Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Michigan House GOP Look Like Bozos  
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2039 times:

I can't believe in 2011 that this kind of nonsense continues to occur. It makes me wonder why women even talk to us:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-word-vagina-abortion-debate.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDDUoXsSN5g

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...te-capitol-steps-article-1.1097068

Interesting and amusing ripostes from two columnists at Slate magazine, the first of which I find almost too funny:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double..._time_to_regulate_against_it_.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...of_the_anti_choice_mega_bill_.html

I'm a guy, and I know I should stand up for my gender. We as a group often do wonderful and selfless things. But pretty regularly the Neanderthal gene asserts itself and stupidity like this rears its' ugly head. Perhaps restricted only to Michigan state GOP legislators, but I don't know that for sure.

For crap's sake, guys, it's the 21st century, not 10,000 BC. If you're assured that it is, go dress in some animal skin, get a spear, and go get dinner for your family. But beware that Homeland Security will be watching you.


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2031 times:

I'm lost, what is the big outrage? The abortion related bill or that they don't want her to say vagina?


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4389 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
Perhaps restricted only to Michigan state GOP legislators, but I don't know that for sure.

No, pretty much 'tea party endorsed' candidates..



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5525 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1983 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
I'm lost, what is the big outrage? The abortion related bill or that they don't want her to say vagina?

From what I could make of it I am pretty sure the Republican's were upset with her thinking they were interested in her vagina....

(from connies first link)

Quote:
But what caused the most controversy were the closing words to Brown’s speech. ‘And finally, Mr Speaker,’ she said. ‘I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but no means no.’

Was her wording particularly wonderful? No. However I think the rebuke is silly on its face. Perhaps if she had called it her "hoo-hoo" or vah-jay-jay instead....

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
Quote:
But what caused the most controversy were the closing words to Brown’s speech. ‘And finally, Mr Speaker,’ she said. ‘I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but no means no.’

Was her wording particularly wonderful? No. However I think the rebuke is silly on its face. Perhaps if she had called it her "hoo-hoo" or vah-jay-jay instead....

Ah, well to be fair, that was a pretty unprofessional thing to say. But I think they're making a mountain out of a molehill. Isn't the abortion debate controversial enough without throwing in this stupidity?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3128 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1952 times:

I read that she was scheduled to perform "The Vagina Monologues" near the state capital. Here:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...onologues-in-protest-of-gag-order/

Yea!

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
Was her wording particularly wonderful? No. However I think the rebuke is silly on its face. Perhaps if she had called it her "hoo-hoo" or vah-jay-jay instead....

That's equally stupid, no offense. That very suggestion came up in an Onion spoof yesterday. Or maybe I'm not in a good mood and you actually are trying to crack a joke, and that I can appreciate. But what a bunch of idiots. Her wording was exactly right, and she would have been faulted more for using the slang (or profanity). Having a debate that involves medical procedures and ethics, not to mention symbolism (while not using any offensive slang), one would think grown-ups could be capable of discussing correct anatomical parts.

-Rampart


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5525 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 4):
Ah, well to be fair, that was a pretty unprofessional thing to say. But I think they're making a mountain out of a molehill. Isn't the abortion debate controversial enough without throwing in this stupidity?

  

Both sides could do better but alas, neither side seems interested in doing so.

Quoting rampart (Reply 5):
That's equally stupid, no offense. That very suggestion came up in an Onion spoof yesterday. Or maybe I'm not in a good mood and you actually are trying to crack a joke, and that I can appreciate. But what a bunch of idiots. Her wording was exactly right, and she would have been faulted more for using the slang (or profanity). Having a debate that involves medical procedures and ethics, not to mention symbolism (while not using any offensive slang), one would think grown-ups could be capable of discussing correct anatomical parts.

As I have been called out on in another thread, I am finding it hard to address stupidity without utilizing equal stupidity (and I hadn't seen it in The Onion). Yes, I am trying to joke about it as it all just seems so inane. The word "vagina" shouldn't and doesn't have any offensive qualities about it but I think it was her stating they were taking an interest in "her vagina" that bothered them.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1930 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
The word "vagina" shouldn't and doesn't have any offensive qualities about it but I think it was her stating they were taking an interest in "her vagina" that bothered them.

Yeah, can you imagine a guy talking to a primarily woman audience (or even an audience with just a few women) saying to not be interested in his penis? Heads would roll and it would be a huge national outrage. A guy couldn't say that, neither should this woman. But she did... say "shame on you" and move on...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3128 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
Yes, I am trying to joke about it as it all just seems so inane.

