OT: Interesting article on stem-cell breakthrough

[Red13JoePa]

A fetus, whether you call it a child or not, is still 100% human AND alive by the time any abortion can be performed.

Ding ding ding.

Why the fuck ELSE would aborters need abortion? If it wasn't alive, there'd be no need to kill it.

[conversationpc]

I'm glad they're making headway on using other sources for the stem cells, but the idea that religion can dictate what medical procedures and advances will be allowed sounds medieval to me.

The left is just as beholden to religion as the right is. You constantly see Dems campaigning in liberal churches, especially in the south, and they are lobbied by those same people. Is that "medieval" also? And don't give me that garbage about, it isn't as bad, blah blah blah. It is. You've the Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell types on the right and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton types on the left. Same old, same old.

[Red13JoePa]

I understand abortions in case of where there is truly something that has gone wrong, and the woman's life is completely and utterly in jeapordy, but again, that is rare.

Yes, but what are the %s? Can we justify all abortions in light of dramatic hypotheticals of doctors snatching a woman's life back out of the doorway of death at the last possible instant by killing the life-endangering baby?
Of course in those situations, if killing unborn babies is allowed by law, then consideration is warranted.

[bluejeangirl76]

A fetus, whether you call it a child or not, is still 100% human AND alive by the time any abortion can be performed.

Ding ding ding.

Why the fuck ELSE would aborters need abortion? If it wasn't alive, there'd be no need to kill it.

Right. Otherwise it's called a period and those eggies just abort themselves.
But sometimes them damned spermy guys show up and that's when all hell breaks loose.
Suddenly church and congress and everyone and their brother shows up to decide what should or should not happen.

[ohsherrie]

I'm glad they're making headway on using other sources for the stem cells, but the idea that religion can dictate what medical procedures and advances will be allowed sounds medieval to me.

The left is just as beholden to religion as the right is. You constantly see Dems campaigning in liberal churches, especially in the south, and they are lobbied by those same people. Is that "medieval" also? And don't give me that garbage about, it isn't as bad, blah blah blah. It is. You've the Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell types on the right and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton types on the left. Same old, same old.

I think you know that's not true. It's not the same at all. You never see religion being the issue in a Democratic campaign that it is with the Republicans. Not that the subject doesn't come up, but the Dems are not controlled by it to the extent that the Reps are. In fact, Charles Gibson said this morning that Romney's religious affiliation wouldn't be the issue that it is if he was a Democrat because the evangelicals don't influence the vote as much with the Democrats.

However, that really has nothing to do with why it seems medieval to me. Whatever the religion, the very idea that medical research and practice can be restricted by religious belief calls to my mind the kind of corrupt power the church had in medieval times.

[conversationpc]

I think you know that's not true. It's not the same at all. You never see religion being the issue in a Democratic campaign that it is with the Republicans. Not that the subject doesn't come up, but the Dems are not controlled by it to the extent that the Reps are. In fact, Charles Gibson said this morning that Romney's religious affiliation wouldn't be the issue that it is if he was a Democrat because the evangelicals don't influence the vote as much with the Democrats.

I see it all the time and I don't appreciate you telling me I know it's not true. I see it going on here in the Indianapolis area and I see news reports quite often with the same thing happening in other areas of the country, not just here.

As far as Romney goes, I'm not so sure it wouldn't be an issue on the Democrat side, either. There are lots of howlers on the left that fly off the handle whenever they hear anything remotely connected to religion in politics, regardless of the political affiliation.

[Little Lenny]

A miscarriage is a natural spontaneous abortion, natures way of saying something is wrong. I lost my sons twin this way, just on the 3/4 month mark.
However, sometimes your body can not register a problem in a fetus/embryo whatever the phase of pregnancy, my sister was carrying a baby for four and a half months until she found out the baby massive defects, and stood minimal chances of survival out of the womb. This had to be clinically aborted, this doesn't make her a bad person, if she had not had it done she would at best have given birth to a dead baby, my aunt had to do this, she said it a soul destroying chore knowing all the effort you put into it is producing a baby you can never hold, see grow, or care for as it grows.
At the end of the day politics, religion it's all personal taste as to who you vote for, how you worship, but if a decision as this has to be made, it isn't taken lightly and is a very difficult one to make, and IMO I don't think anything matters except the welfare of the persons involved, mum and baby.

