Iowa Caucus results

In reply to Osterkraut:

Sorry.. better check your facts. You are incorrect.

Morning after pills have three different methods by which they can work. They can A) prevent ovulation or B) thickening a woman's cervical mucus (which blocks sperm from the egg)...

But they can also C) keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. There are plenty of people who would call that an aborticant.

Planned Parenthood plays both sides of the equation by correctly identifying the fact that it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching, but saying it does not cause an abortion (though they offer no explanation of this position).

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.asp

In reply to mguar:

Read "Throw Them All Out" by Peter Schweizer then see if your thoughts of politicians change. I do not doubt that many local pols are in it for the right reasons - I am talking about the folks in DC. My only problem with the book is that the author seems a little biased against Democrats so he tends to focus on them more, but I do not believe there is a shred of difference between the parties when it comes to the type of legal graft described in the book.

Hey ya. Just wanted to point out that I haven't gone out of my way to piss anyone off in a while. Thanks and have a great day.

Need to get some pie.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Hey ya. Just wanted to point out that I haven't gone out of my way to piss anyone off in a while. Thanks and have a great day. Need to get some pie.

Hey, Eddie, if you're compelled to piss people off, you might want to consider something other than pie.

I'm just sayin'...............

mguar wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: Really, what difference does it make who wins. We're screwed no matter what. They are all politicians, they are lying through their teeth to get a vote. Once in office, it will be business as usual. Besides, congress is still full of vermin. Somebody get the Raid. Until honest to God statesmen get elected, we are just trading one worthless piece of crap for another. The best people for the job will never run for office. They aren't going to subject themselves or their families to the abuses of that nest of snakes.

OH please! What utter non-sense.. Most politicians are dedicated civil servants. Yes some are absolute scumbags but in all likelihood they didn't start out that way. Go to the city council meetings.. Attend Town Hall meetings, Talk to the politicians who most affect your life.. You will find a dedicated group of people.. They have found how to say things without offending most people. That doesn't make them liers.

Have you been to town hall or county council meetings? I see a lot of the same stuff as national offices, just on a smaller scale.

SVreX wrote: But they can also C) keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. There are plenty of people who would call that an aborticant.

if a requirement for fetal development is attachment to the uterus, then C is a contraceptive, rather than abortive, effect.

AngryCorvair wrote:

SVreX wrote: But they can also C) keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. There are plenty of people who would call that an aborticant.

if a requirement for fetal development is attachment to the uterus, then C is a contraceptive, rather than abortive, effect.

Given that doctors tend to count the beginning of a pregnancy before that stage, it's pretty reasonable to consider it an abortive action. It is the deliberate, unnatural end to a pregnancy after all.

MG Bryan wrote:

AngryCorvair wrote:

SVreX wrote: But they can also C) keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. There are plenty of people who would call that an aborticant.

if a requirement for fetal development is attachment to the uterus, then C is a contraceptive, rather than abortive, effect.

Given that doctors tend to count the beginning of a pregnancy before that stage, it's pretty reasonable to consider it an abortive action. It is the deliberate, unnatural end to a pregnancy after all.

Hmmm.....which doctors? I see that we need to take logic and common sense out of this equation.

OMG YOU ARE KILLING TEH BABIEZ!!!!341311\211!!!234

I think he is referring to OB GYN's predicting birthdates based on the date of the woman's last period, a moment at which, of course, the woman was not pregnant, so that sounds pretty fishy to me.

However, the moment of conception (of the sperm entering the egg) is a reasonable assertion, which would make anything that stops a pregnancy from developing by preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall an aborticant.

Yes, that would include the pill in many instances.

rotard wrote: OMG YOU ARE KILLING TEH BABIEZ!!!!341311\211!!!234

Maybe your issue is more like:

OMG, WHY CAN'T WE BERKELEY ALL WE WANTZ??!!!!

Being a responsible adult sometimes mandates choosing to override instant gratification and selfish desires and keep your pants up.

Just a thought...

I'm here for the Iowa Cactus. Oh, wait...

