Quote(CNN) -- Abortion rights advocates plan to rally in Texas Tuesday after state lawmakers approved controversial legislaton that requires mothers seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound examination and listen to a description of what it shows. . .
In its "infinite wisdom" government is now going to inflict severe psychological harm upon women that are pregnant with an unwanted child? WTF?! Don't they realize that the decision is ALREADY a very emotionally trying one, no matter what the reasoning may be for the woman to reach the decision to abort?
IMHO this is just WRONG, and amounts to cruel and unusual punishment,inflicted over NO CRIME! :mad: :mad: :mad:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/08/texas.sonogram/index.html?hpt=T2 (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/08/texas.sonogram/index.html?hpt=T2)
I don't think it is the law, but the women I have talked to who have had abortions all had ultrasounds and the person doing them explained what was on it. this was part of the pre procedure counseling. All of the women I have talked to had it done in Indiana and it was a small number (5 or 6) and had the abortion for different reasons. The ultrasound is a very good diagnostic tool to confirm that there is an actual pregnancy and make sure there are no other conditions that would maybe increase the danger to the woman so I don't really have a problem with the ultrasound.
Quote from: Anne on March 08, 2011, 10:51:58 AM
I don't think it is the law, but the women I have talked to who have had abortions all had ultrasounds and the person doing them explained what was on it. this was part of the pre procedure counseling. All of the women I have talked to had it done in Indiana and it was a small number (5 or 6) and had the abortion for different reasons. The ultrasound is a very good diagnostic tool to confirm that there is an actual pregnancy and make sure there are no other conditions that would maybe increase the danger to the woman so I don't really have a problem with the ultrasound.
I don't deny the usefulness of ultrasound as a diagnostic tool. That is not the point.
The point is, this is yet another example of government imposing itself into the body and mind of women! It's uncalled for and draconian.
What are they going to do when in 10 years or so it is proven to be the root cause for the sudden rise in instances of mental disorders in women????
Quote from: Anne on March 08, 2011, 10:51:58 AM
I don't think it is the law, but the women I have talked to who have had abortions all had ultrasounds and the person doing them explained what was on it. this was part of the pre procedure counseling. All of the women I have talked to had it done in Indiana and it was a small number (5 or 6) and had the abortion for different reasons. The ultrasound is a very good diagnostic tool to confirm that there is an actual pregnancy and make sure there are no other conditions that would maybe increase the danger to the woman so I don't really have a problem with the ultrasound.
So you don't really have a problem with the ultrasound. Come on Anne, you know what is for. It is one more hoop a woman has to go through to a legal abortion.
Just a another way to try and stop abortions. These crazy nut Christians will never give minding someone else business.
If they were to try to pass a law where anyone who was against abortion, had to take of the children and raise, feed, cloth and send through college. The anti abortionist would run for the hills, carrying their tails behind them. Pointed tails. :yes: :biggrin:
No, Troll, the ultrasound is a good tool to check the position of the fetus, also to make sure this is not an eptioc pregnancy, to see if there are tumors. A simple urine test or even a blood test cannot give the information an ultrasound can. They can and do give false positives and cannot detect possible problems.
The only 2 cents I have on this manner is, that it should be left up to the States to decide, NOT the federal government and that it is without a doubt, in my opinion, a moral choice that should be voted upon by the people in a democratic fashion...but the bottom line is that NO FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS should ever be used regarding this issue.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 08, 2011, 03:17:27 PM
The only 2 cents I have on this manner is, that it should be left up to the States to decide, NOT the federal government and that it is without a doubt, in my opinion, a moral choice that should be voted upon by the people in a democratic fashion...but the bottom line is that NO FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS should ever be used regarding this issue.
And perhaps when the state government legislates mandatory, twice yearly anal probing for all male citizens you'll endorse that as well?
Quote from: Palehorse on March 08, 2011, 04:36:47 PM
And perhaps when the state government legislates mandatory, twice yearly anal probing for all male citizens you'll endorse that as well?
If the will of the people go through the democratic process and deam this as a must.......then I will pack and move to Canada....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 08, 2011, 04:47:50 PM
If the will of the people go through the democratic process and deam this as a must.......then I will pack and move to Canada....
Oh, come on Hawk, GIVE ME A BREAK. The ultrasound is just one more stuid Texas law. Just look what the Texas board of education did to the school books and the stuff they will teach in the school classes. :groan: Raising more dumbass Texan kids.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 08, 2011, 04:47:50 PM
If the will of the people go through the democratic process and deam this as a must.......then I will pack and move to Canada....