[ohsherrie]

I think you know that's not true. It's not the same at all. You never see religion being the issue in a Democratic campaign that it is with the Republicans. Not that the subject doesn't come up, but the Dems are not controlled by it to the extent that the Reps are. In fact, Charles Gibson said this morning that Romney's religious affiliation wouldn't be the issue that it is if he was a Democrat because the evangelicals don't influence the vote as much with the Democrats.

I see it all the time and I don't appreciate you telling me I know it's not true. I see it going on here in the Indianapolis area and I see news reports quite often with the same thing happening in other areas of the country, not just here.

As far as Romney goes, I'm not so sure it wouldn't be an issue on the Democrat side, either. There are lots of howlers on the left that fly off the handle whenever they hear anything remotely connected to religion in politics, regardless of the political affiliation.

So you're telling me that you honestly believe religion has as much influence on the Democratic party as on the Reps? I guess if you want to believe that you can.

[conversationpc]

So you're telling me that you honestly believe religion has as much influence on the Democratic party as on the Reps? I guess if you want to believe that you can.

It's not a matter of belief. I know it to be so. If you don't see that, you need to pull your head out of the sand. Obviously, a lower percentage of Democrats identify themselves as regular churchgoers but that doesn't seem to keep their candidates from stumping at churches, raising funds from them, or being lobbied by those same people now does it?

[bluejeangirl76]

I think you know that's not true. It's not the same at all. You never see religion being the issue in a Democratic campaign that it is with the Republicans. Not that the subject doesn't come up, but the Dems are not controlled by it to the extent that the Reps are. In fact, Charles Gibson said this morning that Romney's religious affiliation wouldn't be the issue that it is if he was a Democrat because the evangelicals don't influence the vote as much with the Democrats.

I see it all the time and I don't appreciate you telling me I know it's not true. I see it going on here in the Indianapolis area and I see news reports quite often with the same thing happening in other areas of the country, not just here.

As far as Romney goes, I'm not so sure it wouldn't be an issue on the Democrat side, either. There are lots of howlers on the left that fly off the handle whenever they hear anything remotely connected to religion in politics, regardless of the political affiliation.

So you're telling me that you honestly believe religion has as much influence on the Democratic party as on the Reps? I guess if you want to believe that you can.

Man am I gonna get crucified for this one, but religion has too much influence on almost everything. Seems like regardless of what you do or do not believe, someone is there to tell you your wrong for it, you're not a good person for it, they're better than you for it, you're going to heaven for this and hell for that. I mean, there are much bigger things to worry about than whether or not "under god" is in the pledge of allllegiance or not.

It's in the goverment, it's in the elections, it's in the schools, both public and private... it's a big issue at Christmas if someone doesn't get greeted the way they want to at WalMart... it's too much. I'm willing to quietly sit back and respect what others believe and not get all up in arms if it's not the same thing I believe... and I do... and I know a lot of people who do as well... it would be nicer though if we could have 100% agreement on that course of action. Never ever gonna happen, but it would be nice.

[conversationpc]

Man am I gonna get crucified for this one, but religion has too much influence on almost everything. Seems like regardless of what you do or do not believe, someone is there to tell you your wrong for it, you're not a good person for it, they're better than you for it, you're going to heaven for this and hell for that.

There's certainly some of that but, in my experience, some people who just don't want to hear about religion at all get all flustered if someone mentions anything related to religion to them and they claim that they're being preached to or forced to believe something when that was far from the case.

I mean, there are much bigger things to worry about than whether or not "under god" is in the pledge of allllegiance or not.

Amen, sister! Preach it.

it's a big issue at Christmas if someone doesn't get greeted the way they want to at WalMart...

Most people don't care as long as the companies in question don't go out of their way to point out that they're not saying "Merry Christmas" or some such nonsense. If a company doesn't want to do that, it's fine with me. I do have a problem with what some companies are doing where they won't allow the Salvation Army, for instance, to take donations on their property simply because they're a religiously affiliated organization. That's wrong.

[bluejeangirl76]

Man am I gonna get crucified for this one, but religion has too much influence on almost everything. Seems like regardless of what you do or do not believe, someone is there to tell you your wrong for it, you're not a good person for it, they're better than you for it, you're going to heaven for this and hell for that.

There's certainly some of that but, in my experience, some people who just don't want to hear about religion at all get all flustered if someone mentions anything related to religion to them and they claim that they're being preached to or forced to believe something when that was far from the case.

You're right about that - and possibly I should have rambled a bit more to include both sides of that.
There are the polar opposites who are ready to tear each others faces off, and then there are the folks in the middle, which I happen to believe is a larger number than most people think, who just roll their eyes at both ends and think "jeez people, chill out a little."

