S
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
sedonaman
Guest
I’ll stick with my perception, thank you.Those who are intolerant could be found all over Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s, and today can be found putting bombs in their underwear or their shoes and boarding planes. Certain churches even burned people at the stake, not because they were tolerant, but because they were intolerant, and operated in societies where the religious beliefs of some went unchecked insofar as how they were applied to the whole. They did it because they were intolerant. We live in a world where people have diverse views. To that end, we have a constitution that guarantees the right to have a view attended by a reasonable level of rights to live in accordance with them. Basically, your rights end where mine begin and vice versa, and this is where tolerance comes into play. No one is forcing you to use a condom, have an abortion, or maintain a homosexual lifestyle. You are free to reject all three and live in accordance with what you believe.
I hear a lot of about protecting or preserving the sanctity of marriage. Let me tell you, that the only people who can have an impact on the sanctity of your marriage are you and your spouse. What the two guys down the street do have nothing to do with it. So it is with any of what you call sacraments in your faith. The things that the person next to you at the altar to receive the Eucharist was up to the night before doesn’t diminish your sacrament of the Eucharist. He probably diminished his own, but he doesn’t affect yours. Fact is, you may have received a sacrament from someone at some point in your lifetime who is not only a homosexual, but participated in such activities, even after vowing not to. Did that diminish the sanctity of your sacrament or your life? Did it cause the Jesus to fly out of the wafer, or does Jesus see past all of that? Perhaps across town someone at a Lutheran or Baptist church someone is receiving something they call communion that you don’t recognize as communion. Does that make your communion a travesty? Of course I can only ask questions since I don’t have what you call sacraments. I am married, but to me that’s a social convention, not a sacrament. The sacrament part is the love that my wife and I have for each other, but you have the right not to recognize that. You do not, however, have the right to nullify or prevent it.
Most of the people she cared for didn’t believe the same things she believed, and she was aware of that. She didn’t legislate them into her care, nor did she mandate what they should believe before she cared for them. She may not have asked for tolerance, but she practiced it. Mother Teresa was a great role model for people of all faiths.
Your friend,
Sufjon
M
Mumbles140
Guest
Funny. In the 60s and 70s, the push was for more contraception to prevent abortions, and yet the number has continued to skyrocket. The reason is that it creates a false sense of security. The manners of contraception aren’t perfect, and neither are the people using them. And we aren’t asking people not to use condoms - we are professing that we believe sexual relations should be between a husband and wife, at which point contraception (which is different than birth control - NFP is a non-contraceptive form of birth control) is not needed. I’m not saying there never were abortions, but Culture of Death seems fitting over the past 50 years to describe the ‘reproductive rights’ movement.They didn’t have the technologies many years ago that exist now, but let me assure you, there were abortions. How many abortions have been avoided through the use of condoms, gels, foams, pills, IUDs, reproductive surgery and the like? On the one hand, we tell people it is a sin to kill, while on the other hand we are telling people not to take modernly available precautions to avoid being put into a situation where one might kill, or be killed by an STD. We do this even though we know that people are going to have sex.
I wasn’t aware that these were legally accepted in the United States. As a matter of fact, I think there are only a handful of western nations that allow this sort of thing.
Your friend,
Sufjon
Assisted suicide, I believe, has been legalized in some states - that was the big debate with Kevorkian. And euthanasia absolutely is legal. Call it pulling the plug, signing a DNR waiver, whatever you want to call it, it is euthanasia.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
The President included vocational schools, community colleges and the like in his vision for a society better equipped to employ itself. The cold reality is that it is very difficult to position oneself these days in a manner that allows one to pop out of high school and spend the next 40 years putting dashboards in Chryslers. The fact is that I imagine few people watch their children at the playground and dream of the day when they’ll be a 55 year old roofer in July. There is little doubt that someone will end up doing that sort of work, but my sense is that it is seldom the result of tenacious and visionary planning and forethought on the part of parents, or higher aspirations on the part of the children. The point is that while lives like that will always exist, and are no doubt precious to God, such lives do not require a lot of preparation, or the ambitions of a nation to make them a reality.