:smile: We both jest, but the reality and real danger of issues like this is that we are just a legislative act from just such a thing happening.
If some pseudo medical study determines that manual manipulation of the prostate twice a year reduces the incident of prostate cancer, and convinces a majority of congressional leadership of it, bend over baby!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 08, 2011, 03:17:27 PM
The only 2 cents I have on this manner is, that it should be left up to the States to decide, NOT the federal government and that it is without a doubt, in my opinion, a moral choice that should be voted upon by the people in a democratic fashion...but the bottom line is that NO FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS should ever be used regarding this issue.
1) Let me refer you to the U. S. Constitution, Amendment XIV (in pertinent part):
Section 1.:...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....2) The United States of America is a nation based on the concept of the
Rule of Law and as such, you cannot enshrine
any of your
personal moral choices in order to strip another citizen of his/her rights under the law.
You and your ilk
never get that because y'all refuse to cease ascribing to the logical fallacy 'Appeal to Popularity' and to acknowledge the fact that the good ole' US of A is a 'Representative Republic' based on the 'Rule of Law' and
not what's
popular.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 08, 2011, 04:47:50 PM
If the will of the people go through the democratic process and deam this as a must.......then I will pack and move to Canada....
See what I mean. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Y on March 08, 2011, 10:59:05 PM
See what I mean. :rolleyes:
Just love the Teabaggers and the Republicans. In any law they want to make, it is not against the Constitution unless the law gores on of their chosen few. Do as I say not as I do. Newt Gringrich is one fine example. :biggrin:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2011, 12:47:02 PM
nor shall any State deprive any person of life...
Same old Creationist unscientific dogma. :flap: :pray: :preach: :pope: and the holy :ghost: :trustme:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2011, 12:47:02 PM
nor shall any State deprive any person of life...
What is the legal definition of "life"?
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2011, 01:07:50 PM
What is the legal definition of "life"?
THAT is the million dollar question. Many beleive it is the moment of conception. There is and will be NO conclusive definition that all will agree on. Why not leave this issue to the will of the people instead of nine black robes?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2011, 01:20:28 PM
THAT is the million dollar question. Many beleive it is the moment of conception. There is and will be NO conclusive definition that all will agree on. Why not leave this issue to the will of the people instead of nine black robes?
No, that is the
religious definition! And I am not about to leave it to a bunch of individuals who cannot even agree on which sky daddy is the right one!
Those "nine black robes" are constitutionally bound to make such calls!
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2011, 01:24:00 PM
Those "nine black robes" are constitutionally bound to make such calls!
and those black robes have shown that THEY can even dispute and not have the same view on the Constitution....it is now a manner of having the correct number of black robes that think the same, to say something is constitutional.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2011, 01:29:50 PM
and those black robes have shown that THEY can even dispute and not have the same view on the Constitution....it is now a manner of having the correct number of black robes that think the same, to say something is constitutional.
A lot like congress. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2011, 01:33:12 PM
A lot like congress. . .
but at the least, we the people, VOTE them in.....be it good or bad.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2011, 01:29:50 PM
and those black robes have shown that THEY can even dispute and not have the same view on the Constitution....it is now a manner of having the correct number of black robes that think the same, to say something is constitutional.
So, are you saying because you may disagree with the SCOTUS then we should not abide by their decisions? It is after all constitutional.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2011, 02:19:41 PM
So, are you saying because you may disagree with the SCOTUS then we should not abide by their decisions? It is after all constitutional.
I'm not ready to cross down that path.....I'm just stating a danger I see as a potential threat. I know that YOU see this also.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2011, 02:45:35 PM
I'm not ready to cross down that path.....I'm just stating a danger I see as a potential threat. I know that YOU see this also.
You're damned right I see it, and that decision to grant faceless soul-less corporations constitutional rights was just a symptom of what I see wrong with the SCOTUS. However, Roe vs Wade has very little to do with those sitting there now. . . Aside from them affirming the decision.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2011, 01:36:15 PM
but at the least, we the people, VOTE them in.....be it good or bad.
Yeah, just like "we" did with Charlie White, the republican elect secretary of state of Indiana that is looking more and more like he is going to be doing a stretch in the sin bin. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2011, 03:42:27 PM
Yeah, just like "we" did with Charlie White, the republican elect secretary of state of Indiana that is looking more and more like he is going to be doing a stretch in the sin bin. . .
YOU know there is scum in both parties......