I've got a few folks running around in my family who absolutely insist on spreading those damned email forwards about the pinkos who want to to take god out of everything, and this time of year the "merry christmas" ones are coming along, just yesterday I received some athiest-bashing joke... I have no use for that kind of b.s. In the grand scheme of things, those are minor issues (to me). No one is going to die if "god" stay in the pledge of allegiance or on the money any more than someone is is going to die if it comes out. Take it out for all anyone cares... there's plenty of other places to find "god" if you so desire. Or leave it in... if it upsets you, go spend the dollars so you don't have to look at it, or recite your pledge without it.

[ohsherrie]

So you're telling me that you honestly believe religion has as much influence on the Democratic party as on the Reps? I guess if you want to believe that you can.

It's not a matter of belief. I know it to be so. If you don't see that, you need to pull your head out of the sand. Obviously, a lower percentage of Democrats identify themselves as regular churchgoers but that doesn't seem to keep their candidates from stumping at churches, raising funds from them, or being lobbied by those same people now does it?

No it doesn't, but that's not the point. What I'm saying is that the Republican party caters to the evangelical religious right to the point where they're seen as the strongest faction of the Republican base. That is just simply not true of the Democratic party. If you honestly don't believe that then it is most certainly a belief on your part because EVERYBODY knows it and you're not going to change that by denying it in this thread. The Reps are quaking in their shoes right now because the evangelicals can't find a darling among their candidates. For some reason Huckabee doesn't seem to appeal to them. I'm actually seeing that and Romney's strong showing a positive sign that things may be beginning to change on that front.

[Rhiannon]

So you're telling me that you honestly believe religion has as much influence on the Democratic party as on the Reps? I guess if you want to believe that you can.

It's not a matter of belief. I know it to be so. If you don't see that, you need to pull your head out of the sand. Obviously, a lower percentage of Democrats identify themselves as regular churchgoers but that doesn't seem to keep their candidates from stumping at churches, raising funds from them, or being lobbied by those same people now does it?

No it doesn't, but that's not the point. What I'm saying is that the Republican party caters to the evangelical religious right to the point where they're seen as the strongest faction of the Republican base. That is just simply not true of the Democratic party. If you honestly don't believe that then it is most certainly a belief on your part because EVERYBODY knows it and you're not going to change that by denying it in this thread. The Reps are quaking in their shoes right now because the evangelicals can't find a darling among their candidates. For some reason Huckabee doesn't seem to appeal to them. I'm actually seeing that and Romney's strong showing a positive sign that things may be beginning to change on that front.

Every party is influenced by outside sources with a set of ideals. Why is it that 'religion' must be singled out? There are just as many other belief systems other than 'religion' lobbying to change the law for their own benefit. On each party, that is half the point of the party system.

[scarygirl]

Now what I'd like to know is how many video cameras are going to be watching everybody's lives to make sure all of the above requirements are met so that this law can be effectively enforced?

Late term abortions should absolutely be illegal unless the woman's life is in danger and that can be enforced if doctors who perform them are prosecuted. But, you can't drag a woman or girl through the legal system for months trying to determine if her case meets and the above mentioned requirements until her pregnancy is to too far advanced.

Denying every woman or girl the right to an abortion regardless of the circumstances just because there are some who abuse the right is as absurd as denying the right to extract stem cells from fetal tissue that has already been aborted or embryos that were left over from in vitro fertility procedures with the permission of the donors.

I'm glad they're making headway on using other sources for the stem cells, but the idea that religion can dictate what medical procedures and advances will be allowed sounds medieval to me.

Bravo. Good points, sherrie. And nowhere in the proposed legislative action did it say anything about stem cell research, which I thought was the topic at hand here, and was in fact part of the argument halfway up the page. Where'd it go? We went from stem cell research to underaged sex, and abortion providers who don't report it, which is a whole separate matter entirely.

Where do stem cells come from? Aborted fetuses. As smart as Man fancies himself he's not that smart. They don't simply rise from thin air. Abortion and stem cells go together. No abortions, no stem cells.

You're right I did forget about the stem cell part. So to answer you, like I have answered time and time again, I am for stem cells so long as we don't purposely have to destroy someone else to get there. This new research that the OP brought before us sounds exciting, we should put more of our focus there.