The majority of the people who voted for him knew that this was high on his agenda, and he made no secret of it. It was on the list of the top three things he stood for. And the majority of the people who voted, voted for him, which means that the majority that counts agrees with him because the majority that counts is the majority that votes. If the majority of the American people disagree with that, they need to show up at the polls. The reason they don’t is that the majority you speak of is perhaps not a majority, but a loud minority, half of whom I’ve seen at the protests seem likely to be on Medicare and Social Security based on their age, the former of which is socialized medicine. The number of misspelled words on the signs they carry suggests that they’re not rich or overly educated either, again suggesting that they are reaping the benefits of a government funded system to some extent. I find it ironic that the people who seem to be out in the streets protesting for an “every man for himself” society seem to be the least well equipped to play in that arena. Watch these folks:
youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y
youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48
youtube.com/watch?v=oHItY5Anj3s
youtube.com/watch?v=oaHqJqfA13Y
Anyway, such programs only work when everyone participates. Listen, everyone reading this, including myself will have to die someday - that’s a fact. It’s also a fact that the process of dying and even aging is getting immensely expensive. Few people (probably over 90 percent) have a million dollars or even a quarter of a million dollars stashed away to pay for medical expenses, and few people slip away quietly in their sleep. A system is needed, and those who do not pay into the system raise the costs for those of us who do. Having such a system is a step in the direction of avoiding situations where people have to sell their homes to get a transplant for their 5 year old, or paying for the care of a family member who couldn’t get insurance because they had a pre-existing condition. Prior to the laws put in place by this administration, insurance companies had people on the payroll who got bonuses based on finding pre-existing conditions on people who had paid for health insurance for years. Once they got sick and needed expensive treatments, the job of these people was to find a way to cut them off. .
Your friend,
Sufjon
- Voting for someone doesn’t endorse 100% of their beliefs, it solely means you expect more good out of that candidate than the alternatives. Furthermore, I’ve spoken with many who voted for Obama that think his health care mandate is over-reaching, which is precisely what the polls I referenced are showing. Heck, how many states are there now suing the national government over this?
- Saying it is perhaps ‘not a majority’ doesn’t make it so. A recent (this month) Gallup poll showed 72% of Americans believed the individual mandate unconstitutional. Since Obama received more than 28% of the vote, this shows even people who supported him think he has gone too far. He is now saying he knows better than 72% of the American people by forcing this issue without compromise.
- So education is a requirement for having political opinion? Unfortunately for that point of view, everyone is given the right, whether we like it or not. But, this same principle is what allowed African-Americans the right to vote, and women the right to vote. It was like when all those states tried having ‘voting tests’, but if you had previously been registered (as most whites were then, but no African-Americans), you were ‘grandfathered in’. Maybe they never had the opportunities to attend a good school, but that doesn’t mean they care any less for their cause.
- The insurance companies are awful, and so is the current state of our welfare programs. Welfare programs are needed, but reform is necessary. And mandates need to be made on the part of the insurance companies. Regulate the industry as other industries are regulated - not by setting and enforcing standards, but by implementing laws against unfair/discriminatory practices.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
Yes, truly great if working from the assumption that all of the information about global warming is 100% true. But wait, wasn’t there some scandal because scientists fabricated and manipulated data to make the issue seem worse? I haven’t looked extensively into the matter, but I don’t like people trying to push for their cause with lies. It means they don’t believe the data they have will be ‘significant’ enough, so they pad it, like me when I realize I’m telling a bad story, so I throw in something exciting to keep the interest level up. In the science world, more interest means more grants, more exposure, etc. I’m not saying they did it for money or fame, but the fact remains that they did it.Great article z0wb13!
Your friend,
Sufjon
Also, the weather is cyclical. Trends were growing colder after World War II, and the science magazines were projecting a coming Ice Age. Look, everyone knows that what we do has an effect on the environment, but I believe that nature and timing are also factors at play - factors that people in support of global warming don’t want to recognize.
It’s funny. We have had several ‘warmer’ (relatively speaking) weathers out of the past 5-10 years than normal in the DC area. Heck, I remember it being in the 70s back in December 04. Everyone screamed “Global Warming, Global Warming”, and much ado was made. Then, there were snowstorms that wrecked the DC area two years ago and made it brutally cold. The response then was “Global Warming makes the temperatures more extreme - summer is hotter, winter is colder”. This, however, contradicts the points made in surrounding years about warm winters.
There are many factors at play, so assuming only one is correct is being ignorant. Then, classifying an entire group of people for not accepting one lone factor as the cause is being prejudicial.