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2011, 03:50:10 PM
YOU know there is scum in both parties......
I won't dispute what is true, but:
This case just proves how blinded voters have become to the candidates they are voting for. They suck up the propaganda and mudslinging lies as if they were the gospel being spewed by the messiah, and in the process elect pseudo nazi's and criminals into office that are worse than the ones we had in office in the first place! :mad:
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2011, 03:51:28 PM
I won't dispute what is true, but:
This case just proves how blinded voters have become to the candidates they are voting for. They suck up the propaganda and mudslinging lies as if they were the gospel being spewed by the messiah, and in the process elect pseudo nazi's and criminals into office that are worse than the ones we had in office in the first place! :mad:
Just for the record he has not been proven guilty of anything....he has been indicted, NO verdict has been reached. Apparently YOU have reached a verdict already...is is possible, JUST possible that you are a victim of being "sucked up the propaganda and mudslinging lies as if they were the gospel"?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2011, 04:21:11 PM
Just for the record he has not been proven guilty of anything....he has been indicted, NO verdict has been reached. Apparently YOU have reached a verdict already...is is possible, JUST possible that you are a victim of being "sucked up the propaganda and mudslinging lies as if they were the gospel"?
Possible, but not probable.
When a grand jury hands down an indictment you can bet that whatever the evidence is, it is pretty damning. Besides, I believe that where there is smoke there is fire. And now the guy is under a second investigation over his handling of a report on his own case!
Or do you think that the state assembled a grand jury consisting entirely of democrats? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2011, 04:30:45 PM
Or do you think that the state assembled a grand jury consisting entirely of democrats? :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
don't need to get nasty....I just pointed out that he has not been proven guilty and yet YOU are ready to throw the first stone....
several time already since it broke news.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2011, 04:43:03 PM
:rolleyes:
don't need to get nasty....I just pointed out that he has not been proven guilty and yet YOU are ready to throw the first stone....
several time already since it broke news.
I'm just stating my opinion. He'll have his day in court, and should he prove innocent then I'll admit to being wrong in my opinion.
I dare say it is more likely he'll find a means to wriggle out of all this via a loophole or technicality. . . in which case I will stand by my opinion.
Speaking of stones, you're casting your share at Indiana Democrats without even making any attempt what-so-ever to understand their position. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2011, 04:51:06 PM
I'm just stating my opinion. He'll have his day in court, and should he prove innocent then I'll admit to being wrong in my opinion.
I dare say it is more likely he'll find a means to wriggle out of all this via a loophole or technicality. . . in which case I will stand by my opinion.
Speaking of stones, you're casting your share at Indiana Democrats without even making any attempt what-so-ever to understand their position. . .
I understand their position... All this bill is wanting is to keep unions from inserting clauses into contracts that force employers to fire nonunion workers who fail to pay the union "agency fees" if the do not join. THAT is a fair bill!
The Unions realize they might lose some power, so they are intimidating (like they are so good at) voters to get in an uproar. These democrats are heavily sponsered by these Unions, so they know the only way to stop this is to..........defy the democratic process.
YOU was angry at republicans for VOTING...."the party of no"....at least they VOTED. Even fillibustering is legal, but simply leaving the state and not showing up to do their job is setting a bad precident.
I guess if one party does not like what the other party is proposing, they can all just go get a motel, at the taxpayers expense in another state, and just hang out.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 09, 2011, 05:10:21 PM
I understand their position... All this bill is wanting is to keep unions from inserting clauses into contracts that force employers to fire nonunion workers who fail to pay the union "agency fees" if the do not join. THAT is a fair bill!
The Unions realize they might lose some power, so they are intimidating (like they are so good at) voters to get in an uproar. These democrats are heavily sponsered by these Unions, so they know the only way to stop this is to..........defy the democratic process.
YOU was angry at republicans for VOTING...."the party of no"....at least they VOTED. Even fillibustering is legal, but simply leaving the state and not showing up to do their job is setting a bad precident.
I guess if one party does not like what the other party is proposing, they can all just go get a motel, at the taxpayers expense in another state, and just hang out.
They want to vacate ratified bargaining agreement mid-contract! That is out right illegal and bullshit!
Moreover, it will open the door to corporations doing the very same thing. . .
HB1538 is nothing short of an assault upon the middle class worker, whose
only refuge within an at will state is the bargaining agreement.
If they pass this, watch for a BIG push to change Indiana's "at will" status, as well as a full force legal assault on the legality and constitutionality of HB1538! Now, how much do you think the state is going to save when they have to defend their actions in a court of law?