So, Stem Cells, if I were up for election I would make it illegal to purposely bring about a child that is a carbon copy of their little sis, ala, cloning. To bring such a person for the sheer purpose of cherry picking them for their stem cells, organs, skin, what have you is WRONG. By following this path, you take away their person hood, their individuality and make them some thing to be slung aside when all doesn't end well.

If however, their is an existing sibling who just happens to a match for blood marrow, what have you, that should be allowed so long as their is a hearing on the donor child's behalf to determine if this is indeed the best course for them. In addition, there should be tight controls to protect the welfare of the donor child so they don't become a human guinea just to slow down an enveitable life course of the donor recepient- death.

There is quite the interesting book on this subject, My Sister's Keeper by Jody Picoult. It is a work of fiction, but incorporates the reality that exists today. In it, it describes just the situation that I descibe, a child born for the sole purpose of curing her sister from Leukemia. The only problem is, the treatments don't work. But they keep going anyway. They keep taking and taking, not taking into account the health of the donor and the fact that the donor doesn't want to exist solely for the benefit of keeping her sibling alive. This is where I believe we are at. We're so about what others want, and the good of the populace that we forget the individual. We forget the soul.

To those that compare a fetus to a common period, ugh okay. Periods don't bleed arms and legs. They don't have developing hearts and minds. So explain this to me again? There was some comment made about how we get all up in arms when a sperm appears. Like it can just appear. When two people get together, of course things happen, sometimes a child. It used to be that people accepted consequences and gracefully. Not anymore.

[conversationpc]

No it doesn't, but that's not the point. What I'm saying is that the Republican party caters to the evangelical religious right to the point where they're seen as the strongest faction of the Republican base. That is just simply not true of the Democratic party. If you honestly don't believe that then it is most certainly a belief on your part because EVERYBODY knows it and you're not going to change that by denying it in this thread. The Reps are quaking in their shoes right now because the evangelicals can't find a darling among their candidates. For some reason Huckabee doesn't seem to appeal to them. I'm actually seeing that and Romney's strong showing a positive sign that things may be beginning to change on that front.

It isn't as organized on the left, that's for sure but it's just as pervasive overall. You can't deny the huge amount of campaigning that goes on with liberal candidates at churches, synagogues, etc. It happens ALL the time. And, no, those on the left may say that they are not beholden to them but, in practice, it just isn't true. If you think otherwise, your head is in the sand.

Don't kid yourself about Romney. He may not be an evangelical Christian but he has basically the same core beliefs that most Republicans do. I'm not sure I trust the guy. He comes across as kinda like a car salesman. There's just something that doesn't seem right about him.

I really like Huckabee and I don't see him as beholden to special interests as you do. Certainly he is a former Baptist minister but he seems like a straight shooter. His problem as I see it is that he may be weak on illegal immigration.

[conversationpc]

Every party is influenced by outside sources with a set of ideals. Why is it that 'religion' must be singled out? There are just as many other belief systems other than 'religion' lobbying to change the law for their own benefit. On each party, that is half the point of the party system.

That's the point I'm trying to make only you said it much better than I. Religion does play a huge part on the left, as well as other belief systems as you stated.

[RedWingFan]

Every party is influenced by outside sources with a set of ideals. Why is it that 'religion' must be singled out? There are just as many other belief systems other than 'religion' lobbying to change the law for their own benefit. On each party, that is half the point of the party system.

That's the point I'm trying to make only you said it much better than I. Religion does play a huge part on the left, as well as other belief systems as you stated.

It plays even a bigger part on the left when you throw in the "global warming wackos"

[conversationpc]

Every party is influenced by outside sources with a set of ideals. Why is it that 'religion' must be singled out? There are just as many other belief systems other than 'religion' lobbying to change the law for their own benefit. On each party, that is half the point of the party system.

That's the point I'm trying to make only you said it much better than I. Religion does play a huge part on the left, as well as other belief systems as you stated.

It plays even a bigger part on the left when you throw in the "global warming wackos"

Good point. Gore and Robert Kennedy are more religious and zealous about that stuff than most Christians are.

[ohsherrie]

Good point. Gore and Robert Kennedy are more religious and zealous about that stuff than most Christians are.

I don't know what religion Al Gore is into because I don't consider that important enough in a candidate to check out unless they're pushing some religious agenda, but are you saying that Catholics aren't Christians?(Kennedy)

[bluejeangirl76]

To those that compare a fetus to a common period, ugh okay. Periods don't bleed arms and legs. They don't have developing hearts and minds. So explain this to me again? There was some comment made about how we get all up in arms when a sperm appears. Like it can just appear.

