"gasp"

George is THAT clingy?

I thought this article was OK until the last para., in italics below:

Monday's revelation was the second case this year of a belated White House announcement. In February, the White House waited almost a day before disclosing that Vice President Dick Cheney had shot a fellow hunter during a quail-hunting trip.

I am a no Bushie, but these comments are shamefully absurd. Comparing keeping what is little more than a cyst (.1% of death from this type--melanoma is the bad one) to the press release delay in the Cheney shooting is very poor journalism. A limp-wristed, partisan jab. Certainly is is within Mrs. Bush's rights to keep this small medical incident private. Pleeeaaasseee.

I actually think this type of reporting helps the GOP. How? Isn't this administration corrupt enough without manufacturing controversy?. Perhaps not, when the left degrades to intriguemaking like this.
Real, real stupid "journalism"...

Why did she have the tumor removed? Why can't they just pray the tumor away? God will probably take care of it right? But then again, God probably put the tumor there in the first place.

It is interesting how even social conservatives ultimately rely on science when things go wrong, despite all the rhetoric.

I wonder how many of the right wing nutjobs that wished ill will on Elizabeth Edwards when she was undergoing cancer treatment in 2004 will make those same comments here now.

Probably not.

Jimmy 'fraid I don't remember those ill wishes for Liz.

Now maybe one or two psychos may have gotten carried away but you better wait to see how this thread plays out before calling the kettle black.

Well Tao,

It wasn't every right winger, but enough of the real nutjobs to make it memorable.

Well said Member2586!

Science is one of the many ways of Allah.

Member
Although some sects of Christianity dismiss all science, particularly medical science, I don't believe Bush ever indicated he belonged to one of those.

Quisling
I agree. There's no comparison between a private medical procedure done to the President's wife and Mr. Cheney shooting somebody in the face (and the subsequent suspicious behavior). I hope Laura continues to heal well.

Good luck Laura. My sister-in-law had melanoma. I'm sure she had a complete check up to make sure it hasn't spread.
Just hang around George, he's dim enough to help you avoid the sun.

It's nobody's business.

Let's all hope we stay healthy and remember that cancer does not care about politics. Laura Bush deserves her privacy.

I hope it grows back!

- Leftist loons

Although some sects of Christianity dismiss all science, particularly medical science, I don't believe Bush ever indicated he belonged to one of those.
Posted by dylanfan

Of course, as most American Christians, he only accepts Science that agrees with his own aims, while vehemently decrying that which contradicts their beliefs.

I wonder how many fundamentalist Christians in this country have had cosmetic surgery?

"as most American Christians, he only accepts Science that agrees with his own aims"

What the fuck do you know about "most American Christians?" Did you take a survey?

he only accepts Science that agrees with his own aims, while vehemently decrying that which contradicts their beliefs.

He? I am guessing 'he' is President Bush.

Vehemently decrying that which contradicts their beliefs?

What science does Bush vehemently decry.

What science does Bush vehemently decry(?)

Embryonic stem cell research for one.

Embryonic stem cell research for one.

I guess that depends on how you define 'decry'.

He hasn't made an attempt to make it illegal.

Did they hack off her clit?

What science does Bush vehemently decry.

Posted by JeffJ at 2006-12-19 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about the idea that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old?

Evolution?

There's numbers 2 & 3.

"I wonder how many fundamentalist Christians in this country have had cosmetic surgery?"

Take a survey if you're curious. Don't assume. Rather than the typical "assuming makes an ass out of u and me" thing, I'll quote my preferred saying about assuming: "Assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups."

Here's something that pisses me off. I'm a Christian and a liberal, and on Christianity, both sides are completely bonkers. People on the left say stupid things like, "All Christians are ignorant schmucks because they ignore science that doesn't fit with their beliefs." What is ironic is that they do this while at the same time advocating how open-minded they are. Some Christians see this and declare that there is a liberal war on Christianity, which is also completely ridiculous. The left sees this "war on Christianity" BS for what it is and says stupid things like, "There's no war on Christianity! Those sick fucks are a majority and they can stop their whining because they're narrow-minded and blah blah blah!!"

Live and let live, people!

ps-sorry for the swearing...I know it's not polite or particularly Christian-like, but if I were perfect, I wouldn't need religion (I'd also be a misguided, arrogant asshole).

How about the idea that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old?

You are a moron. Has Bush EVER made the statement that the world is only 6000 years old?


Evolution?

Has Bush EVER denied Evolution?


Quit being such a partisan hack.