You might think all of this is unnecessary because your employers might be currently treating you right from your view. But watch what will happen to you once their backs are against the wall over finances or loss of volume / customers. They will start cutting heads at the TOP; top earners go first, no matter how many years they've worked for the company, or how much knowledge they have surrounding the business, or how good they are at it. OUT, with NO recourse what so ever.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2011, 05:33:41 PM
They want to vacate ratified bargaining agreement mid-contract! That is out right illegal and bullshit!
Moreover, it will open the door to corporations doing the very same thing. . .
HB1538 is nothing short of an assault upon the middle class worker, whose only refuge within an at will state is the bargaining agreement.
If they pass this, watch for a BIG push to change Indiana's "at will" status, as well as a full force legal assault on the legality and constitutionality of HB1538! Now, how much do you think the state is going to save when they have to defend their actions in a court of law?
You might think all of this is unnecessary because your employers might be currently treating you right from your view. But watch what will happen to you once their backs are against the wall over finances or loss of volume / customers. They will start cutting heads at the TOP; top earners go first, no matter how many years they've worked for the company, or how much knowledge they have surrounding the business, or how good they are at it. OUT, with NO recourse what so ever.
Believe me Palehorse. His time is coming. He thinks his new daddy boss wouldn't fire him for anything. This Republican depression is far from being over.
One day the boss will come in to work with a hard-on because of something his wife said to him and fire this guy and there he will stand without one leg to stand on. The other daddy's boy, with more layoffs in the high tech business these laid-off people will become computer advisors and put him out of business. What an outlook. I'll bet he's not getting rich now. :rotfl:
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2011, 05:33:41 PM
You might think all of this is unnecessary because your employers might be currently treating you right from your view. But watch what will happen to you once their backs are against the wall over finances or loss of volume / customers. They will start cutting heads at the TOP; top earners go first, no matter how many years they've worked for the company, or how much knowledge they have surrounding the business, or how good they are at it. OUT, with NO recourse what so ever.
And WHY should they NOT have that right?....It is HIS business. NOT mine! For Gods sake PH, why should there be laws to tell people HOW to run their businesss? The place where I work has been in business for over 50 years. I am free to look and go to work anywhere I choose. I have choose to work here. I can tell you this, I Hope and Pray that a Union NEVER works its way into this place.
I would have NO incentive to work hard or try to get ahead. Those with more senoriety would be getting more pay and priviliges, JUST because, not because they deserved it.
And as far as state workers, they should NOT have any right to strike. Their wages should be determined by the voters. No body puts a gun to anyones head to take a job with the State. You should know exactly what you are getting into before you take such a job.....
I'm sorry, but I have to ask. 1) Why should the voters be allowed to vote for the salaries of state positions when the majority wouldn't have a frame of reference to know what those particular skills, abilities and experence is worth. 2) The voters don't hire the state workers. Someone emplyed by the elected officials do. They have preset requirements set by the elected individuals and knowledge of the type of worker needed, why wouldn't paysetting fall under that responsibility too. 3) I don't know, but does the state have a grade/pay scale established yearly? 4) How can the state employees "know what they're getting into" if their pay and job security fluctuates with the whims of voters? How could there be any consistancy?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 08:21:00 AM
And WHY should they NOT have that right?....It is HIS business. NOT mine! For Gods sake PH, why should there be laws to tell people HOW to run their businesss? The place where I work has been in business for over 50 years. I am free to look and go to work anywhere I choose. I have choose to work here. I can tell you this, I Hope and Pray that a Union NEVER works its way into this place.
I would have NO incentive to work hard or try to get ahead. Those with more senoriety would be getting more pay and priviliges, JUST because, not because they deserved it./
/ and I would lose my ability to suck ass, :kissit:, apple polish the boss and stab co-workers in the back. Give us a break, face it :chick: you're a scab. I've got you number and your brother's, Night Squawk. What sweet baby boys. :biggrin:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on March 10, 2011, 10:03:32 AM
I'm sorry, but I have to ask. 1) Why should the voters be allowed to vote for the salaries of state positions when the majority wouldn't have a frame of reference to know what those particular skills, abilities and experence is worth. 2) The voters don't hire the state workers. Someone emplyed by the elected officials do. They have preset requirements set by the elected individuals and knowledge of the type of worker needed, why wouldn't paysetting fall under that responsibility too. 3) I don't know, but does the state have a grade/pay scale established yearly? 4) How can the state employees "know what they're getting into" if their pay and job security fluctuates with the whims of voters? How could there be any consistancy?