Lastly, the author himself is not a scientist. He is an educated, progressive Liberal (his own words), and he has a clear anti-Republican bias. Not just a disagreement with their opinions, but a bias against them. His numbers themselves don’t say that 100% of college educated Democrats believe in global warming, so why is he stereotyping one specific group? Oh, because this isn’t a news article after all. It is an excerpt from his book, upon which he will profit if it sells.
S
Sufjon
Guest
All the data I could find shows that the number skyrocketed between 1973 and the 1980’s but has been gradually tapering off since then, but of course, how many deaths are acceptable? That’s a tricky subject. I don’t personally believe in killing anything, but I also don’t believe in forcing a woman to die or compromise her health either.Funny. In the 60s and 70s, the push was for more contraception to prevent abortions, and yet the number has continued to skyrocket.
Your culture and my culture dictate that sex is between married people, but that doesn’t speak for the realities that a vast number of people actually live, and this has to be dealt with on practical terms, not theory or dogma. Fact is, what is called illicit sex has probably been just as prevalent as married sex throughout history. On the one hand we have what people believe they should do, and on the other hand we have what they actually do in practice. We have to deal with the latter, because that is the reality we see around us. I am not a proponent of being sexually active in the community, however, I see the need to work with the reality.The reason is that it creates a false sense of security. The manners of contraception aren’t perfect, and neither are the people using them. And we aren’t asking people not to use condoms - we are professing that we believe sexual relations should be between a husband and wife, at which point contraception (which is different than birth control - NFP is a non-contraceptive form of birth control) is not needed. I’m not saying there never were abortions, but Culture of Death seems fitting over the past 50 years to describe the ‘reproductive rights’ movement.
A DNR is not suicide or assisted suicide. It is a matter of allowing a natural process that is already underway to take it’s course. You are not aiding the progression of the disease and you are not failing to save something that can ultimately be saved. It is the withholding of heroic measures to circumvent a death that is pending, inevitable and unavoidable. There is no point in restarting a heart whose human host is drowning in his or her own fluids and or convulsing through their last moments.Assisted suicide, I believe, has been legalized in some states - that was the big debate with Kevorkian. And euthanasia absolutely is legal. Call it pulling the plug, signing a DNR waiver, whatever you want to call it, it is euthanasia.
Your friend,
Sufjon
F
faithalone1
Guest
Its a culture war, plain and simple. Its the Christian morality vs communist “morality”. Our culture has changed in the last 50+ years. The best way to destroy a powerful nation is always by eroding their faith and morals. has happened many times. Thats why the USSR had this as their plan. Uganda had a massive Aids epidemic in the 1980s 25% infected and they cut that down to 5% by the mid 90s. and they did it WHILE passing out fewer condoms and less contraceptives. the whole culture changed. Uganda could have said "well since people have sex outside of marriage anyway with multiple partners give them condoms! But they didn’t. condoms, abortion,contraceptives promote iresopnsibile behavior. its easy to see if you want to. when you hold people accountable they respond. But hey, I’m a former military guy so accountability is a theme.All the data I could find shows that the number skyrocketed between 1973 and the 1980’s but has been gradually tapering off since then, but of course, how many deaths are acceptable? Depends on the cause.
Your culture and my culture dictate that sex is between married people, but that doesn’t speak for the realities that a vast number of people actually live, and this has to be dealt with on practical terms, not theory or dogma. Fact is, what is called illicit sex has probably been just as prevalent as married sex throughout history. On the one hand we have what people believe they should do, and on the other hand we have what the actually do in practice. We have to deal with the latter, because that is the reality we see around us. I am not a proponent of being sexually active in the community, however, he sees the need to work with the reality.
I don’t think that’s right, but if you could name some states where that’s legal it would be interesting to know.
Your friend,
Sufjon
F
faithalone1
Guest
well a conservative could just as easily write a biased article against GW.@ sufjon
i think you would find this interesting. i don’t want to discourage your posting, but it might explain why posting feels like banging your head against a wall;p
Z
Zenkai
Guest
That’s one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen…@ sufjon
i think you would find this interesting. i don’t want to discourage your posting, but it might explain why posting feels like banging your head against a wall;p
F
faithalone1
Guest
Capitalism has allowed me the luxury of typing to you write now. capitalism IS the reason for the technology/medical advancement we’ve seen. Even with a Socialist model you still need Capitalism to PAY for your welfare state. There is ofcourse a greed factor in capitalism, BUT every system has it. the prejudice you describe is bad. its interesting to note that we have done a 180% turn isn’t it? Now a single mother or divorced mother is the Norm. Do you see whats happened? Now we have courts siding with the mother the vast majority of the time in custody cases in the name of “equality”. we had racial segregation in the 40s now we have hate crime legislation that DOES hinder free speech. This country went from having some definite racial/prejudice issues to basically castrating itself of all ruggedness, free speech and opinion that offends our leftist superiors. I see it plain as day.I saw an interview on TV with some Catholic Bishops. They said that. capitalism was the greatest evil on the planet, I don’t know if I disagree with them. Some questions:
-What is great about capitalism?
