marjon9

Carlene, this comment is beneath you. Why do you always have to get angry? Where does that come from? I am obviously not trying to set any "rules." All I am doing is saying that statistics, in this particular case, are irrelevant to the point I am making. In my view, when people decide to say that they would be against the right to choose even if the life of the mother was at stake, this is a significant window into the way they think. In that context, statistics are not relevant. You are far too intelligent to believe that I am somehow trying to set any "rules." It would be nice to discuss issues sometimes without always needing to hear from you how offensive and inappropriate I am. I don't really mind if you feel like you need to do that, but it is so irrelevant, and such a waste of time.

I don't agree that I am being "nasty" to anyone. I like to engage in vigorous debate. Sometimes I become, shall we say, enthusiastic. But I don't agree that I am being nasty at all. And I can take it every bit as well as I can dish it out. I don't become personally offended when people disagree with me, even if they call me names. And as for the substance of what you said, I have tremendous compassion and understanding for the difficulty and challenge in reaching a decision about this highly complex and personal issue. I would never attack anyone for their beliefs. The issue I have, as I have stated again and again, is that the so-called "pro-life" crowd believe they have a right to legislate and use the police power of the state to force me and my family to live by their moral code. That's the part that is intolerable to me. And as long as those people continue to assert that they have the right to force me to live by their values, I consider them to fair game for the strongest possible attacks. Yes, it is difficult to make these complex and highly personal decisions. That is exactly why there must be a right to choose, and the decision must lie with the individual, not the state.

Again, the points you are making, while valid as far as they go, do not address the point I am making. I think that the way people voted in this poll reveals a frightening thought process, notwithstanding the "facts" and "stats" of the dangers of childbirth. That is how I see it. If you believe that all those people really understood that "in this day and age" risk to the mother's health is not an issue, then you have the right to believe that. I disagree. I'm also not sure the point you are making about the war in Iraq. I certainly don't support that war. The fact that the war is even more dangerous than pregnancy does not seem particularly relevant to the issue at hand. And for that matter, it seems to me that "pro-life" republics/conservative christians are far more likely to support the war than those awful liberals. My point here is that the "pro life" voters were offered a choice, and they voted for the category that reflects their beliefs. That is, even where the mother's life is in danger, there should be no option for an abortion. I think that is terrifying. And I think that you are rationalizing this result with "statistics" and speculation about what these people "really meant." We're just going to have to disagree on that.

Regardless of what the "stats" are, I believe it is quite revealing that people voted to sacrifice the life of the mother. If this were no issue at all, why would there be a category in the poll? I understand the point that you are making about the stats, but I still think that the poll reveals the thinking and priority of the voters. If I were a mother with a difficult pregnancy, I don't think I would consider these "pro life" voters to be on my side. In fact, I'd be pretty terrified of them. I have no doubt that others can and will disagree, but that's how I see it.

I am really sorry to hear that you have met with this bump in the road. I know it must be frustrating and upsetting. BUT, I just have to speak up about my opinion. It's in my nature, I'm sorry. The distance between you and a new band is about $10,000. Considering the value of the band in your life, that is a gap that can be crossed, one way or another. You and your life are well worth it. There absolutely is a way to do this. If anything in your life is worth $10,000, this is it. It's kind of a funny feeling talking about this to a moderator of this forum, because I know that you know all these things, and you knew them for years before the lap band was even a glimmer in my eye. But I still feel compelled to speak up because you are talking about facing a life without the lap band. WRONG ANSWER. You and your life are worth the $10,000. This is a no brainer.

I was looking at the poll results and I had a thought about the three categories. There is "pro life," "pro choice" and "pro choice only for extreme cases ie Mother in danger of death." Ten people so far voted in the category of "pro life." Yet in this poll "pro life" means that they would be perfectly willing to let the mother die to save a 6 week old dividing embryo that may not even have a brain, and may not even be born alive at all. That way of looking at things is so bizarre to me I can't even fathom it. If ever a category was misnamed, "pro life" is misnamed in this poll, as it is defined. People who voted in that category in this poll would gladly let the mother die. That does not seem like like "pro life" to me at all.