Sandy, I am going to do something I rarely do, and admit I'm wrong with my answer. I have yet to have my first cup of coffee or even a coke. I retract that last part of my last post.
I think I should have merely stated that I am against Public Unions. As of now, in 28 states....state and local employees must pay full union dues or be fired, which is WRONG, because a large portion of those dues (tax payers $$) is then given by these public unions to the democrat party, to their candidate, making it entirely possible that this "collective bargain" that they want so desperatly, would have a monopoly sitting on both sides of the table.
This is plain and simply wrong.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 10:33:25 AM
Sandy, I am going to do something I rarely do, and admit I'm wrong with my answer. I have yet to have my first cup of coffee or even a coke. I retract that last part of my last post.
I think I should have merely stated that I am against Public Unions. As of now, in 28 states....state and local employees must pay full union dues or be fired, which is WRONG, because a large portion of those dues (tax payers $$) is then given by these public unions to the democrat party, to their candidate, making it entirely possible that this "collective bargain" that they want so desperatly, would have a monopoly sitting on both sides of the table.
This is plain and simply wrong.
If a person receives all of the benefits of a union contract, he or she should pay for it. They don't have to belong, attend meetings or anything else for the union.
If they don't want to pay union fees. Let they negotiate their own contract with the state. What a big laugh. :biggrin:
Henry you're out of your freeking mind. :yes: :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on March 10, 2011, 10:20:20 AM
/ and I would lose my ability to suck ass, :kissit: , apple polish the boss and stab co-workers in the back. Give us a break, face it :chick: you're a scab. I've got you number and your brother's, Night Squawk. What sweet baby boys. :biggrin:
I know better, but yet I am going to respond to your ascinine comments.....you really show just how ignorant you are when you babble like this.
It must be a Union thing, when you cannot trust nobody you work with. This so-called sucking ass comment makes me wonder if you even understand what America is all about. Troll, I can say with all my heart I have never "sucked anyones ass". I have however, devoted myself to become the best RCDD (look it up) I can be. Through hard work, reading, taking classes, studying, I have become an expert in my field. I have, like many of our parents, and grand parents, become successful due to NO handouts or Freebies. I started out at the bottom of this trade 22 years ago. I did not get promoted because SOME contract made it possible. I did not get my retirment plan because a contract mandated it. I got to where I am, because people saw value in me. They have taken a chance on me, and I have delivered. NOT because a UNION Contract said the HAD to hire me.
Yes Troll, I very well could be fired tomorrow. I accept that. But not every employer is "evil" as you seem to think. I bring VALUE to this company. This company has in return brought VALUE to me. THIS is the way it is supposed to work. I am living the American dream. I am raising five kids, along with my wife of 27 years. I drive a car that has nearly 250,000 miles on it. I don't own Bass Boats, and have a bunch of toys. I do have great kids and I pay my bills. We scrap and save and manage to take vacations every so often. We have big dinners together and enjoy time together. All of this without a Union. A union who is nothing more than BIG BUSINESS. They recieve MILLIONS and MILLIONS of $$$ every year....for what? To be lobbyists and become larger and larger.
You call me a scab? I am nothing more than a hard working American. PERIOD.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 10:33:25 AM
Sandy, I am going to do something I rarely do, and admit I'm wrong with my answer. I have yet to have my first cup of coffee or even a coke. I retract that last part of my last post.
I think I should have merely stated that I am against Public Unions. As of now, in 28 states....state and local employees must pay full union dues or be fired, which is WRONG, because a large portion of those dues (tax payers $$) is then given by these public unions to the democrat party, to their candidate, making it entirely possible that this "collective bargain" that they want so desperatly, would have a monopoly sitting on both sides of the table.
This is plain and simply wrong.
That's okay. :thumbsup:
I've avoided this conversation because the "union contract" isn't something I'm familiar with. I have dealt with unions on the other side of the process when they are advocating for the employee. I like that these employees have a method for ensuring that they're being treated fairly and equally. I've also dealt with union agreements after they've been completely signed off on and I believe that is the general intent of unions, so I tend to lean towards them as being a good thing.
As I said, I'm not familiar with the intial agreement part of the process, so I'm going to do something I rarely do ;D agree with you (at least partially). I don't think it's fair to force people to pay for something that is basically forced on them. However, if paying dues becomes an option and they choose not to pay/participate, then they shouldn't expect the benefits.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 10:33:25 AM
which is WRONG, because a large portion of those dues (tax payers $$) is then given by these public unions to the democrat party, to their candidate, making it entirely possible that this "collective bargain" that they want so desperatly, would have a monopoly sitting on both sides of the table.