It was a freakin' JOKE that was played off another post. Calm the hell down already and lighten up.

So, Stem Cells, if I were up for election I would make it illegal to purposely bring about a child that is a carbon copy of their little sis, ala, cloning. To bring such a person for the sheer purpose of cherry picking them for their stem cells, organs, skin, what have you is WRONG. By following this path, you take away their person hood, their individuality and make them some thing to be slung aside when all doesn't end well.

The problem in this is you cannot stop people from having children, regardless of their "reasons". Let's say there is a mythical law banning the creation of children in order to facilitate a bone marrow transplant for an older sibling. Well, assuming it's "against the law", the parents are hardly going to admit this is why they had the child. How could you prove it? They're going to say they'd been planning on having more children, it was an unplanned pregnancy and they intend to keep it... whatever. And then they'll say, well, wow, the new baby is a match, so while we're at it... so making it illegal to create a child... no, not so much.

To bring such a person for the sheer purpose of cherry picking them for their stem cells, organs, skin, what have you is WRONG.

Is it? Where's it say that? You state it as a fact rather than an opinion. I'm pretty sure the people who not only have a once-sick child that's been treated, but a beautiful second child, would disagree about how wrong it is. And I'm not saying it's wrong OR right. But who are you... who is anyone, for that matter, to get up and declare what is or is not right. Opinions are one thing. Statements like that are what's wrong with our government. Statements like that are what could end up one day getting Roe v. Wade thrown out, and sending women back to back alley butchers.

[conversationpc]

I don't know what religion Al Gore is into because I don't consider that important enough in a candidate to check out unless they're pushing some religious agenda, but are you saying that Catholics aren't Christians?(Kennedy)

I have no idea what that has to do with what I was talking about.

[scarygirl]

To those that compare a fetus to a common period, ugh okay. Periods don't bleed arms and legs. They don't have developing hearts and minds. So explain this to me again? There was some comment made about how we get all up in arms when a sperm appears. Like it can just appear.

It was a freakin' JOKE that was played off another post. Calm the hell down already and lighten up.

So, Stem Cells, if I were up for election I would make it illegal to purposely bring about a child that is a carbon copy of their little sis, ala, cloning. To bring such a person for the sheer purpose of cherry picking them for their stem cells, organs, skin, what have you is WRONG. By following this path, you take away their person hood, their individuality and make them some thing to be slung aside when all doesn't end well.

The problem in this is you cannot stop people from having children, regardless of their "reasons". Let's say there is a mythical law banning the creation of children in order to facilitate a bone marrow transplant for an older sibling. Well, assuming it's "against the law", the parents are hardly going to admit this is why they had the child. How could you prove it? They're going to say they'd been planning on having more children, it was an unplanned pregnancy and they intend to keep it... whatever. And then they'll say, well, wow, the new baby is a match, so while we're at it... so making it illegal to create a child... no, not so much.

To bring such a person for the sheer purpose of cherry picking them for their stem cells, organs, skin, what have you is WRONG.

Is it? Where's it say that? You state it as a fact rather than an opinion. I'm pretty sure the people who not only have a once-sick child that's been treated, but a beautiful second child, would disagree about how wrong it is. And I'm not saying it's wrong OR right. But who are you... who is anyone, for that matter, to get up and declare what is or is not right. Opinions are one thing. Statements like that are what's wrong with our government. Statements like that are what could end up one day getting Roe v. Wade thrown out, and sending women back to back alley butchers.

It is wrong. Statements like mine are protected by the first amendment. I won't allow you or anyone else to silence me.

If one doesn't want to go to a back alley butcher, they should take some responsibility for themself. It's not that difficult.

Who are you to tell me I'm wrong? You know, none of you except for a few bothered to read what I actually said. I said there were instances where I could see abortion being legal, but no, you (unus plural) ignore that and go on the attack.

[scarygirl]

To those that compare a fetus to a common period, ugh okay. Periods don't bleed arms and legs. They don't have developing hearts and minds. So explain this to me again? There was some comment made about how we get all up in arms when a sperm appears. Like it can just appear.

It was a freakin' JOKE that was played off another post. Calm the hell down already and lighten up.

So, Stem Cells, if I were up for election I would make it illegal to purposely bring about a child that is a carbon copy of their little sis, ala, cloning. To bring such a person for the sheer purpose of cherry picking them for their stem cells, organs, skin, what have you is WRONG. By following this path, you take away their person hood, their individuality and make them some thing to be slung aside when all doesn't end well.