Sorry, then, for my take on your comment. I can see that she used it, accurately, in a way that would confront their stupidity, to it was meant to be provoking, I think. It seems to have been the next and necessary level of discourse, and it will be often repeated.

Brown's take on her religion is spot on, btw. That's not getting much attention, but the teenage chatter is.

-Rampart


User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):

Yeah, can you imagine a guy talking to a primarily woman audience (or even an audience with just a few women) saying to not be interested in his penis? Heads would roll and it would be a huge national outrage. A guy couldn't say that, neither should this woman. But she did... say "shame on you" and move on...

But that's not what she said.

It's not at all inappropriate for her to say "I understand you're really interested in my vagina, but no means no" and it isn't in any way comparable to the hypothetical you've just given.

A more apt comparison would be a man telling a legislative body that is 80% female and looking to severely and extremely restrictively regulate men's reproductive health to please stay away from his penis. Legislation similar to what has been considered by Republicans in various states where these bills have come up might include, say, mandatory catheterization for anybody who wanted, say, a vasectomy or a prostate examination.

Her objection comes from a religious point of view being legislatively forced, almost exclusively by men, onto women who are not of the same faith.

The Michigan house wants to enact extremely restrictive anti-abortion legislation, the justification for which is primarily religious. Right away, that's not good. But beyond that, these "small government conservatives" feel perfectly comfortable with legislating on Women's health matters and, in particular, seem spectacularly fixated on women's reproductive health to the exclusion of more important issues. They are also willing to legislate invasive, medically unnecessary procedures that women will be forced to undergo if they want to use their right to an abortion.

On a macro note - there's nothing at all conservative about any of that. Forcing religion on people, forcing people to go through outrageously insulting, invasive, and un-necessary procedures, none of this is in any way "conservative" and it defames the very notion of "conservative."

Her response is, if anything, moderate compared to the draconian lengths of these pieces of legislation, which seem to be cropping up in every Republican controlled legislature in the country in what looks like an extraordinarily coordinated war on women's choices, freedoms, and reproductive rights.

She's perfectly justified, and those who would censor her - and another female representative who didn't use the word but also argued against the radical anti-abortion measure - on other, completely unrelated matters that have nothing to do with vaginas - or women's health - or religion should resign their offices effective immediately.

Let's hear the speech, btw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eRyQi-o9MA

[Edited 2012-06-18 15:46:08]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
I'm lost, what is the big outrage? The abortion related bill or that they don't want her to say vagina?

I actually think the bigger outrage is the legislation.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 2):
Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
Perhaps restricted only to Michigan state GOP legislators, but I don't know that for sure.

No, pretty much 'tea party endorsed' candidates..

Yup. The neanderthal gene runs strong there.

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):

From what I could make of it I am pretty sure the Republican's were upset with her thinking they were interested in her vagina....

(from connies first link)

Thanks for the credit !   
But do the GOP actually know where one is ? Oh, sorry, they keep breeding...

Quoting cargolex (Reply 9):
The Michigan house wants to enact extremely restrictive anti-abortion legislation, the justification for which is primarily religious. Right away, that's not good. But beyond that, these "small government conservatives" feel perfectly comfortable with legislating on Women's health matters and, in particular, seem spectacularly fixated on women's reproductive health to the exclusion of more important issues. They are also willing to legislate invasive, medically unnecessary procedures that women will be forced to undergo if they want to use their right to an abortion.

To my way of thinking, any religiously-based legislation is extremely dangerous. And morality, which is not a universal standard but a personal one. Rights are different, and are universal.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 9):
On a macro note - there's nothing at all conservative about any of that. Forcing religion on people, forcing people to go through outrageously insulting, invasive, and un-necessary procedures, none of this is in any way "conservative" and it defames the very notion of "conservative."

Indeed, I always thought the "conservatives" wanted society to be based on individual choices, not on top-down legislation.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 9):
Her response is, if anything, moderate compared to the draconian lengths of these pieces of legislation, which seem to be cropping up in every Republican controlled legislature in the country in what looks like an extraordinarily coordinated war on women's choices, freedoms, and reproductive rights.

Underlining the seriously mysogynistic tendencies of some of the extreme Republicans -- even the women. I guess there must be a fair bit of self-loathing in that closet.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 9):
She's perfectly justified, and those who would censor her - and another female representative who didn't use the word but also argued against the radical anti-abortion measure - on other, completely unrelated matters that have nothing to do with vaginas - or women's health - or religion should resign their offices effective immediately.