It's the goatee. :hungry:

Thanks, green. Well said. That about sums it up. To me, discussion of controversial issues is a good thing. When I posted the thread, I certainly realized that people would have strong opinions about the subject and that most people, myself included, would be utterly repulsed by any thought of pedophelia. But it never occurred to me that simply because something involves a topic that is controversial and repulsive, that therefore that means we should not talk about it. That thought never crossed my mind. To me, that is an inconceivable view of the world, that because something is controversial and repulsive, that therefore we should not talk about it. I just don't get that at all. I respect people here too much to believe that they need to be protected from controversial topics. Like a lot of other people here, I like to talk about controversial topics sometimes. I'm sure I'll continue to do so. If sometimes I post something that someone thinks should not be discussed, then I'm sorry you feel that way. My goal is not to offend.

TracyK, you certainly have the right to your opinion that abortion is immoral. I even believe that you have the right to speak out hatefully toward someone who takes an action that you believe is immoral, if that's what you feel you need to do. But the problem is, many people with your opinion believe that they have the right to pass laws that force everyone else to live by the same moral code that makes sense to you. That's the part I have a problem with. I'm not sure if you are one of those people who believes they have a right to force their own morality on other people, but many of those in the "pro life" movement feel they do have that right. For me, that's the issue here. And as for the 75,000 abortion thing, here are some numbers on that. Let's say the doctor worked doing nothing but abortions for 50 weeks a year for 20 years. Let's assume 5 work days in a week. So, 5 work days times 50 weeks equals 250 work days a year. 250 work days a year times 20 years equals 5000 work days. 75,000 abortions divided by 5000 work days equals an average of 15 abortions a day for 20 years. That means that if the doctor did only 10 abortions on one day, he would have needed to do 20 the next to keep up the average to 15 a day. If he was out sick for a few days, or if he ever took more than two weeks of vacation a year, he would have had to increase the abortions on the days he did work in order to maintain the 15 abortion average. To me it does not seem like a credible claim that a doctor performed an average of 15 abortions a day, day after day, year after year for 20 years. Perhaps someone else could see it another way. I think it is important to have credible figures in this debate and not appear to be willing to believe anything in order to forward your argument. Who knows, people may feel that an average of 15 abortions a day for 20 years is a credible claim. It does not appear to me to be credible.

Once again I feel compelled to state an opinion that is probably going to make some people angry, but I can't help it. I just can't read this post above without commenting. If I were away from my family right now in Iraq, I too would feel forgotten. But it would not be because people have failed to put yellow ribbons on trees. Rather, I would feel totally abandoned by a country that is willing to let me die, and never again see my wife and child, for something so utterly meaningless, a war that was entered into on the basis of tricks and lies. I would feel angry and abondoned by leaders who's management of the war was breathtakingly incompetent from day one. I would know that many of my friends died because arrogant buffoons made enormous mistakes in the way the war was executed, and were too proud to admit it for years after their incompetence was obvious to everyone. I would know that this pride and arrogance cost tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, both U.S. and Iraqi. (Yes, Iraqi lives count too in my ledger sheet). If I were away from my family now in Iraq, serving my third term of duty even though I never agreed to serve more than one, knowing that I was here because Bush lacks the courage to admit he made a mistake, I, too would feel abandoned and forgotten. After seeing my friend killed after he had already packed his bags to go home from his second tour of duty, but was called back at the last minute to serve a third, I would feel rage and betrayal on a scale that is impossible to put into words. I would be almost frantic with grief and on the edge of insanity over how utterly unnecessary and meaningless the whole thing was. I would carry anger and mental illness over it for the rest of my life, even if I was able to get home without dying or losing any body parts. You see, the term "support the troops" has different meaning to different people. I feel quite sure that if I were over in Iraq, I would not be looking for yellow ribbons on trees. Rather, I would be looking for the people in my homeland to have the courage to do what it took to get me the hell out of there. "We made a bad choice to go in. Nothing can change that. What we can change is how our troops feel about the treatment and support (or lack thereof) that they are getting." I totally agree with all of that. But I strongly disagree that yellow ribbons are the way to "support" the troops. Support them by getting them the hell out of harms way. This war has already lasted longer than WWII. And all we have done is alienate most of the world, and set back hopes of resolving conflicts in the Middle East by at least a generation. Isn't it enough damage yet?

