstances.

The main objection I have to this anti-abortion position is the characterization of the fetus as innocent.


Maybe you just phrased that inelegantly and/or people are interpreting this incorrectly?

I largely agree with where you are headed with your argument.
   5088. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:34 PM (#4222465)
Just to be clear: A woman is pregnant, her doctor says that if she gives birth she has a 50% chance of permanent paralysis, and recommends a late-term abortion, you think that should be illegal, correct?

Does someone have the right to shoot you in the head to prevent a 50% chance of permanent paralysis? They're skiing down a narrow trail, and you're blocking it. There's a tree to the right and the left. They're going at a speed where hitting the tree risks serious injury, a 50% chance of paralysis. The skier is a trained, world-class biathlete. There's enough time to shoot you and proceed down the trail unharmed, but not enough time to avoid the choice of shooting you or hitting the tree. Killing you guarantees an open path to safety.

Can the skier shoot and kill you?
   5089. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:34 PM (#4222467)
He should say that rape is a tragedy, but the baby is not the criminal, and is completely innocent as to how he was conceived. It is not just to punish an innocent 3rd party for the crimes of the rapist.

Thanks, snapper, and if Ryan has any real principles, that's exactly what he'll say, too.

---------------------------------------

Andy, you've posted your dream hypothetical about the "gotcha" VP debate question about rape about 10 days in a row. I'm actually in favor of the rape exception, but Paul Ryan is not (or was not). I'm quite sure it's occurred to the Romney/Ryan people that someone might ask about abortion between now and Election Day, and I'm guessing Ryan will give one of the answers people have suggested in this thread.

To the extent that it was a "gotcha" question, the "gotcha" wasn't and isn't directed at anyone here, only at Ryan. But if the question is asked by a female journalist of childbearing age and posed in personal terms, it will assume an immediacy that isn't conveyed by posing the question in the abstract. Simply asking (or re-asking) Ryan's views on the rape exception without that extra personal dimension doesn't convey the full extent of what his "method of conception" brushoff implies in the real world, where women get raped every day. AFAIC the only real unknown here is whether or not some female journalist will ever have the guts to pose that question to Ryan directly.
   5090. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:36 PM (#4222471)
If someone is unconsciously threatening the life of another person, we certainly are willing to kill them to protect the victim. If there's a less extreme solution, of course we'd prefer that, but if some legally insane person is swinging a knife at someone, we don't question the right to shoot him.

That's the self-defense case.(*) No one's disagreeing with that.

(*) More precisely, I'm assuming that's what you mean, because yes, we do question the right to shoot him if he's posing no threat, or a threat less than life or grave bodily harm.
   5091. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4222476)
Can the skier shoot and kill you?

No because we both made the choice to ski down this hill though I guess if the person in front of you cut ahead of you and went down the slope regardless of the risk I wouldn't really have a problem with you shooting them. If it happened to be me who was the bastard in front of you and I knew of this situation I'd probably be trying to kill you to prevent you from trying to kill me.

But you know what, in life decisions happen where once we're put into a grave situation some people die so that others might live.
   5092. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4222477)
even better, she's a former "community organizer"

Who in the community was she organizing, the association of women with short hair and comfortable shoes?
   5093. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4222478)

Just to be clear: A woman is pregnant, her doctor says that if she gives birth she has a 50% chance of permanent paralysis, and recommends a late-term abortion, you think that should be illegal, correct?


They should do a C-section (pre-term if necessary), and try their best to save the baby.

I'm not saying the woman has to do everything possible to save the baby, in disregard to her own health, I'm just saying you can't directly kill the baby. If the baby is 3-months premature, and has to be delivered to save the mother, you do it, and try your best to save the baby.
   5094. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:40 PM (#4222479)
Andy, you've posted your dream hypothetical about the "gotcha" VP debate question about rape about 10 days in a row.