Of course, as most American Christians, he only accepts Science that agrees with his own aims, while vehemently decrying that which contradicts their beliefs.

Posted by TFDNihilist at 2006-12-19 12:59 PM | Reply

What the fuck do you know about "most American Christians?" Did you take a survey?

Posted by JOE at 2006-12-19 01:04 PM | Reply

Why use data to support your anti-religious rants, when you can simply rely on prejudice and ignorance?

It's kind of ironic, isn't it?

He hasn't made an attempt to make it illegal.

That is the very argument used by religionists against the process. They view it as murder, hence this is exactly what they are trying to do through the repeal of abortion laws and in championing its illegality under the law that they'd like to impliment for everyone.

That is the very argument used by religionists against the process. They view it as murder, hence this is exactly what they are trying to do through the repeal of abortion laws and in championing its illegality under the law that they'd like to impliment for everyone.

It all boils down to that age-old argument of: When does human tissue become "person", Tony. How do we define personhood?

Right-to-life isn't strictly a religious position, Tony.

If one believes that 'conception' the merger of egg and sperm denotes personhood, shouldn't they try to legislate the right-to-life for the most helpless of 'persons'?

If one believes that 'conception' the merger of egg and sperm denotes personhood, shouldn't they try to legislate the right-to-life for the most helpless of 'persons'?

Because nowhere in any codified law is "personhood" defined before a lifeform seperates itself from its mother and lives as an autonomous being. It isn't about belief, its about the law in this regard. We also consciously know that the initial union has not created a senient being in the single cell of a fertilized embryo. The potentiality is there after futher development, but no one can make the biological argument that this cell is "life" analogous to you or me as we exist right now, nor does the law recognize legal "personhood" until after the fetus has exited from the womb.

Tony
I'm too torn to have a solid position on abortion (I'd make a horrible politician!), but you're not answering his question. Yes, the law supports the idea that "life" doesn't "start" until after birth, but what Jeff is saying is that IF a person were to believe that life DOES start at conception, wouldn't that person's only option be to support every initiative to change that law?

what Jeff is saying is that IF a person were to believe that life DOES start at conception, wouldn't that person's only option be to support every initiative to change that law?


Exactly!


I am also very torn on the notion of legalized abortion.

nor does the law recognize legal "personhood" until after the fetus has exited from the womb.

You are mistaken.

analogous to you or me as we exist right now, nor does the law recognize legal "personhood" until after the fetus has exited from the womb.


Posted by tonyroma at 2006-12-19 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Laci Connor Act. Of course that is the Taking of a Fetus Unwillingly IE MURDER such as Scott Peterson. It recognizes TWO Killings when a Person kills a Pregnant Woman.

Larry

IF a person were to believe that life DOES start at conception, wouldn't that person's only option be to support every initiative to change that law?

Not if the person understood how this nation's laws are made to protect the liberty of its citizens. A person is free to practice anything they believe if it doesn't break the law and they're free to advocate it as long as it doesn't interfere with the liberty of another citizen to do what is legal under our law.

Jeff...

Show me one state that recognizes a fetus' rights be analogous to those of a post-uterian entity. There are criminal sanctions for violating a fetus' right to develop, but NO law giving them rights only held by legal citizens ex-vitro. You are wrong.

Larry...

See above.

"Show me one state that recognizes a fetus' rights be analogous to those of a post-uterian entity."

That wasn't what you said before. You said they don't recognize the concept of "personhood," which can be interpreted many ways. If you're talking about getting a driver's license or voting, then I guess they don't recognize it. But the fact that you can be charged with murder for killing a fetus, and the fact that the government justifies the regulations that they are permitted to impose on abortions on the state interest of protecting life, suggests that at least some concept of "personhood" is attributed to the fetus.

Joe...

Agreed. I thought I codified my view in the post of 2.32. A fetus is "protected" by law from outside, unwarranted interference in its invitro-development, but it is not endowed with the same protections an ex-vitro person is under all applicable US law.

Right-to-life isn't strictly a religious position, Tony.

Posted by JeffJ at 2006-12-19 01:48 PM | Reply

Just ask the folks at "Atheists for Life."

We don't give the status of legal personhood to the fetus. We reserve that designation for more important entities, like corporations.

Good one, Anton.

TONY...USA TODAY>>>The Bush Administration was the first to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. In keeping with this commitment, the Administration:

Provided FY 2003 funding of $24.8 million for human embryonic stem cell research, an increase of 132 percent from FY 2002; in FY 2003 the Administration has strongly supported promising research using adult stem cells by providing $190.7 million for human non-embryonic stem cells (adult stem cells, including those from cord blood, placenta, and bone marrow).

"Not if the person understood how this nation's laws are made to protect the liberty of its citizens. A person is free to practice anything they believe if it doesn't break the law and they're free to advocate it as long as it doesn't interfere with the liberty of another citizen to do what is legal under our law."


I see your point. But still, if a person believes life begins at conception, he or she would want to do everything within his or power to change what is legal under our law. Although I don't necessarily agree with them (like I said, I'm very torn on this issue), I can understand the position of those who vehemently oppose abortion with the belief that it's a sort of spree of mass murderings (though I don't think the term "genocide" fits that they use sometimes). I think your above statement works better with issues like gay marriage where there is no "victim."

Personally, I think the best solution is to keep abortion legal but to educate people on alternatives and especially to teach comprehensive sex ed, not just abstinence. In the end, I'd rather have safe, legal and rare abortions (I'm too young to know the whole history of that phrase, but I think it's Clintonian?) than distraught women with coathangers.

If you want to believe that life begins at conception - does that mean that a pregnant woman who falls down a flight of stairs, which causes a miscarriage, is guilty of murder? If not - why not?

Op-
Legally, I don't know. If you believed life begins at conception, I suppose the situation you theorized would be similar to a woman who was carrying her baby and tripped down the stairs. It probably COULD be tried, but probably wouldn't (or shouldn't) because of the awful circumstances of a tragedy like that. Would you really want to put a woman on trial who accidentally killed her baby? Probably not.

If you want to believe that life begins at conception - does that mean that a pregnant woman who falls down a flight of stairs, which causes a miscarriage, is guilty of murder? If not - why not?

Did she fall down intentionally, or by accident?

If I were playing baseball and I hit a line shit which struck the pitcher in the head and killed him - I wouldn't be guilty of murder. If I hit a line shot that was a foul ball, which struck a pregnant woman in the abdomen - I wouldn't be guilty of murder.

"If you want to believe that life begins at conception - does that mean that a pregnant woman who falls down a flight of stairs, which causes a miscarriage, is guilty of murder? If not - why not?"

That's stupid. If you accidentally trip and fall down the stairs, and happen to knock down a 40 year old person and kill them you aren't guilty of murder.

If not - why not?

I don't believe this, but your example only works if this was her intended outcome prior to intentionally taking the fall. Otherwise, its an accident, nothing more.

If you want to believe that life begins at conception - does that mean that a pregnant woman who falls down a flight of stairs, which causes a miscarriage, is guilty of murder? If not - why not?

Posted by OPINIONATOR

What is your point???

Cool...another hotly debated subject.

Life does begin at conception.

lol

I'm ready to rumble!!

"If you want to believe that life begins at conception - does that mean that a pregnant woman who falls down a flight of stairs, which causes a miscarriage, is guilty of murder? If not - why not?"

No, it is not murder. Murder is premeditated.

If she deliberately "threw" herself down the stairs, that would be another matter.

If she deliberately "threw" herself down the stairs, that would be another matter.

Posted by Lisa

Or deliberately "threw" herself down a flight of stairs and through a door to an abortion clinic??

Eb:

True!

Well woopty fucking doooo.

Who gives a shit?

Who gives a shit?"

Unborn babies??

Abortion is not just a cut and dry situation for me.

On one hand, I do believe life begins at conception and that abortion is murder.

On the other, I believe that this decision is between God and that woman and no one elses business, especially when it comes to the government dictating what a woman can and can not do with her body. However, it's just not her body that goes through an abortion.

Lisa
I have the same difficulties, which is why I say I'm torn on the issue. The government intrusion thing has always bothered me. I feel if you want people to behave a certain way (such as not to get abortions), it's always better to try to convince them to behave that way rather than force them to.

I thought Life begins when a Person has His/Her first Climax. Before that They were just "Perculating"

Larry

BTW I agree with Lisa's stance on Abortion. I am ProLife Personally but do not want to take the rights away from the individual. I just wished Men had more of a say in if an Unborn child can be aborted. That is my only beef with abortion.

Larry

SHe finally divorced George??

Sorry if this is a repeat but I'm at work with no time to read the entire thread.

Lisa: If it makes it easier for you, at conception there is no life, as a matter of fact the DNA does not even sort itself out until 24-48 hrs after sperm penetration ( "conception")

After that 50% of all fertilized eggs spontaneously abort. And that doesn't countthose that fail to attach or miscarry later in the pregnancy.