I think we're in lock step on this topic ! To quote Steve Martin from "My Blue Heaven" -- "I'm witcha".



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

Quoting cargolex (Reply 9):
Her objection comes from a religious point of view being legislatively forced, almost exclusively by men, onto women who are not of the same faith.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
I actually think the bigger outrage is the legislation.

Not to start another abortion debate, but it's not always religious. I'm 100% AGAINST forcing religion on people but I am against abortion and think it should be outlawed based on human rights of the baby, just as I'm against the death penalty for non-religious reasons. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, I don't care and don't want to start this debate again. But to equate anyone against abortion as "anti-woman" or "pushing religion" is rubbish. It often is, and maybe these guys in Michigan are, but they actually may not be. That would be implying that a politician isn't being political for once, but I digress...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19608 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

The best part was when the State House passed an "anti-bullying" bill that SPECIFICALLY exempted bullying that is based on "religious or ethical grounds."

So basically they passed a bill that says that bullying is fine as long as you justify it with your religion or ethical views. It was a SPECIFIC exception made to allow anti-gay bullying, but worded so broadly that it would have been legal to bully a kid for being Jewish...or Christian.

It's as if all the high school bullies got together and formed the Michigan GOP. Remember, there's a branch of the KKK in Michigan (I know; they drive around with Confederate flags, too... it's bizarre) and they are HEAVILY involved in state politics.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8228 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
or that they don't want her to say vagina?

Bingo!

Holy rollers don't want actual anatomy terms used - better to keep those under the covers.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 9):
But beyond that, these "small government conservatives" feel perfectly comfortable with legislating on Women's health matters and, in particular, seem spectacularly fixated on women's reproductive health to the exclusion of more important issues.

They are pretty vicious when it comes to women's health.

Let's see how they do when men's health comes up.

Or, say, how to go after the Deadhead Dads. (Doesn't the GOP have a Deadbeat Dad serving in Congress?)

Quoting cargolex (Reply 9):
They are also willing to legislate invasive, medically unnecessary procedures that women will be forced to undergo if they want to use their right to an abortion

I guess that means we have

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
Indeed, I always thought the "conservatives" wanted society to be based on individual choices, not on top-down legislation.

That was before the GOP was taken over by Holy Rollers, The TPers, and unlimited cash in SuperPACs. Remember how the Freshmen GOP were whipping Boehner around after they were sworn in? Uncontrolled religious zealots, they would have been funny to watch if they didn't do so much harm.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):
just as I'm against the death penalty for non-religious reasons.

I don't understand, does that mean you are for the death penalty for religious reasons?


User currently offlineJetBlueGuy2006 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1658 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

Quoting cargolex (Reply 9):

The Michigan house wants to enact extremely restrictive anti-abortion legislation, the justification for which is primarily religious. Right away, that's not good. But beyond that, these "small government conservatives" feel perfectly comfortable with legislating on Women's health matters

This is something I have aways wondered.

I live near the state capitol, and what I think has a lot of people outraged is not only that what she said isn't necessarily wrong, it was that the House Majority informed the House Minority that she would not be allowed to speak. While both parties have not always been able to speak, they have never been told in advance. With them telling both representatives(there was a kind of similar event) that they could not speak, they were in essence cutting off the voices of ~180,000 constituents.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120616/COL10/206160426

Quote:
"It's never happened," legislative historian and Inside Politics editor Bill Ballenger said. "There is no precedent. There have been altercations in the House and Senate. But the idea of the controlling party, Republican or Democratic, censuring, in a sense, two of its members for speech, literally clamping down on their free-speech rights?It never happened and shouldn't happen.



Home Airport: Capital Region International Airport (KLAN)
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13096 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

Every Democrat should have walked out of the chamber when the recommendation for discipline came up. They need to be behind both women and tie up any legislation until they are allowed to speak.

The actions of the Republicans in Michigan with these women is beyond disgusting, they just wanted to silence any opposition to more highly restricted reasonable access to abortion or health care to get for cheap votes from the religious right for.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
The best part was when the State House passed an "anti-bullying" bill that SPECIFICALLY exempted bullying that is based on "religious or ethical grounds."

Holy crap. What a disgrace.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19608 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1767 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
That was before the GOP was taken over by Holy Rollers, The TPers, and unlimited cash in SuperPACs. Remember how the Freshmen GOP were whipping Boehner around after they were sworn in? Uncontrolled religious zealots, they would have been funny to watch if they didn't do so much harm.

