Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You missed the point. The health care bill was passed in order to get a single-payer system. It is a stunt.
And it doesn't aim to help anyone except politicians.
It's a stunt to get politicians more power. Sort of like the "Patriot" Act.
Wrong and wrong, so, zero for two, cowboy. Your continuous attempts to deflect from the actual issue, and actual, rational, logical and scientific evidence, just don't work because they can all be derailed immediately. For god's sake, at least make it a challenge. Otherwise, you're just taking up space on a thread.
But I'll continue to answer your non-analogies if that's what you really want. I doubt it's what you want, though.
Oh good grief. Selective blindness. It doesn't? Eating, as opposed to not eating, doesn't save a life? Or is this one of those "yeah, but they're all lying and driving around in Rolls Royces" selective ignorance things? Okay, taking your scenario that 1% "saving" is worth it, then even if 1% of people on government assistance are saved (by food, shelter, medical care), how could you of all people decide it's bogus?
Please. The hypocrisy.
.
Private charity does a better job at the stuff you are talking about than government. And cheaper too. And they don't care what race or gender one is before getting assitance.
Okay. So. Aborting a fetus that is already dead within the womb (yep, it happens...it happened to my best friend with her second child, actually), or who lacks a brain (anencephaly), or is otherwise destined to die but much more painfully if allowed to develop further (since the nerves generally will be developing further too), isn't taking a life. And medical reasons account for a percentage of late-term abortions. We're narrowing this gap of "saved" late-term fetuses even more. You see what you want to see: HUGE numbers of women are aborting well developed fetuses willy-nilly. This is so untrue and so slanted. Look at the actual facts and you'll be embarrassed.
Wrong and wrong, so, zero for two, cowboy. Your continuous attempts to deflect from the actual issue, and actual, rational, logical and scientific evidence, just don't work because they can all be derailed immediately. For god's sake, at least make it a challenge. Otherwise, you're just taking up space on a thread.
But I'll continue to answer your non-analogies if that's what you really want. I doubt it's what you want, though.
You said this law was a stunt to narrow the gap on abortion law. That's your opinion. You have no proof.
I said it reminds me of the health "care" law which was a stunt to narrow the gap to single-payer. I have no proof, it's my opinion.
I wasn't trying to deflect anything. Just making a comparison. Cowgirl.
Private charity does a better job at the stuff you are talking about than government. And cheaper too. And they don't care what race or gender one is before getting assitance.
Okay. Just re-read this with your edits and I have to say, I highly doubt you're a doctor or a scientist in this field. There is just too much error in what you say. And there's way too much glazing over facts with overemotional imagery for you to be a person of science. Sorry. I doubt you.
OTOH, if you WERE among this group, it's all good since the science simply isn't solid...not if it's presented anything even close to in this way.
But just for shoots and giggles, since the link provided only mentioned that such science supposedly exists and not specifically what that science is, and since you say you've read peer-reviewed studies, would you please link those specific studies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Okay. Whatever you say. Next time, you take the time to get the appropriate degree, study the available peer reviewed science, and take time to present to the legislature. Then you will get what you want.
Read the testimony and perhaps you will learn something. This scientific approach, which eliminates the subjectivity regarding the dates at which "life begins", will be presented in other states. The evidence cannot be refuted, therefore it is a very compelling argument which can sway even liberals.
Tell me....................... Suppose you were a patient undergoing a surgical procedure, and could not relate tissue injury and perception of pain, as you have been rendered incapable of doing so, due to neuromuscular blocking agents and the fact that you are intubated, and so cannot speak. You would be completely at the mercy of those operating on you, who, by virtue of somatosensory evoked potentials (to evaluate spinal cord integrity), physiological changes, or intra-op EEG changes to determine neural integrity and the assurance that you would not feel pain. Is this fair? Or would you prefer a crap shoot and just gamble that perhaps your spinal cord may be damaged, or perhaps you would feel everything during a surgical procedure?
Now imagine a fetus with fully developed pain pathways. That fetus cannot object to being dismembered, nor can the fetus show signs of physiogical distress at being dismembered, as there is no monitoring to document such pain. However,these pathways are fully developed and the monitoring of such manifestations, both directly and indirectly, confirm this.
Anyone up for being drawn and quartered while perfectly alert? If so, you are a proponant of late term abortions. If not, you are an opponant. It is quite simple and something that even a liberal can understand.
Is this part of that "solid evidence" we keep hearing about?
The abortionist thinking is if there is no fetal scream there must be no pain.
What a crime against humanity they are undertaking for a woman's right to choose.
Nebraska needs to pass this law. My thanks to Hawk.
The abortionist thinking is if there is no fetal scream there must be no pain.
Is that so? Do you know of any "abortionist" who is enough of a moron to think that ANYTHING in utero could produce a scream since its lungs are filled with fluid?
Ok, so some woman in Nebraska as one less week to make up her mind. Big win for the home team.
Do any of these pro-life yahoos ever think that one of the unintended consequences is that with shorter periods of time for a woman to make up her mind may lead to more abortions and not less?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
