posted
I don't think that a position has to be inconsistent to be frightening. In fact, quite the opposite. Positions that are allow no inconsistency are often extreme.
And I wasn't accusing Rakeesh of a position; I was asking for clarification.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Rakeesh, please believe that I have read what you wrote carefully. I still have a question. If a doctor is in the operating room, ready to start an abortion, do you believe it is then justified to kill him?
Kate, you are often a generous and seemingly open-minded person. Why do you ask questions like this? And if I was the person on the operating table, absolutely.
P.S. I'll clarify that I spent my first long while in hatrack making similar requests for clarification as you do. People asked me to stop, and I try to.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I asked - without the assumption of what the answer would be - in order to understand what Rakeesh's position was. Very little point in discussing it, if I don't understand what someone is trying to say. He could have said, "no that is still going too far" or "yes that is stopping a murder" neither of which would have been "wrong". He asked for clarification of my question in a way that made sense.
I do not understand why people have a problem answering questions about their position when they are discussing their position on something. If you can explain that, it would be great. It seems to me that asking questions is a good way to get answers.
ETA: For example, why would you be on the hypothetical operating table?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Switched chart? Computer glitch? I'm not saying it's likely, just that I would consider it justified in that scenario.
I would try verbal negotiation first, of course.
I would agree that people trying to perform abortions on women who want to carry their babies to term* should be stopped and that such a woman would be justified in using whatever force was necessary.
*There are some exceptions. Girls too young to make that decision for example. That nine-year-old that was in the news recently comes to mind.
ETA: I find it difficult to imagine that a doctor faced with a woman telling him "no, there has been a mistake" would continue.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know anything about the case of the nine-year old. It certainly sounds extreme. I know there was a case of a 9 year old in Honduras back in 2003. Though I don't remember the particulars of that either.
I haven't worked with any abortion doctors so I wouldn't know about the second. Delivery doctors are used to their patients having mercurial emotions.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. I was thinking of the one in Brazil. I just wanted to say that there were some extreme cases and my statement was not meant to include those.
As for the other, I can't even imagine the lawsuit.
ETA: I'm not saying it couldn't happen or hasn't happened, just that any doctor who would go ahead and perform an abortion on a woman who was desperately protesting that it was a mix up of the files or a computer glitch without at least checking is a moron.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't necessarily know at the time what the source of the misunderstanding was. I actually had my worst experience with a midwife Nurse Practitioner proceeding with what she felt needed to be done over my objections. But as I granted, abortion is probably a very different procedure from a live delivery.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kind of off topic but still relevant to the discussion:
Here in Nevada (And probably a lot of other states) if a man causes bodily harm to a pregnant woman and she loses the baby, he can be charged with murder.
It does not matter if she is 3 weeks along or 8 months, or if she had already made an appointment at the abortion clinic, it is considered murder.
If the mother is only in her first trimester and the group of cells in her body aren't a living being, then shouldn't he just be charged with destruction of property?
It is not my intention to make light of the subject. The argument for abortion on both sides is sophistry.
Personally in my family I would never want an abortion unless something horrible happened to my wife.
That being said, I am religious but I do believe a woman can choose what she wants. I don't agree with it but she can get an abortion as long as I don't have to pay one penny to help her get it. As soon as that happens I have a vested interest in that child and as far as I am concerned she has given up the right to an abortion.
If she pays for it herself then go right ahead. Do I disagree with her choice? Yes. Am I going to judge her for it? No. That is not my job. That is between her and God. Personally I believe God will place that child somewhere else where they are wanted.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'd be hard-pressed to prove whether bodily injury caused the miscarriage of a fetus in the first trimester. Up to half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, usually in the first 10 weeks, many before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: ETA: I'm not saying it couldn't happen or hasn't happened, just that any doctor who would go ahead and perform an abortion on a woman who was desperately protesting that it was a mix up of the files or a computer glitch without at least checking is a moron.
I'd have to put the descriptor somewhere south of just 'moron' in this case, kmbboots. (Just to be clear, though, I'm sure you'd agree)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: You'd be hard-pressed to prove whether bodily injury caused the miscarriage of a fetus in the first trimester. Up to half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, usually in the first 10 weeks, many before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
While a statistic such as this may be true, I would contend that it would be more hard pressed to say it was a natural miscarriage if a man stabbed a woman in the stomache, punched her or threw her around. A jury will more than likely throw the statistic out the window. Whether the mother knows she is pregnant or not is irrelevant in this case.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the stories I posted received the appropriate amount of attention.