No. They are not religious. They are not even zealots because they don't know what they're zealous about. They are high school bullies in suits. They are rebels without a cause. Like anarchist demonstrators on the streets in London, they will use whatever justification, no matter how irrelevant, inappropriate, or outrageous, to continue on a destructive binge for the sake of being destructive. As long as someone is suffering at their hands, their work is being done. As long as they can slap each-other on the back and claim to be shaking things up, they are happy.

And it speaks a lot about the quality of the American people that we let them get into power.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1763 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):
just as I'm against the death penalty for non-religious reasons.

I don't understand, does that mean you are for the death penalty for religious reasons?

No it means I don't base decisions regarding others / laws based off religious reasons. Religiously I'm against the death penalty, but in a debate with others, I won't bring the religious aspect into it. Same with abortion

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
The best part was when the State House passed an "anti-bullying" bill that SPECIFICALLY exempted bullying that is based on "religious or ethical grounds."

Holy crap. What a disgrace.

   I wonder who they think they're fooling...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19608 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1756 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
  I wonder who they think they're fooling...

A huge contingent of very angry people who will vote for other angry people.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1691 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):
Not to start another abortion debate, but it's not always religious. I'm 100% AGAINST forcing religion on people but I am against abortion and think it should be outlawed based on human rights of the baby, just as I'm against the death penalty for non-religious reasons. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, I don't care and don't want to start this debate again. But to equate anyone against abortion as "anti-woman" or "pushing religion" is rubbish. It often is, and maybe these guys in Michigan are, but they actually may not be. That would be implying that a politician isn't being political for once, but I digress...

An interesting and very debatable point. In Canada, for example, our Supreme Court has ruled, long ago now, that human rights are not vested until an actual live birth has been performed. Ergo, fetuses have no rights. Which in this country puts paid to the idea of protecting the human rights of a fetus. Also, injuring a pregnant woman to the point she has a miscarriage cannot result in a homicide charge.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1648 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
  I wonder who they think they're fooling...

A huge contingent of very angry people who will vote for other angry people.

Lol shoulda known the answer to that, at least in this situation

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 20):

I don't go as far as thinking abortionists are murderers or people that believe in abortions are bad people, we just don't see eye to eye at all. That never gets the point across and further divides the country... case in point, this thread's link!



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19608 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1629 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 20):

An interesting and very debatable point. In Canada, for example, our Supreme Court has ruled, long ago now, that human rights are not vested until an actual live birth has been performed. Ergo, fetuses have no rights. Which in this country puts paid to the idea of protecting the human rights of a fetus. Also, injuring a pregnant woman to the point she has a miscarriage cannot result in a homicide charge.

I have mixed feelings here. It means that if a mom uses meth while she's pregnant, she's not committing child abuse. In this country, that mom loses parental rights (and I agree with that).

A lot of the rights of the fetus depend on whether the intention is to carry it to term or not. This isn't my opinion; it's just how it works, like it or not (I don't like it, for the record).

To me, the line needs to be drawn at a point where most babies delivered at that gestational age will have a normal outcome. Currently, that line is at about 25-27 weeks. I have a lot of trouble calling a ball of eight human cells a "human," especially because a pregnancy doesn't occur until after implantation. On the other hand, I have even more trouble saying that a 38-week fetus can be killed in utero because it hasn't passed the cervix yet. That's a human being in there.

There is no scientific consensus on exactly what moment life begins. Even if you think it's "fertilization," it's not so simple. Is it when the sperm contacts the zona pellucida? Many sperm do. Is it when the acrosomal reaction starts? First rise in calcium influx in the oocyte (zygote?)? Exclusion of other sperm? Initiation of DNA remodeling and chromatin uncoiling? First division? That can happen even if the sperm is a "blank" and it will proceed eight times (IIRC) regardless of whether there is an intact nucleus.

The issue here isn't religion vs. no religion; it's the idea that some people think that they are so positively sure of the answer to these questions that they have the right to legislate those answers for others. I happen to be quite anti-abortion, but I don't own a uterus and I don't presume to know where that thin line is drawn. It would be (and is) the height of arrogance to claim that you know better than I do and that you will use the law to force me to accept your view. For that reason, I remain pro-choice. It strikes me as stunningly ironic that people who champion around a cause of "smaller government," when pressed on almost any given issue other than regulation of trade, want the government to take a huge role.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1619 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 20):

I don't go as far as thinking abortionists are murderers or people that believe in abortions are bad people, we just don't see eye to eye at all. That never gets the point across and further divides the country... case in point, this thread's link!