My port took a long time to close up as well, like more than a couple weeks. I had draining that was pretty red. It never seemed exactly like blood because it was thinner. But it was pretty red and it kept coming for a while. I do think that this "can" be normal. My general thought on this is to trust the doctor. But only so far. If you have the feeling that the doctor is not hearing you and something is really going wrong, of course deal with it. Maybe go to the emergency room. But a fair amount of draining, and a long healing process, can be pretty normal for a lot of people at the port site. Good luck getting it sorted out.

Obviously a lot of people agree with you. But for me the question for me is not whether or not "an eye for an eye" is fair treatment for the criminal. I'm sure it is fair treatment for the criminal in those particularly terrible crimes where they apply the death penalty. The question for me is whether we, as a society, want to stoop to that level in our response. The issue for me is whether you and I are worth more than that. Most countries in the world have reached the conclusion that executing a human being is just too low to stoop as a society, regardless of whether the criminal deserves it. I'd rather stand with the majority of Western democracies on this point, rather than stand with those who still apply the death penalty, like China, North Korea, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

I miss the whole bunch, Jack, TOM, and Wheetsin. I heard a rumor they are putting together a show for a national tour called "Rants and Raves on Ice."

You might be right, but I'm sure in the mood to try.

Thanks so much for your contribution, nursekathy, it was really insightful. I just hope you get your rabies shot in time.

Your pro-life propaganda about abortion is pretty much totally meaningless as far as I'm concerned. I have no doubt that you can find a limitless supply of pro-life people to say anything you want them to say. I don't have any expectation that such material represents reliable statistics or evidence. And, as for what it would take for you to prove to me that a dividing embryo constitutes life, I am sorry I was unclear. There is definitely nothing you could ever do to prove that to me. In my opinion this is not a matter of science. We can all see the scientific evidence. We can all see what a fetus looks like at different stages. In my opinion each person needs to analyze that information and make a personal decision regarding what they believe constitutes "life." I don't believe that this is a matter that the state has any business being involved with at all. So, you would absolutely never be able to "prove" to me that a dividing embryo constitutes "life." That's the whole point. And what that means to me is that pro-life side will never, ever be able to meet its burden of establishing that it has a right to tell other people what to do in this regard. I am totally closed-minded on that issue. I do not believe that anyone has a right to tell anyone else what to do when it comes to the early stages of a pregnancy, where you basically are talking about a dividing embryo that is months from viability. I don't think there is any "proof" you could offer that would ever lead me to the conclusion that you have a right to use the police power of the state to force other people to live by your moral code. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

There you go again with your argument that it is "life" because it is "life." That is a meaningless way of proving your case. You are not speaking up for "life." You are speaking up for something that, in your opinion, constitutes life. And I might say, you have not proven that in any way. So I totally disagree with you that you are standing up for "life." You don't get to win the argument by simply declaring yourself the winner. You have not in any way established that a dividing embryo constitues "life." And, as for Dred Scott, or Roe v. Wade, it has nothing to do with whether I am "fine" with these decisions or any other. I accept the rule of law except in the extremely rare case where my conscience does not allow me to follow the law (as it would not, for example, if the Court said it was OK to draft me into the army). If the Court overturns Roe v. Wade, I, personally would certainly accept that that is the law of the land. But I also know that it would do very little to stop abortions. As history makes crystal clear, all it would do is force women to have illegal abortions, forcing them to take extreme risks to their health. You'd be the big winner there, I guess. It hardly seems like much of a victory to me. And if my wife decided she needed to get an abortion, I would find a way to make it happen, as safely as possible, without the slightest hesitation regarding the "legality" of the decision. Certain matters of conscience transcend the law. I'd be willing to pay the penalty if caught breaking the law. But in any event, if Roe v. Wade is overruled, after you are done celebrating your great victory you will quickly see that nothing has changed except abortions are now vastly more risky for the women having them. A woman who decides to get one is not going to be stopped by this law, especially after the several decades of relative sanity that we have enjoyed on this issue. So, your great victory will be shallow, indeed.