If a Tea Party protester bit off the finger of a liberal, Nancy Pelosi would talk about it on the hill and CNN/ABC/MSNBC etc would be non-stop. If every year May 5th was beat up a Hispanic day, there would be warnings and non-stop coverage. If anti-abortion protesters were burning down abortion clinics it would be national news, not a minor local story. If right wing extremists were toppling NPR radio towers it would be a huge story.
Appropriate coverage for one side, an agenda on the other. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Bush had white house Czars on the other side of the coin.
Fox news is definitely slanted to the right but they are way outnumbered by the media slanted to the left.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a Tea Party protester bit off the finger of a liberal, Nancy Pelosi would talk about it on the hill and CNN/ABC/MSNBC etc would be non-stop. If every year May 5th was beat up a Hispanic day, there would be warnings and non-stop coverage. If anti-abortion protesters were burning down abortion clinics it would be national news, not a minor local story. If right wing extremists were toppling NPR radio towers it would be a huge story.
I think that you're making assumptions here and behaving as if those assumptions prove themselves. Consider this quote: "Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Bush had white house Czars on the other side of the coin." Bush did have White House "czars." He had bunches of them. The problem here is that perspective is not being applied.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: You'd be hard-pressed to prove whether bodily injury caused the miscarriage of a fetus in the first trimester. Up to half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, usually in the first 10 weeks, many before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
While a statistic such as this may be true, I would contend that it would be more hard pressed to say it was a natural miscarriage if a man stabbed a woman in the stomache, punched her or threw her around. A jury will more than likely throw the statistic out the window. Whether the mother knows she is pregnant or not is irrelevant in this case.
The application of any law is as important as the written details. Has there ever been a case in which someone who caused a miscarriage during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy was prosecuted for homicide? Has there ever been such a case when the mother did not yet know she was pregnant?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
1) Two radio towers were knocked down. The owners of the tower had been in conflict with certain ecological groups, but also with neighbors who complained they interfered with everything from Intercoms to health. It would have upped the stations ability to compete with other stations.
The Agenda of the web-site is conservative, so unproven allegations should be taken with a grain of salt. Those allegations are that some eco-terrorists left a calling card. (Note, even if true this was not an attack on AM radio and its usually conservative shows, but on the possible ecological dangers posed by the transformers).
I had not heard about these, but it seems to be a local problem. The straw-man argument about what Nancy Pelosi would do if they were liberal radio stations being attacked is useless.
2) Liberal man bites off finger of Tea-Bagger at a rally--made all the big news. It made the comics and the big stations and was headlined on NPR. I can't imagine where Mal thinks that it was ignored.
3)Never heard of this. A group of kids beat up a caucasion girl because it was "Beat up whitey day."
The only source of this is a very conservative, and racially polarized web site. I find it hard to believe. I find it harder to believe that if it were real we wouldn't have heard more about it since this is the time of fear-mongering the press knows will sell papers.
4)ELF again--burned down houses. I remember this story from last year. It got attention, but not loads, mainly because Elf is a Oregon/Washington group and I'm far away. That and they seem to be mostly inept.
People who do bad things are bad people. I don't care what their ideology is. Complaining that people notice your sides bad things but not their own is whining.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a Tea Party protester bit off the finger of a liberal, Nancy Pelosi would talk about it on the hill and CNN/ABC/MSNBC etc would be non-stop. If every year May 5th was beat up a Hispanic day, there would be warnings and non-stop coverage. If anti-abortion protesters were burning down abortion clinics it would be national news, not a minor local story. If right wing extremists were toppling NPR radio towers it would be a huge story.
I think that you're making assumptions here and behaving as if those assumptions prove themselves. Consider this quote: "Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Bush had white house Czars on the other side of the coin." Bush did have White House "czars." He had bunches of them. The problem here is that perspective is not being applied.
Yes Bush did have white house czars but if there were self avowed Marxists, it wouldn't take eight months of Glenn Beck to get some minor attention and an 1201 AM Saturday morning resignation glossed over by the mainstream media. All presidents have advisors, Obama is the one who called his Czars. The media isn't doing what it should. What happened to the research journalism of 60 minutes....now college kids going into ACORN offices are doing what the mainstream media use to do.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your complaint is not about czars, its about Van Jones, specifically? Why the czar rant then?
And who cares who calls them czars? They are normal run-of-the-mill advisor and management positions. "Czar" is just a silly term that doesn't actually confer any meaning on the position and trying to associate the term "czar" with a nefarious, Marxist, conspiracy is kind of silly if you have any clue what a real czar is.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
For that matter, anyone who'd call Jones a Marxist really, really knows nothing about Van Jones -- or else somehow believes that having briefly been a Marxist somehow manifests as a permanent "taint" of some sort.
The guy was most famous for advocating a market-driven approach to environmentalism.
---------
It's also worth noting that Obama was neither the first president nor certainly the first individual to call a political appointee a "czar." A simple Google search comes up with ten times -- ten distinct times, for different people -- for Dubya alone. I can only find a couple quotes from Obama with the word in it, both times talking about the same person. In other words, if you're worried that "czar" somehow betrays some love of the Russian monarchy, you're going to have to ask Bush about that one.
I certainly agree with the "research journalism" thing, though. If we had more research journalists, not only would we know all about ACORN, but Glenn Beck would have long ago been driven off the air in humiliation and no one would think Obama was the first president to offhandedly refer to one of his appointed advisors as a "czar."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Appropriate coverage for one side, an agenda on the other. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Bush had white house Czars on the other side of the coin.
Don't be such a dope. I did entire papers about Bush's czar appointments and I was in high school.
You've got the advantage of how many decades on me and you don't even realize presidents have Czars?
The Nixon and Ford administrations had czars, for christ's sake.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, every administration since Nixon has had appointed officials who were called czars. How the fact that "czar" is a common term in US politics could be news to any anyone who has been paying even a modicum of attention is beyond me.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt I would hold up my High School paper as proof of my expertise in a given area. All presidents have had czars/advisors, yes. None more than our current president though. This president's czars, or advisors if you prefer, are extemist, socialists radicals. ACORN, SEIU, Weather Underground founders, self avowed communists, black panther members, etc.
My point is if Bush had clan member advisors, self avowed Fascists, Militia Members, etc the media would not tolerate it. I think they are fair comparisons from opposite sides. This president gets a pass....except on Fox.
Notice he's going on 5 Sunday networks, including Univision...skipping Fox which happens to be the most watched news network in the nation.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Got anything actually bad to say about any of the other czars, malanthrop, other than their quantity?
quote:Notice he's going on 5 Sunday networks, including Univision...skipping Fox which happens to be the most watched news network in the nation.
Well, Fox is also a terrible news station, so I'm not gonna lose much sleep over not seeing him there.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Related to your statement, I was not able to find definitive court cases (I dont have the time here at work, I will poke around when I get home) however I did find a site that lists the different states with these types of laws.
posted
Rake--if one of them does not meet with Mal's political views, obviously they all must be evil. Don't you know that.
Oh, and Mal, love the segue from the Czar argument that still doesn't make sense, to the Fox News meme. If you can't prove one point, jump to another.
When we were arguing about going to war in Iraq a few years ago I noticed the same pattern. Pro-War people argued WMD, until that was argued down. Then they jumped to --Hussein is Evil. When that was argued against (by listing several other evil dictators we were not going to war against) the Terrorist Connection was brought up. When that was proven false they quickly jumped back to WMD. Round and round we went, getting no where until those arguing against the war folks gave up.
Now we have anti-President Obama people doing the same thing. He's not a US Citizen--when that is shown to be wrong, He's an Islamic plant. When that is refuted, he's a socialist trying to have the government take over everything. When that is proven wrong its "He plays with terrorists". When that is argued against, we go back to him not being a US citizen. Round and round, with the facts out there to prove the complaints wrong, but the Right refusing to listen.
Do you know what got us in the deep mess of Iraq and Afghanistan? Its the Neo-Con, Republican Bosses belief that Ideology Can Create Reality. Many of those who went to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq where ideologically pure Neo-Con, but had not the expertise to do the job. Still, the power people in Washington, the Delay Republican machine, said that if they say something long enough and loud enough it will be true.
So now they go to fight President Obama by saying over and over, louder and louder, things that are not true. They prove that the false is true not with fact but with volume and the tenacity of those the scare into screaming.
The funny thing is they claim to be the best Patriots, but they try to rule the US by fear. A true Patriot knows that you can't scare an American into backing down or running away.
Oh my. I'm ranting. Sorry...rant off.
Mal, one question seriously. You specifically mention President Obama's appearance on Univision as something outrageous. Why is that? I know you have a strong bias against illegal aliens, but Univision is a Major broadcast network watched by millions of Legal Americans, who happen to be of Latin--American descent. Do you consider them less American than the average Fox viewer? Less deserving to hear from their president?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