This is plain and simply wrong.
Thank the SCOTUS for that little reality that they made LEGAL, by providing corporations constitutional rights!
Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 11:23:06 AM
Thank the SCOTUS for that little reality that they made LEGAL, by providing corporations constitutional rights!
THIS has nothing to do with that ruling....it is wrong no matter what.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 11:24:24 AM
THIS has nothing to do with that ruling....it is wrong no matter what.
Really? Seriously? And a union is NOT a corporation itself? Please explain!
Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2011, 12:58:48 PM
Really? Seriously? And a union is NOT a corporation itself? Please explain!
with or without that ruling...this would still exist....it has and is existing. Let's not get side tracked about the issue we are talking about....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 01:17:53 PM
with or without that ruling...this would still exist....it has and is existing. Let's not get side tracked about the issue we are talking about....
Okay. . . then here is the question you have yet to answer. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on March 09, 2011, 01:07:50 PM
What is the legal definition of "life"?
QuoteWhat is the legal definition of "life"?
Well the Supreme Court has clearly stated that it does not know when life begins....
but, life ends when there is no longer a heartbeat. Logic would say that it begins with a heartbeat.
but, I am SURE, this is not what you want and you have a lengthy answer for this one.... :razz: ;)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:03:17 PM
Well the Supreme Court has clearly stated that it does not know when life begins....
but, life ends when there is no longer a heartbeat. Logic would say that it begins with a heartbeat.
but, I am SURE, this is not what you want and you have a lengthy answer for this one.... :razz: ;)
Nope. . . try again. . .
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 02:03:17 PM
Well the Supreme Court has clearly stated that it does not know when life begins....
but, life ends when there is no longer a heartbeat. Logic would say that it begins with a heartbeat.
but, I am SURE, this is not what you want and you have a lengthy answer for this one.... :razz: ;)
What if there is a heart beat. Could that heart beat continue without forcing the person carring it refuses to. How about that? Are the one to make her do it and where would your power come from.
You right to lifers want to stick you're nose in to something that is none of your business. Butt out. You also preach :preach: about freedom from the government, but you want to use the government to take a woman's rights to an abortion.
More smoke and mirrors from the Religious Right. :flap: :flap: :flap: Let us pray :pray: :preach: :pope: :ghost: Holy that is. :biggrin:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 10, 2011, 10:50:14 AM
I know better, but yet I am going to respond to your ascinine comments.....you really show just how ignorant you are when you babble like this.
It must be a Union thing, when you cannot trust nobody you work with. This so-called sucking ass comment makes me wonder if you even understand what America is all about. Troll, I can say with all my heart I have never "sucked anyones ass". I have however, devoted myself to become the best RCDD (look it up) I can be. Through hard work, reading, taking classes, studying, I have become an expert in my field. I have, like many of our parents, and grand parents, become successful due to NO handouts or Freebies. I started out at the bottom of this trade 22 years ago. I did not get promoted because SOME contract made it possible. I did not get my retirment plan because a contract mandated it. I got to where I am, because people saw value in me. They have taken a chance on me, and I have delivered. NOT because a UNION Contract said the HAD to hire me.
Yes Troll, I very well could be fired tomorrow. I accept that. But not every employer is "evil" as you seem to think. I bring VALUE to this company. This company has in return brought VALUE to me. THIS is the way it is supposed to work. I am living the American dream. I am raising five kids, along with my wife of 27 years. I drive a car that has nearly 250,000 miles on it. I don't own Bass Boats, and have a bunch of toys. I do have great kids and I pay my bills. We scrap and save and manage to take vacations every so often. We have big dinners together and enjoy time together. All of this without a Union. A union who is nothing more than BIG BUSINESS. They recieve MILLIONS and MILLIONS of $$$ every year....for what? To be lobbyists and become larger and larger.
You call me a scab? I am nothing more than a hard working American. PERIOD.
You really tickle me how you constantly call me stupid and 2ND grade and use words like asinine. Now this is a secret between you and me. I don't give a damn what you call me. To me you live in a different universe. Where positive in negative and negative is positive. In other words you are wired wrong and no little set of wiggies will straighten you out.
But as long as you cut the unions I am going to be on you. You're so brain damaged and wrapped up into yourself. I don't think there is any help. But I really think you like to draw fire. If you want it I'll give it to you. :biggrin: