“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.”
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.
########. Name one.
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.
Several, as earlier threads on the topic make clear.
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?
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.
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.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'd support that.
You added "health" there.
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.
Evidence that abortion causes trauma?
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.
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.
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.
I'm not familiar with the poster named several. Can't find him in the member list either.
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.
What it mean when even Fox News is stunned by Ryan's rampant dishonesty?
Of course Sally Kohn doesn't speak FOR Fox...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
I would think it varies by the woman.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't we get to pull the plug?
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.)
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,
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?
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.
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.
even better, she's a former "community organizer"
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.
*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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Yes, and this fundamental dishonesty is hilarious in the face of them acting all aflutter at the notion that Ryan lied.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would argue that the fetus described in Shredder's link is not viable.
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 ######## was both unproductive, unfair and impolite.
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.
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.
Which is a pity. I want entertainment.
What does that even mean?
Incorrect. I've never put anyone on ignore, and if I were to start, you wouldn't be in the top 100.
I don't recall that I asked you to apologize for your lies; I recall me simply pointing out that they were lies.
We also don't just shake our heads and go "oh well' either. We take steps to prevent death from happening.
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.
I'm good at most things, but I confess I don't know what you're talking about here. Examples?
Right, and we should take steps to ensure the health of the mother during pregnancy.
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).
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.
Ahem.
EDIT: to add
Such as terminating pregnancy?
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"
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.
No, medical care, for both the mother and baby.
sigh, I'd say I need to work harder, but then I'd probably turn into Sam or something.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Maybe you just phrased that inelegantly and/or people are interpreting this incorrectly?
I largely agree with where you are headed with your argument.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Who in the community was she organizing, the association of women with short hair and comfortable shoes?
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.
Wet dream hypothetical is more like it.
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.
How about 6 months premature? Do you do a C-section there as well and try your best to save the baby?
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.
I thought you did it more often...
errr, perhaps not.
So your retort to a situation that actually happens is to posit a situation that could never happen?
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main