-What socialist aspects of our society do you see as bad? Social Security? Medicare? What?
I suspect that a mixture of both is good. Capitalism unchecked and on it’s own has enriched our society with material that brought us great classics like the stories of Charles Dickens.
Also, I fail to see a lack of morals in our society in contrast to the days of old. The days of old were not bastions of morality. A dark person couldn’t eat next to a white person in many parts of this country or ride anywhere but on the back of the bus. Women couldn’t vote and were pretty much their husband’s property. Japanese Americans were put in camps during the Second World War, but German Americans weren’t. I have seen how people of other races were portrayed in cartoons of the 1940’s. Divorced women or single women with children were looked upon and treated as garbage. Women could be outwardly harassed in the workplace with no recourse, and it was pretty much expected. I have seen movies (more than 1) from the 1930’s and 1940’s where men gave their wives a good spanking for being disobedient or strong willed. ;I could go on.
Your friend,
Sufjon
S
Sufjon
Guest
I haven’t stated that a 100% capitalist or 100% socialist solution is preferable. If you read my post, I said a mixture of the two seems quite balanced and reasonable.Capitalism has allowed me the luxury of typing to you write now. capitalism IS the reason for the technology/medical advancement we’ve seen. Even with a Socialist model you still need Capitalism to PAY for your welfare state. There is ofc ourse a greed factor in capitalism, BUT every system has it.
We haven’t - I think that might be your head doing that.the prejudice you describe is bad. its interesting to note that we have done a 180% turn isn’t it?
I think you can say pretty much what you like. You just can’t spray paint it on someone’s church, or threaten them, or tie them to the back of your pickup truck and drag them across a remote road because they’re not the same color as you or have a different sexual orientation than you. I think those laws are great. Yes, I support them 100%. Did you listen to yourself when you wrote that? Do you really object to hate crime laws?Now a single mother or divorced mother is the Norm. Do you see whats happened? Now we have courts siding with the mother the vast majority of the time in custody cases in the name of “equality”. we had racial segregation in the 40s now we have hate crime legislation that DOES hinder free speech.
Oh that - yeah, that’s called the intellectual evolution of the species, but apparently it’s not a ubiquitously distributed phenomenon.This country went from having some definite racial/prejudice issues to basically castrating itself of all ruggedness, free speech and opinion that offends our leftist superiors. I see it plain as day.
Your friend
Sufjon
S
Sufjon
Guest
Good example. I have oft times pondered deeply on why Uganda wasn’t a model for other societies on a number of fronts. When I start thinking about things like where I want to see humanity in 50 years or so, Uganda always comes to mind.Its a culture war, plain and simple. Its the Christian morality vs communist “morality”. Our culture has changed in the last 50+ years. The best way to destroy a powerful nation is always by eroding their faith and morals. has happened many times. Thats why the USSR had this as their plan. Uganda had a massive Aids epidemic in the 1980s 25% infected and they cut that down to 5% by the mid 90s. and they did it WHILE passing out fewer condoms and less contraceptives. the whole culture changed. Uganda could have said "well since people have sex outside of marriage anyway with multiple partners give them condoms! But they didn’t. condoms, abortion,contraceptives promote iresopnsibile behavior. its easy to see if you want to. when you hold people accountable they respond. But hey, I’m a former military guy so accountability is a theme.