SVreX wrote: In reply to Osterkraut: Sorry.. better check your facts. You are incorrect. Morning after pills have three different methods by which they can work. They can A) prevent ovulation or B) thickening a woman's cervical mucus (which blocks sperm from the egg)... But they can also C) keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. There are plenty of people who would call that an aborticant. Planned Parenthood plays both sides of the equation by correctly identifying the fact that it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching, but saying it does not cause an abortion (though they offer no explanation of this position). http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.asp

That, as stated, is not the primary function of the Morning After Pill. In fact, it looks like at least one scientific (I know, I know, science is the devil's lies) calls it "unlikely" (another source not so politely calls it "anti-choice grandstanding").

So basically, after making a statement like this:

SVreX wrote: Yes, that would include the pill in many instances.

You're going to need to fact-check yourself.

I didn't say it was the primary function. I said it is one manner in which it can operate, which is of course, correct.

It was brought to my attention my 3 different medical doctor friends. I'm quite comfortable with my fact checking.

Besides, I am not presenting it as a medical fact. I understand the politics, and know that "facts" are really quite mallable. It is quite easy to spin them as one chooses (like the PP stand, which takes both sides for political expediency). I am recognizing that for people who agree with the position that life begins at conception, any agent that made the uterus a hostile environment for development of the fertilized egg would be an aborticant, including contraceptives.

That's a pretty straight forward position, even if you are uncomfortable with it.

SVreX wrote: Besides, I am not presenting it as a medical fact.

Fair enough.

SVreX wrote: I am recognizing that for people who agree with the position that life begins at conception, any agent that made the uterus a hostile environment for development of the fertilized egg would be an aborticant

so what about a woman who has viable eggs but a hostile uterus. if she was created by God, is God not then an aborticant, as an agent that made her uterus a hostile environment for development of the fertilized egg?

I think some of my ex-girlfriends had hostile uteruses, but I can't present that as a medical fact

I'm still trying to figure out how, after he totally bombed in the first two primaries, that CNN has Newt as a front runner in South Carolina.

Please don't remind me of the primaries. You would not believe the attack ads and robo calls. Makes me want a monarchy.

jstein77 wrote: I'm still trying to figure out how, after he totally bombed in the first two primaries, that CNN has Newt as a front runner in South Carolina.

Newt has been focusing his funds on SC from the start. He was also a senator from neighboring Georgia. He didn't put much effort into the NH or Iowa primaries as he thinks SC is the key. (usually GOP nominees win SC)

I'd love to see "Cain" do well in SC due to the Colbert "bump".

Joe Gearin wrote:

jstein77 wrote: I'm still trying to figure out how, after he totally bombed in the first two primaries, that CNN has Newt as a front runner in South Carolina.

Newt has been focusing his funds on SC from the start. He was also a senator from neighboring Georgia. He didn't put much effort into the NH or Iowa primaries as he thinks SC is the key. (usually GOP nominees win SC) I'd love to see "Cain" do well in SC due to the Colbert "bump".

Rep, not Senator. Also had this side gig as Speaker of the House for a while...

As far as why he's doing well, IMO bullE36 M3 doesn't play well in the south, and he's very no bullE36 M3.

DILYSI Dave wrote: As far as why he's doing well, IMO bullE36 M3 doesn't play well in the south, and he's very no bullE36 M3.

Except when he's full of bullE36 M3, like when he's preaching the Family Values party line while he's banging his assistant on the side.

Sorry, Newt and the Republicans - live by the morals, die by the morals.

Duh! Speaker of the House does not = Senator.

I'm dumtarded sometimes.

I for one, hope Newt does well. He adds a bunch of unintended comedy into the race. He should pick Trump as a running mate. They would work well together for 5 minutes or so and then their massive egos would do battle!

I'm all about entertainment value in politics. At least that way we get SOME satisfaction out of the process. Maybe a Trump & Palin ticket. Now that would be a boon to comedians everywhere!

Duke wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: As far as why he's doing well, IMO bullE36 M3 doesn't play well in the south, and he's very no bullE36 M3.

Except when he's *full* of bullE36 M3, like when he's preaching the Family Values party line while he's banging his assistant on the side. Sorry, Newt and the Republicans - live by the morals, die by the morals.

I laughed when I read Newt isn't full of E36 M3. He is the epitome of a full of E36 M3 politician. Just because he talks tough when he is bullE36 M3ting doesn't mean he isn't bullE36 M3ting.

Ron Paul isn't bullE36 M3ting. He actually believes the E36 M3 he is trying feed everyone. Well, half really good stuff. Half E36 M3. Kind of like when Ron Burgundy got a dinner consisting of cat E36 M3 and steak.