Oh, believe me, I agree with you. It's a medical procedure, and we can argue all day about whether or not it is necessary, but if the woman chooses, as far as I am concerned, it's a done deal. No man has ever had, or will ever have, a baby. And no man understands what the woman is going through in the whole process. Observe it, yes; understand it, no.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):
There is no scientific consensus on exactly what moment life begins.

Unless of course YOU BELIEVE....which I guess the Michigan House GOP mostly do.

You're the expert in this area, Doc, so I'll defer to your superior knowledge. One question: is it not true that very early stage deliveries in the range you identify tend to have a much higher rate of serious medical complications, up to and including brain damage ?

[Edited 2012-06-19 12:43:46]

[Edited 2012-06-19 12:44:10]


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19608 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1601 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 23):
You're the expert in this area, Doc, so I'll defer to your superior knowledge. One question: is it not true that very early stage deliveries in the range you identify tend to have a much higher rate of serious medical complications, up to and including brain damage ?

Of course. The more preemie, the more risk.


25 seb146 : Women now have the choice whether to carry a fetus to term or have an abortion. If a woman chooses to carry a fetus to term, that is her right. If an
26 DeltaMD90 : Thanks for highlighting why this debate often ISN'T civil. I just explained a point of view that isn't rooted in religion and in an opinion contrary
27 tugger : I believe the issue the legislator was having was on the concept in the Jewish faith that if the mother's life is at risk then the mother's life supe
28 DeltaMD90 : The Jewish aspect shouldn't have any bearing on the decision, nor should any decision really. The post I was responding to was not talking about any
29 DocLightning : Thank you. MD90 is a conservative (in many ways), but he is not a bigot, a zealot, or a religious wing-nut. We need more conservatives like him.
30 Ken777 : I can understand that there are many people who are genuinely against all abortions. They aren't flakes. They don't bomb clinics. They aren't the yo-y
31 DocLightning : There's a limit. If you think it's better for a mom AND child to die than the fetus alone, then there is something very wrong with you. VERY wrong. A
32 seb146 : Oh, I did it again... I was not speaking to you specifically. I was making general comments about the way I see this whole debate. I was speaking to
33 Post contains images tugger : I agree DeltaMD90 and please don't take my post as being negative toward you or how you have been presenting your point of view. I'll second that. No
34 DeltaMD90 : Sorry I over reacted... I just felt like I've personally have come a long way in women's equality (I was pretty sexist before and am still working on
35 flipdewaf : I think there may be a bit of less regulation for me and more for you. It's all a sliding scale, when I analyse things at work its always the same, t
36 seb146 : No worries. Like I said: I mean to address the class in general but it comes out like a personal attack on one person.
37 Aesma : Having 50 laws in 50 states about the same issue is really a good way for the US to continue this debate for centuries to come.
38 NASCARAirforce : she should have said pussy instead
39 Ken777 : I really don't want all states to have backwater ignorance or holy rollin yahoos who are so absolute in their laws that women are in danger. Women wh
40 Post contains links StarAC17 : They are just uncomfortable prudes who aren't comfortable with sex, where as I have a sick mind and will discuss how potentially effed up human sexua
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Do You Look Like Someone Famous? posted Tue Feb 24 2009 23:18:45 by FXramper
What Do Passenger Trains Look Like In Your Area? posted Tue Mar 11 2008 17:48:29 by KPWM
What Do Payphones Look Like In Your Area? posted Tue Mar 11 2008 16:02:56 by Leezyjet
What Do The Coastguard Look Like In Your Area posted Tue Mar 11 2008 15:53:31 by Nighthawk
What Do Taxi's Look Like In Your Area?. posted Tue Mar 11 2008 15:47:00 by Leezyjet
What Do Ambulances In Your Area Look Like? posted Tue Mar 11 2008 14:10:20 by LHRjc
What Do The Fire Trucks From Your Area Look Like? posted Tue Mar 11 2008 13:20:04 by KhelmDTW
What Will Future Humans Look Like? posted Fri Oct 12 2007 15:13:59 by SmithAir747
See What You Look Like In Simpson! posted Fri Aug 10 2007 15:50:19 by RootsAir
What Do Your License Plates Look Like? posted Tue Jul 3 2007 08:04:07 by PlateMan