Your friend
Big Daddy Sufjon
S
Sufjon
Guest
If you read the actual research, which is supported and believed by most scientists, global warming leads to erratic weather patterns that can be expressed in diverse and multifarious ways. Of most concern is the impact on extreme weather events, shifts in how weather presents geographically in comparison to the norms for affected regions, and the outcomes observed in crop cycles and output as well as animal migrations, all of which have an effect on things like famine eventually. Ultimately, however, models built on historical data over vast periods of time show that planetary warming eventually has the opposite effect, in that it introduces variables that make conditions favorable for ice age cycles to be expressed. Of particular concern in that regard is the decline of land bound glaciers such as those found in Greenland in particular. As these move out to sea, they have a cooling effect on the gulf stream, which is a critical part of the conveyor belt that heats the planet. The first signs of such a cycle in it’s early stages would be things like unusually cold winters in Europe. Like the one we just saw. That in itself could be simply anomalous, but perhaps not. If the disappearance of land bound glacial ice continues, the likelihood of it becoming a catastrophic pattern increases, in which case it is quite possible when viewed in hindsight some years from now, events like the winter just experienced in Europe this year may be simply the chorister whose C preceded the choir. Once such a cycle progresses to a certain extent, it is impossible to stop.It’s funny. We have had several ‘warmer’ (relatively speaking) weathers out of the past 5-10 years than normal in the DC area. Heck, I remember it being in the 70s back in December 04. Everyone screamed “Global Warming, Global Warming”, and much ado was made. Then, there were snowstorms that wrecked the DC area two years ago and made it brutally cold. The response then was “Global Warming makes the temperatures more extreme - summer is hotter, winter is colder”. This, however, contradicts the points made in surrounding years about warm winters.
Unfortunately, our intellect as a species in general hasn’t always kept pace with the technologies introduced into the mix by the minority who devise them, putting us in an unfortunate “monkey’s first day with a flashlight” position. Or more like a gorilla with loaded pistol, I suppose.
Your friend,
Sufjon.
F
faithalone1
Guest
I haven’t stated that a 100% capitalist or 100% socialist solution is preferable. If you read my post, I said a mixture of the two seems quite balanced and reasonable.
well the USSR had socialism, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba. works great there. Greece tried you “mixed” model and its didn’t work well for them. Federally run health care for 310 million people cant work. maybe a reform of state medical programs, but not federal healthcare.
We haven’t - I think that might be your head doing that.
majority of women under 30 with kids are NOT MARRIED. its become the norm to be single parent, to get divorced and just to abort a child if its “inconvenient” for you. complete 180
I think you can say pretty much what you like. You just can’t spray paint it on someone’s church, or threaten them, or tie them to the back of your pickup truck and drag them across a remote road because they’re not the same color as you or have a different sexual orientation than you. I think those laws are great. Yes, I support them 100%. Did you listen to yourself when you wrote that? Do you really object to hate crime laws?
the things you speak of are called vandalism,verbal threats, and murder. these are illegal WITHOUT hate crimes laws. Hate crime laws push a politcal agenda. Europe bans plenty of free speech already. The 1st ammendent is meant to PROTECT distasteful,or hateful speech especially.Otherwise whatever oligarchy in charge can ban whatever goes against Their agenda. its easy to understand.
Oh that - yeah, that’s called the intellectual evolution of the species, but apparently it’s not a ubiquitously distributed phenomenon.
Thats what YOU call the intellectual evolution of the species. Really its just a bunch of elitist leftists telling people whats considered intellectual,tolerant and acceptable. Its snobbery to call the leftists the “intellectual evolution” of our species. setting up a nanny state and relegating faith to being something for those who haven’t been blessed by the “phenomenon” you describe.
Your friend
Sufjon
F
faithalone1
Guest
Yep Uganda is a miracle in many ways.Good example. I have oft times pondered deeply on why Uganda wasn’t a model for other societies on a number of fronts. When I start thinking about things like where I want to see humanity in 50 years or so, Uganda always comes to mind.
Your friend
Big Daddy Sufjon
M
Mumbles140
Guest
All the data I could find shows that the number skyrocketed between 1973 and the 1980’s but has been gradually tapering off since then…
Your culture and my culture dictate that sex is between married people, but that doesn’t speak for the realities that a vast number of people actually live, and this has to be dealt with on practical terms, not theory or dogma. Fact is, what is called illicit sex has probably been just as prevalent as married sex throughout history. On the one hand we have what people believe they should do, and on the other hand we have what they actually do in practice. We have to deal with the latter, because that is the reality we see around us. I am not a proponent of being sexually active in the community, however, I see the need to work with the reality.
A DNR is not suicide or assisted suicide… It is the withholding of heroic measures to circumvent a death that is pending, inevitable and unavoidable. There is no point in restarting a heart whose human host is drowning in his or her own fluids and or convulsing through their last moments.