A fetus that is not self sustainable outside the womb ( breathe on it's own etc)is not "alive" and therefore cannot be murdered.

Sperm Penetration so sci fi sounding You know In a deep raspy horror movie announcers voice. WE HAVE SPERM PENETRATION Prepare Battle stations.

Larry

"...is not "alive" and therefore cannot be murdered."

I hope that wraps it up nice and tidy for you.

"...it's always better to try to convince them to behave that way rather than force them to."

Agreed.

"However, it's just not her body that goes through an abortion."

Exactly. Error on the side of caution when things become a bit more than you can grasp.

And when you think you've grasped everything, start over.

Hi Bri!!

I got your lovely (I say that because we could pass for sisters...lol) wife's email telling me you both were safe and sound. I am so glad. Are the dogs back to normal (if they ever were...lol)??

Sweetie, I don't believe that the children inside me, as I watched them so early on through ultra sounds, sucking their thumbs, kicking their legs, scrunching up their little faces.....does not constitute life. I understand what you are saying about sustaining itself outside the womb, but honestly....in my heart, I know they are babies and they are alive.

I love you!! Happy Holidays!

BTW:

"A fetus that is not self sustainable outside the womb ( breathe on it's own etc)"

A friend of mine in WI got pregnant with an IUD in. As the "BABY" grew, the IUD began to irritate her uterus and caused her to go into labor.....at 6 months of pregnancy.

Her son was born at 1 pound, and fell below that pound the next day. He lived on machines, helping him breath till his lungs developed to the point he could breathe on his own.

Are you going to tell me that Josh wasn't "alive" because he had to have machines helping him breathe??

Today, Josh is a scrapping young man, big and strong. Served in the military and is very healthy.

I'd say he was very much "alive"!!

How about the idea that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old?

You are a moron. Has Bush EVER made the statement that the world is only 6000 years old?


Evolution?

Has Bush EVER denied Evolution?


Quit being such a partisan hack.

Posted by JeffJ at 2006-12-19 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:


Bush is a 'born again christian' and that is part of the belief.

Quit being an uninformed hack!

"A fetus that is not self sustainable outside the womb ( breathe on it's own etc)is not "alive"

So what about full-grown adults that can't sustain themselves without the aid of machines? Are they not "alive" either?

Hi Joe!

I have one more batch of cookies to make and they'll be in the mail. I doubt if they'll get there before Christmas...sorry. Things have been out of control here.

"So what about full-grown adults that can't sustain themselves without the aid of machines? Are they not "alive" either?"

Good point, BTW.

So what about full-grown adults that can't sustain themselves without the aid of machines? Are they not "alive" either?

Posted by JOE at 2006-12-19 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Yeah thats's called Dick Cheney.

Larry

Did they hack off her clit?

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2006-12-19 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag

Naw-georgie boy killed her sex drive on his own.


That said-
If you don't believe in Abortion-the answer is simple-












DON'T F**KING HAVE ONE!!!
I've grown soooo tired of this stupid argument over the years.
There are perfectly legitimate laws in place governing when a woman can have an abortion.
Government has better things to do than to make laws to please every whim of Evangelical x-tians. Fuck 'em. And the horse's ass they rode in screwin'.

"There are perfectly legitimate laws in place governing when a woman can have an abortion."

But that's where you have it all wrong! It's not only the fucking evangelicals, but those bastard activist judges telling me when I can and can't have an abortion. Fuck 'em! Do we have to go to the back-alley days all over again?

OK, so I'm guilty of a bit of hyperbole, like that's never happened here before, but there is some truth in what I say.

And a politician is defined by those who vote for them, so even though Bush may not have specifically made statements about science and religious dogma, he will spout about his fundamentalist "base" all day.

Happyending:

I don't want to have women having abortions in the back alley, nor do I believe that the government should tell me what I can and can't do with my body.

However, I do believe abortions are wrong.

I couldn't imagine having one, and I was faced with a life threatening situation when I was pregnant with one of my children.

Abortions used as a form of Birth Control is medeval in this day in age with so many forms of birth control and after market ru284 types out there

Abortions used as a medical proceedure is only human

Happyending,

Why do you have to go to the back alley?
Oh You choose to because you couldn't accept the law as it stood or were too embarrased to tell your parents that you got pregnant.

A real good reasons to have an abortion!

Frank55,

I am so tired of jack asses like you fuck you and the horses ass you rode in on!

Maybe if someone took you outback and whipped your ass you wouldn't have such a smart mouth!