Iowa Caucus results

Do you guys really want this thread getting on that subject?

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Javelin: How about - Can a girl take a morning after pill immediately after she is raped by a close relative and will die during childbirth if the pregnancy is continued?

I said every case. I've considered the implications of the word every and still chose to use it. I make no discrimination been the morning after pill or any other means to that end.

So yeah, I'm that guy who really does think it's always an injustice that has no place in our society. Yet, I still find Santorum repulsive as a candidate.

In reply to MG Bryan:

Well, nobody can call you inconsistent.

What troubles you about Santorum?

tuna55 wrote: Do you guys really want this thread getting on that subject?

No. But I couldn't resist an attempt to flounder worse than Javelin.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to MG Bryan: Well, noboby can call you inconsistent. What troubles you about Santorum?

The rest of his social policy and his lack of economic policy. Science is good. I've never had a probably with a single homosexual person I've ever met. I have no problem with them having the same rights as a married man and woman. I just don't get why a lot of the stuff that is an issue for him is an issue at all.

MG Bryan wrote: . I just don't get why a lot of the stuff that is an issue for him is an issue at all.

You've not spent a lot of time around ultra-conservative, bible thumping nutjobs ( I won't even call them Christians) like Santorum or the Westboro Baptist Church.

I've been in discussions with otherwise sane-seeming people who apparently have an insta-stroke or get hit with a stupid-ray beamed down from on high and lose their ability to reason when things like homosexual rights (or birth control, or Muslims or whatever) come up.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Javelin: How about - Can a girl take a morning after pill immediately after she is raped by a close relative and will die during childbirth if the pregnancy is continued?

I really don't want to go here, but I would venture to say there has NEVER been a pregnancy that could positively be identified as one that would end in death to the mother if not terminated, therefore your question is not valid.

Perhaps there is some unique medical condition that I am not thinking about, but the assertion that the girl would die is over-stated.

Most people were born as the result of pregnancies. Pretty sure I'm right on that one. The vast majority of their mothers did not die, and those that did almost universally could not be certain that would be the outcome in advance.

SVreX wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Javelin: How about - Can a girl take a morning after pill immediately after she is raped by a close relative and will die during childbirth if the pregnancy is continued?

I really don't want to go here, but I would venture to say there has NEVER been a pregnancy that could positively be identified as one that would end in death to the mother if not terminated, therefore your question is not valid. Perhaps there is some unique medical condition that I am not thinking about, but the assertion that the girl would die is over-stated.

There are many. Ectopic pregnancy is the most common and well-known.

Actually, it should be noted that Santorum's wife's third pregnancy was aborted. At 19 weeks she developed an intrauterine infection and chose to deliver the fetus a month prior to viability rather than die. Any birth prior to 24 weeks in my state is considered an abortion.

An ectopic pregnancy is generally non-viable and usually ends in a miscarriage (tubal abortion), although there HAVE been cases where it ended in a live baby delivered by laparotomy. They are very dangerous and can end in hemorrage, but death from rupture is rare in women who have access to modern medical facilities. If left untreated, about half of ectopic pregnancies will resolve without treatment.

They are NOT a guarantee of death of the mother if not terminated by medical abortion.

They are dangerous. I am not suggesting anything otherwise.

Splitting legal hairs on Santorum's loss is deceptive and misleading. Medically speaking ALL natural miscarriages are technically abortions. But that's not what we are talking about, now is it? Plus, Santorum is from PA, not your home state of MI, so your state's laws would not apply.

SVreX wrote: They are NOT a guarantee of death of the mother if not terminated by medical abortion. They are dangerous. I am not suggesting anything otherwise.

...and some are worse than others...it all depends on where the zygote embeds. This was bad
http://www.coastaldigest.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11208&Itemid=69

I'd sure like to put that poop back in the horse.

People go apeE36 M3 over abortion.

In reply to Otto Maddox:

It was bound to happen, but I highly suggest you wash your hands before eating.

I'd say Santorum did not have a natural miscarriage. He and his wife chose to seek medical care and treatment that was against the fetus's well being and directly resulted in delivery of a non-viable fetus. Also, PA has the same 24-week viability stance. The laws he advocates for would certainly impinge on his right to choose the care he did, resulting in the abortion of his fetus.

Working in a Catholic hospital, I can say that I have witnessed firsthand the kinds of situations that result from stringent anti-abortion policies. While our physicians do actually have the leeway to do what it takes to save the woman's life, they cannot terminate pregnancies in other situations where health is at risk.

In example, if a woman had cord prolapse at, say 18 weeks, the policy is that the woman cannot induce labor until 24 weeks, as that is the age of viability. As such, the woman would have to be restricted to strict bedrest while hospitalized and monitored for 6 weeks, even though the fetus will never reach viability. All the while the woman risks infection, blood clots, and I'm sure it's a psychologically damaging situation to be in.

I just don't think it's as simple a situation as "Abortion is bad, m'kay," and I think there are plenty of gray areas that politicians like Santorum choose to ignore in order to pander to his base.

bastomatic wrote: I just don't think it's as simple a situation as "Abortion is bad, m'kay,"

I don't know anything about Santorum's personal life. If what you say is true; he's a hypocrite.

There are a lot of people that do think any kind of an intentional end to a pregnancy that, by design, kills the unborn child is flatly wrong.