Wet dream hypothetical is more like it.
   5095. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:40 PM (#4222481)
That's the self-defense case. No one's disagreeing with that.

Well, Snapper is saying that a mother can't defend herself directly from the harm caused by the fetus. She can receive medical care that might or might not save her that might kill the fetus but she definitely cannot kill the fetus to guarantee her safety.
   5096. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4222482)
I'm not saying the woman has to do everything possible to save the baby, in disregard to her own health, I'm just saying you can't directly kill the baby. If the baby is 3-months premature, and has to be delivered to save the mother, you do it, and try your best to save the baby.

How about 6 months premature? Do you do a C-section there as well and try your best to save the baby?
   5097. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4222483)
What is so difficult about this question?

There's no difficulty at all, if you're running for vice president of the National Right to Life committee or the vice presidency of NARAL.

If you're Ryan, you say "I do not believe there should be an exception to abortion for rape, because that would still be killing an innocent life. My runningmate feels differently, however (*), and so the ticket will support a rape exception. And please don't get all hysterical here about my position, or try to distract from the issue, or try to dishonestly pretend that I don't think rape is horrific. Yes, of course rape is a horrific circumstance for a woman. And abortion is a horrific circumstance for an unborn child. And the issue here - please try to keep your eye on the ball - is abortion, not rape. The crime of rape does not justify the sin of abortion, so I don't know why you would pretend that the former would negate the principle that abortion is a sin. My stance is completely consistent: aborting an innocent baby is a sin, regardless of how the baby got there. Do you understand now? Are we clear? Are we -- cue Jack Nicholson -- CLEAR."

I can only wish that you were Ryan's spokesman on this issue, since that sort of reply would ensure that his boss's candidacy would sink like a lead balloon. But I have no complaints about the substance of your reply. It's an honest answer, and it leaves it to the voter to decide whether you're a principled man or a principled madman.
   5098. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:43 PM (#4222492)
I'm good at most things, but I confess I don't know what you're talking about here. Examples?


It's always cute to see people conclude that since the mainstream media isn't as far left as they themselves are, it therefore must be neutral, or even conservative. It's an outgrowth of the childish notion that they are the center of the universe, the ground around which all else must move.

Part of the "our ideology never fails, but is constantly failed by institutions beyond its control" theme.


You'd think people who keep advocating the same policies and political models that failed from the 40s and 60s would see the irony, but nope. The failures of liberalism can only be fixed by doing more of what failed the first time.


3278. The Good Face Posted: August 21, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4214095)
Unlike the failures of conservativism. They totally never repeat themselves, those innovative SOBs.

Of course they do, because that's what people do. It's the embarrassing lack of self-awareness of some of the lefties here that merits my mockery.


I thought you did it more often...
errr, perhaps not.
   5099. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4222495)

Does someone have the right to shoot you in the head to prevent a 50% chance of permanent paralysis?


So your retort to a situation that actually happens is to posit a situation that could never happen?
   5100. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 12:46 PM (#4222496)
How about 6 months premature? Do you do a C-section there as well and try your best to save the baby?

To the best of my knowledge, at that early stage, removal of the baby is basically never necessary. It isn't large enough to cause medical problems that necessitate removal. The medical problems are addressable my medications, that may kill the baby, but that is permissible.

But if there was some obscure disease where that was the case, yes. At some point we'll probably be able to save very premature babies.
Page 51 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(22 - 3:24am, Oct 25)
Last: TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(81 - 2:03am, Oct 25)
Last: Dan

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(16 - 1:35am, Oct 25)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(12 - 1:31am, Oct 25)
Last: Into the Void

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(916 - 1:29am, Oct 25)
Last: J. Sosa

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(515 - 1:26am, Oct 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(385 - 1:05am, Oct 25)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3736 - 12:23am, Oct 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(21 - 12:04am, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(14 - 11:59pm, Oct 24)
Last: Zach

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Page rendered in 1.1384 seconds
52 querie(s) executed