The problem in this is you cannot stop people from having children, regardless of their "reasons". Let's say there is a mythical law banning the creation of children in order to facilitate a bone marrow transplant for an older sibling. Well, assuming it's "against the law", the parents are hardly going to admit this is why they had the child. How could you prove it? They're going to say they'd been planning on having more children, it was an unplanned pregnancy and they intend to keep it... whatever. And then they'll say, well, wow, the new baby is a match, so while we're at it... so making it illegal to create a child... no, not so much.

To bring such a person for the sheer purpose of cherry picking them for their stem cells, organs, skin, what have you is WRONG.

Is it? Where's it say that? You state it as a fact rather than an opinion. I'm pretty sure the people who not only have a once-sick child that's been treated, but a beautiful second child, would disagree about how wrong it is. And I'm not saying it's wrong OR right. But who are you... who is anyone, for that matter, to get up and declare what is or is not right. Opinions are one thing. Statements like that are what's wrong with our government. Statements like that are what could end up one day getting Roe v. Wade thrown out, and sending women back to back alley butchers.

Oh, and another thing, don't ever tell me to calm the hell down.

[conversationpc]

[scarygirl]

I'm fine. I just don't like being told how I should feel. I have stated my opinion much as they have stated there's, but I truly believe they take a few things I say and turn it into something it's not. I have tried my darndest to not do that to them.

[bluejeangirl76]

Oh, and another thing, don't ever tell me to calm the hell down.

Really? "Statements like mine are protected by the first amendment. I won't allow you or anyone else to silence me."

[scarygirl]

Here is my post in totum in case anyone cares to read it. There was no reason what so ever for me to be told to calm the hell down. I was simply answering there questions. Yeah, comparing a baby to menustration does bother me, so?

Where do stem cells come from? Aborted fetuses. As smart as Man fancies himself he's not that smart. They don't simply rise from thin air. Abortion and stem cells go together. No abortions, no stem cells.

You're right I did forget about the stem cell part. So to answer you, like I have answered time and time again, I am for stem cells so long as we don't purposely have to destroy someone else to get there. This new research that the OP brought before us sounds exciting, we should put more of our focus there.

So, Stem Cells, if I were up for election I would make it illegal to purposely bring about a child that is a carbon copy of their little sis, ala, cloning. To bring such a person for the sheer purpose of cherry picking them for their stem cells, organs, skin, what have you is WRONG. By following this path, you take away their person hood, their individuality and make them some thing to be slung aside when all doesn't end well.

If however, their is an existing sibling who just happens to a match for blood marrow, what have you, that should be allowed so long as their is a hearing on the donor child's behalf to determine if this is indeed the best course for them. In addition, there should be tight controls to protect the welfare of the donor child so they don't become a human guinea just to slow down an enveitable life course of the donor recepient- death.

There is quite the interesting book on this subject, My Sister's Keeper by Jody Picoult. It is a work of fiction, but incorporates the reality that exists today. In it, it describes just the situation that I descibe, a child born for the sole purpose of curing her sister from Leukemia. The only problem is, the treatments don't work. But they keep going anyway. They keep taking and taking, not taking into account the health of the donor and the fact that the donor doesn't want to exist solely for the benefit of keeping her sibling alive. This is where I believe we are at. We're so about what others want, and the good of the populace that we forget the individual. We forget the soul.

To those that compare a fetus to a common period, ugh okay. Periods don't bleed arms and legs. They don't have developing hearts and minds. So explain this to me again? There was some comment made about how we get all up in arms when a sperm appears. Like it can just appear. When two people get together, of course things happen, sometimes a child. It used to be that people accepted consequences and gracefully. Not anymore.

[scarygirl]

Oh, and another thing, don't ever tell me to calm the hell down.

Really? "Statements like mine are protected by the first amendment. I won't allow you or anyone else to silence me."

You know what I meant. If you have the right to tell me to calm the Hell down, then I have the right to tell you to stuff it. If you have the right to joke and compare fetuses to menstrual cyles then I have the right to be offended and tell you how so.

And yeah, I hope Roe vs. Wade is challenged.

[ohsherrie]

BJG,


There's no point in arguing with people for whom reality has no meaning. They live in a bubble that neither logic, nor real science nor real history can penetrate. You're cool as hell for trying though.

I've given up because I don't have time for deciphering hysterical rantings.