Your premise is mistaken. It does not matter which way the pendulum swings on this issue, it will never be my burden to prove why the state should leave me alone. It is always the states burden to prove that it has the right to force me to do something. Sometimes the state meets that burden, and gains the right to use force. That could happen in the abortion context. But if it gains the right to do that, it will be because society has determined that the state has met its burden to demonstrate that it has the right to use force. It will never bemy burden to prove that the state should leave me alone. I have no way to "prove" to you that a dividing embryo that is a few weeks old is or is not "life." I'm not going to get involved in trying to do so. In my opinion, there is no correct or final answer to this question anyway. It is a personal decision between a person and his or her conscience. In my opinion, when discussing a dividing embryo that is a few weeks old, it is nobody's business what anyone else believes about whether or not that constitutes "life." You are the one who wants to impose your will on others and force them to live by your rules. You are the one with the burden to prove that you have a right to do so.

It's true that the state forces its views on others all the time. That is absolutely true. But when the state seeks to assert its police power to force me to do something, it has to say why. Citizens do not have to go around constantly proving why the state should leave them alone. A person who wants to walk down the street does not need to petition the state in advance to demonstrate why the state should not stop the person from walking down the street. In contrast, if the state wants to use its police power to stop me from walking down the street, it must show why it has the right to do so. As applied here, the only possible justification you could have for forcing other people to live as you want them to is if you are able to prove that a dividing fetus is "human life." The burden is on you to justify your use of police power. Not the other way around. You have not proved your case. And it is completely irrelevant for you to turn around and say to me, OK, prove a dividing embryo is not life. I don't have to do that, or claim to be able to do that. Your whole argument is based on the premise that a dividing embryo equals human life. My whole argument is based on the premise that NO ONE KNOWS if a dividing embryo is human life. I make no claim to know that it is or is not. You are the one making the claims here, not me. I have no idea whether a dividing embryo is life or not. My argument is, since no one knows, you have not proven your case. And therefore you have no right to invoke the police power of the state to force me to live life by your rules. You can make the argument, if you want to, that since no one knows, why not err on the side of life. What if it is life, and all that. That is an argument that makes sense to some people. Feel free to make that argument and try to convince as many people as you can to go your way on that. But just because, in your opinion, we should "err" on the side of life, that does not justify the use of police power to force other people to live by the moral code that makes sense to you. You have often repeated this story about how the state uses its power all the time to force people to do certain things. But that is a totally irrelevant argument in this context. No one is suggesting that the state lacks that power to do that. But the state can only do that once it has established that it has a right to do so. That has not happened here. Therefore, it is totally irrelevant that the state, in many other circumstances where it has justified its actions, has the right to use the police power.

OK, so you are not going to answer the questions and discuss the issues. I will just accept that. The one additional point I will make is that you are the one who wants to use the power of the state to force your views on others. In my opinion that puts the burden on you to prove that a dividing embryo in the first few weeks after conception is "human life." If you want to use the police power of the state to force me to live by your rules, prove your case. In contrast, I am not attempting to force you to do anything. In my world, you are free to do what makes sense to you. If you don't want to have an abortion, by all means, don't have one. Believe what you want, I'm not trying to force you to do anything. I don't need to prove anything.