Your friend,
Sufjon
- All the data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute since 1973 shows a peak in 1990 at 1.6 million abortions. My argument was that the push for contraception in the 60s and 70s led to more abortions, which I believe the data supports. I understand it has more recently started to taper off, but with abortifacient drugs like RU-486 (and yes, we all know pregnancy starts at conception - changing the definition to implantation doesn’t change the fact that it is an abortion).
- By promoting the use of condoms and readily available contraception to people of all ages, especially teens, we are telling them to start having sex whenever they want, but no one takes the time to warn them of the consequences. Abortion and the morning after pill are pushed as simple, discrete fixes, and the sexual grasp on society grows deeper, much to the pleasure of PP.
- You are right, that is not assisted suicide, it is called euthanasia, and the Catholic Church has very specific teachings on this. I’ll give an example. In the 80s, my grandfather had 3/4 of his stomach removed due to various illnesses, mostly acid reflux. In 2005, he had a stroke, and lost the ability to swallow. His stomach, due to the minimal size, had also shut done. He was given nutrition via IV fluids. We discussed the issue with the hospital’s priest, who explained the following: The fluids were going to his stomach, which had shut down and could not process it. This caused the acid reflux to bring it into his throat, but he couldn’t swallow so it went into his lungs. Ultimately, in 2-3 weeks, he would die of pneumonia. As a result, we were allowed to stop the IV nutrition, which would lead to faster death, so we were allowed to stop the respirator as well. Because death was inevitable (and not in the ‘death and taxes’ way) regardless of medical treatment, we were not required to prolong his life.
So both instances, a person was removed from the respirator. On a side note, in the US, a respirator is not considered ‘extraordinary means’ (which is vital in the determination). But anyways, same procedure of removing from the respirator, and yet one was euthanasia.
You note ‘heroic measures’. Taking this to mean ‘extraordinary means’, and including the inevitably of ‘sudden’ death (again, not like ‘death and taxes’), then the examples you gave do not fall under Euthanasia. That is one of the reasons hospitals have priests with medical knowledge on their staff - to consult people about what is acceptable and what is not.
C
Captain_America
Guest
The problem with the whole, “ah let the state/society go whatever direction it flops toward” is a recipe for living in a dump.
We DO know some things as Catholics, quite valuable things, about those things that are truly important to leading a full and good human life. . . and I suspect there’s a moral requirement because of this gift of knowledge, to let others in on these things.
I know without question that television and movies are much sicker than they were 20 years ago. I doubt even the most debauched liberal will disagree with this (but he/she/it will instead trot out some convoluted notion that cynicism and filth = progress and art).
We DO know some things as Catholics, quite valuable things, about those things that are truly important to leading a full and good human life. . . and I suspect there’s a moral requirement because of this gift of knowledge, to let others in on these things.
I know without question that television and movies are much sicker than they were 20 years ago. I doubt even the most debauched liberal will disagree with this (but he/she/it will instead trot out some convoluted notion that cynicism and filth = progress and art).
Z
z0wb13
Guest
First, why are people in favor of abortion so afraid of an ultrasound?
appeal to emotion, much?
tumor=embryo. got it;pIf you had a tumor, wouldn’t you want to see where the tumor was and know how they would remove it? This is the same principle.
that is a false premise if i ever saw one. you don’t look for tumors by having somebody stand up all willynilly in front of an xray machine. are you saying that if an ultrasound wasn’t performed, you might MISS and look for a foetus in someone’s elbow?
give me a break. there are no medical reasons for performing an ultrasound. but it’s been ongoing in at least 7 states where women have been forced to undergo transvaginal “non-invasive” procedures. i think the reason it’s caught fire lately is the word “transvaginal.” some states require that the patients look at the ultrasound, like in a clockwork orange.
it’s hard to grasp the indignity of it. it would be like if you wanted to get a tooth pulled, but some religious nut in a funny hat got a law passed that you could only perform the procedure with a probe in your rectum. think about it;p and then think really hard, and tell me the real reason that some “conservative” politicians are jumping on the blunt amendment bandwagon.