Every medical profession that spoke to my mother during her first pregnancy told her that she needed to end the pregnancy. I can't say without asking what the long list of complications were, but none of the doctors expected her to be able to carry my brother to term or live through it. As my father recalls, she more or less told them all to go berkeley themselves. No, there isn't a happy ending, my brother died of an illness in my dad's arms at less than a week old, but he was born fully developed as any of the rest of us. Mother was told she'd almost certainly be incapable of become pregnant again, but went on to prove the fallibility of the medical profession two more times.

There is no case in which an abortion has to be performed. None. And I believe with complete confidence that it is a completely unjust and unacceptable practice.

What you've said only goes to show that Santorum doesn't have a single redeeming quality as a candidate.

Santorum might very well have thought that their baby would have been spared if they prayed.

None of that matters though; the fact is that that family took a dead baby home with them and hung out with it for a while.

Where I come from, that is crazy or at least in need of some serious therapy to work through some issues. Do we want to trust somebody who thinks that is alright to run a country?

No, we should not. We should not trust him to run a bath for himself or with anything sharper than a wilted dandelion.

back to the original subject of this thread:

http://www.kcci.com/r/30144582/detail.html#ixzz1idUftgoh

oops..

In reply to Brett_Murphy:

Your issue is a cultural one. You've been raised to think that is creepy. Lots of parts of the world it is very normal.

When I lived in the Dominican Republic I saw many deceased family members laid out on the kitchen table for multiple days, and saw people hugging them, kissing them, etc. It would be considered really abnormal there to disrespect the deceased to the extent of not bringing them home, preparing the body personally, and spending several days with friends and family mourning (with the body right there).

I'll admit, I was not very comfortable with it, but I learned it was just my own biases and limited view.

It's not crazy. It's different than what you are used to.

novaderrik wrote: back to the original subject of this thread: http://www.kcci.com/r/30144582/detail.html#ixzz1idUftgoh oops..

Interesting...

Anyone read the book "Throw Them All Out" by Peter Schweizer? I got it for Christmas and am about halfway through it. I'd like anyone who is considering voting for Obama or Newt Romney to read it and then see if they want to reconsider.

I think the writer is a bit biased and tries to make Democrats look more corrupt than Republicans, but it shows how our media has become completely captured that the stories presented in the book had to be dug up and brought to the public by some random dude in Florida. Why these types of stories are not big news is beyond me.

In reply to SVreX:

I concede your point. I'd thought if it myself. That's why I said "where I come from". Cultural relativism is something I'm familiar with, and I was going with the less inflammatory reason why they could be called crazy.

That being said, it is still crazy because spending any sort of time with rotting flesh isn't sanitary. Does Santorum not wash his hands after he uses the crapper either?

Brett_Murphy wrote: In reply to SVreX: I concede your point. I'd thought if it myself. That's why I said "where I come from". Cultural relativism is something I'm familiar with, and I was going with the less inflammatory reason why they could be called crazy. That being said, it is still crazy because spending any sort of time with rotting flesh isn't sanitary. Does Santorum not wash his hands after he uses the crapper either?

I only wash my hands after a #2, I guess I'm not a viable presidential candidate.

e_pie wrote: I only wash my hands after a #2, I guess I'm not a viable presidential candidate.

That means you don't piss on your hands. Clearly you're overqualified.

mguar, like Dr Hess says: 'follow the money'. We wound up with the freakin' mess of an IRS tax code we have due to all kinds of earmarks and idiotic crap which benefit very small groups of people.

One good example from down here: as a rule it's nearly impossible to build a house near the ocean unless the fed backed flood insurance covers the property. There was a developer who bought a piece of land called Cap'n Sam's Spit for next to nothing, it's all sand. It was cheap because it is prone to erosion and flooding, the National Flood Insurance program did not cover it. The guy got hold of Rep Henry Brown down here (who had been a rep for many years) and tried to get language inserted which would specifially cover the land he bought, thus making him an instant millionaire. Never mind it would be risking taxpayer's money to make that possible. One of many stories about it:

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/apr/21/spat_over_kiawah_spit79404/

Thankfully, somehow it all came to light. Rep Brown was not reelected, when he came back home he ran for a local office in Berkeley County and lost. So sometimes the current system does work, unfortunately it takes something like this to come to light to get things kickstarted. What about the many that don't?

The local lawmakers here have been known to 'double dip': they file for retirement benefits which can be done quickly. Then they get reelected and get paid for that, too. Oh, and let's not forget the medical insurance etc.

Congress has a fantastic retirement system, along with free (to them, at least) medical care while the working class schlubs that pay the bills go bankrupt if they get sick. That's definitely lining their pockets at our expense.

I could go on for a while, but there's only so much bandwidth and my blood pressure needs to stay low.

So there's the problem. Money definitely corrupts politics. The current system allows an entrenched ruling class to keep kicking the can down the road while they line their own pockets. It's absurd to think it can continue like this, the politicians will eventually run out of our money and then we will be screwed.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Javelin: How about - Can a girl take a morning after pill immediately after she is raped by a close relative and will die during childbirth if the pregnancy is continued?

Fact police: Morning after pills prevent ovulation and fertilization, which no human with any idea of how biology works would call abortion ("Life begins at conception"). RU486 is closer to an "abortion pill," but to my knowledge that isn't availible as an emergency contraceptive in the US.