Your arguments are more of the same, and they do not address the points I made at all. I'm wondering if you will ever actually address the points I make. It is simply not true that a dividing embryo that is months away from viability has all the human features you describe above (beating heart, brain, etc). As you know, pro-life people believe that life begins at the moment of conception, long before there is any heart or brain. So, your argument is completely irrelevant. We are not discussing late term abortion here. So, I ask again, what is it that makes a dividing embryo "human life"? The only answer is that it has the potential to become human life. But is it human life now? That's the whole question. Again, you cannot prove that it is human life by simply declaring that it is. And your argument about illegal aliens is ridiculous. Again, you are trying to win your argument by assuming the very point that is in dispute. Of course you can't kill illegal aliens or anyone else because you don't think that their form of "human life" is as valuable as another. But we are not talking here about "human life." We are talking about a dividing embryo. I know you think that a dividing embryo is human life, but other people disagree. That is the whole dispute. And your argument that the state has the right to get involved where "human life" is concerned, is another example of your refusal to actually discuss the issue. The issue here is, whether or not an embryo actually is "human life." I know you think it is, but others disagree. It is totally irrelevant to argue that the state has the right to intervene when "human life" is at stake. No one disagrees with that. But that proves nothing about whether or not an embyo actually is "human life." Gadget, you seem like a bright person. Do you really not understand the point here? Or are you just afraid to look at it. Are you going to actually discuss this issue? Or not. When an embryo is in its early stages, long before it has a heart or brain, is it "human life"? And if so, why? As you know, other people disagree that this is human life. Why do you get to decide? Are you going to tell me that you get to decide because, in the case of "human life," the state gets to intervene? Are you really going to do that again? Or are you going to actually discuss the issue. The issue is, when an embryo is in the early stages, is it human life? And if so, why? And since many people disagree, why do you get to decide?

The point where human life begins is the very question at issue here. I could just as well say to you "please show me how it is human life." And clearly it is not enough to say that it is "human" and it is "alive," so therefore it is "human life." A skin cell is "human" and "alive," that does not make it "human life." A dividing embryo that is months away from viability is "human life" to some people, and it is not "human life" to other people. It is not enough for you to simply say that it is human life because it is human life. That does not prove anything. How is an embryo different from a skin cell? Good question. After all, they are both "human," and they are both "alive." So, what is the difference? The difference is, the embryo has the potential to become a human baby. Now, in your mind, this potential to become a baby means that it already is a human baby. Other people disagree. So, who gets to decide? Why do you get to be the one to force other people to accept your view of this very difficult, complex, personal decision?

It's interesting to me that your style of argument mostly involves assuming that you are right about the very issue that is in contention. For example, your basic argument against abortion goes as follows: Abortion is taking a human life because abortion is taking a human life. But that "because" just doesn't work. The question whether a fetus is a human life is exactly the issue in contention. You can't win your argument simply by "assuming" that you are right and then putting that assumption forward as your "proof" that you are right. And you have done the same thing here. You argue that there is no such thing as a "potential human life, that there is either life or not." But, that is exactly the issue being debated. Not everyone agrees that a fetus is more than a potential human life. I think you need to do more than simply declare: "I'm right because . . . I'm right." And I would point out that even so called pro-life people disagree on whether an embryo that has not yet attached is a "life." So which is it? Is such an embryo a "life" or a "potential life." I assume you will agree, there is room for debate on that point. The so-called pro-choice people simply take the same discussion further. Many simply do not agree with you that a fetus at any stage is a "human life." Many believe it is not anything more than a "potential human life." So, are you going to debate this issue? Or, are you simply going to argue, like usual, that "a fetus is a human life because a fetus is a human life."

Remember, sexual orientation is a choice, it's not something you are born with. So compulsory gay marriage should not be a problem for anyone. People can simply "choose" to be attracted to the same sex. If people have any residual problems with this they can join programs where people hit pillows and things to deal with it. And if this one simple solution resolves so many social problems, there is no reason why it should not be made compulsory. After all, "Legislature Knows Best." Here, let me start. Hey, 396Power, you look kinda cute. Do you really have a beard? What's your sign?

I support compulsory gay marriage for everyone.