Z
z0wb13
Guest
let’s see: 20 years ago, ed o’neill was on “married with children” and now he’s on “modern family.”I know without question that television and movies are much sicker than they were 20 years ago. I doubt even the most debauched liberal will disagree with this (but he/she/it will instead trot out some convoluted notion that cynicism and filth = progress and art).
both are sitcoms about families. o’neill plays a father with two sons (one adopted) and a daughter. in both roles, he’s married to inexplicably beautiful women, with big… hair.
spoiler alert: if you’ve never seen these shows, i would say that “married with children” was by far more crass. it’s entire appeal was based solely on how gross and trashy the bundy family was. that was the big joke, was that they were all losers.
i liked “married…” when it was on, but “modern family” is a much, much better show. it’s smarter and funnier, there are no longer cat calls every time christina applegate walks on stage, the cinematography is better. and it is definitely much the “cleaner” show.
twenty years ago, al probably could have cracked a joke about his f@***t son, and nobody would have bat an eye, whereas now it would definitely be bleeped. i see that as progress, that people are being treated with more dignity.
i don’t think that movies are any more or less violent now than they were 20 years ago. “robocop” came out in '87, and it was almost comically violent. “scarface” came out in '83. fun fact, there are 207 f-bombs in “scarface.”
S
Sufjon
Guest
It might be a joke to you, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bill O’Reilly, but outside of their Barnum and Baily world, the risks are well documented.Also, the ‘women’s health’ argument is a joke. You are talking about a problem pregnancy, where the mother could/will die if the baby is carried to term. The Catholic Church does not sacrifice the mother for the sake of the child. What the Church says is that the direct act cannot be to abort the preborn child. However, if a woman were to have a surgical procedure, and an indirect result is the death of the child, it is not an abortion. A hysterectomy to save a pregnant woman’s life will result in the death of a child, but the procedure is not intended to perform an abortion. Therefore, the health issue is moot.
Fact is, there are countless ways in which going full term or continuing with a pregnancy can endanger a woman’s life. For instance, the CDC notes that “Ectopic pregnancy, also known as a tubal pregnancy, is a potentially life-threatening form of pregnancy in which implantation of the fertilized egg occurs outside the uterus.” The Mayo Clinic further noted that, “An ectopic pregnancy can’t proceed normally. The developing embryo can’t survive, and the growing placental tissue may destroy important maternal structures. Without treatment, life-threatening blood loss is possible.” Ectopic pregnancies are extremely risky and, according to the Mayo Clinic, even treatment can “lead to loss of reproductive organs or infertility.” “Without treatment,” the Mayo Clinic warns, “the stakes are even higher. A ruptured fallopian tube may lead to life-threatening bleeding.” According to the CDC, “Ectopic pregnancies are the leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the first trimester and account for 9% of all pregnancy-related deaths in this country.” Treatment for ectopic pregnancies mandates a termination of the pregnancy, most often by a form of therapeutic abortion.
Also, other pregnancy complications, such as preeclampsia, can be life-threatening to the pregnant woman. According to the Mayo Clinic, “Preeclampsia is a common problem during pregnancy, affecting up to one in seven pregnant women around the world,” and “is defined by high blood pressure and excess protein in the urine after 20 weeks of pregnancy.” The clinic also reports that preeclampsia “and other high blood pressure disorders during pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death” in the world. Severe preeclampsia occurring early in the pregnancy is especially risky for a pregnant woman and her fetus. Many pregnant women with heart‐valve disorders die each year from blood clots which, absent pregnancy, would not be life threatening.( Drug Fear Endangers Pregnant Women: Many Aren’t Taking Medicine They Need, USA TODAY, Dec. 12, 2000). “A high risk of maternal mortality has implications not just for the mother but also for any potential baby and siblings at home. And even if she survives the pregnancy, the woman may have a reduced life expectancy or suffer from limited physical capacity.”24 For a woman presenting late in a pregnancy with a severe heart disorder, a health exception recognizes the totality of the risks she faces and allows her to make the best decision for her health, her life, and her family (Lisa Nainggolan, Pregnant Pause: Evaluating Pregnant Women with Heart Disease (Dec. 24, 2003), at
theheart.org/article/124447.do (last visited Oct. 24, 2010)…
The list goes on, but the fact is that there are many ways in which continuing a pregnancy can endanger a woman’s life.
Of course, I know that facts don’t really count for much in a fanatical discussion, but again, that’s why we have a secular government that usually sides with the practical realities at hand, while protecting you as best they can from religious persecution and to protect me and the health of my family from your beliefs.
Your friend
Sufjon
- Status
- Not open for further replies.