Rick Santorum Is Insane

[Dr Grump]

The PERCENTAGE of births being out of wedlock births is not a function of increasing population. By your line of thinking, if the population doubles again, then, for instance, the percentage of black teens with out of wedlock births would be nearly 200%. That isn't possible.

It is not my way of thinking. I did ask you in our first exchange if that was per head of population. I didn't see the percentage sign at the side of the graph. Thanks for pointing that out. However, you have yet to prove the corelation between sex ed and the increase of out of wedlock births. Your logic is "since the introduction of sex ed, there has been an increase of out of wedlock births, therefore I conclude sex ed doesn't work". You offer no science, just a hunch. You have not taken into account the shift in societies morals/norms, you haven't told us if that increase is higher in the general population or amongst those who are taught abstinance-only programmes. I reiterate, you have not given any science, just your opinion...and we know what they are like

If sex education were of no effect, the percentage to be the same, i.e. the curve would be flat. If it actually did its job, the percentage would decrease and the curve would tend downwards. In addition, if sex education was effective, then it would have reflected in the behavior of those children as adults. Again, out of wedlock births increased as a percentage among adults, too.[/url]

And if you read YOUR own link the author gives many reasons for those increases and she never once mentions sex ed not working. At least, unlike you, she has added science to it.

No... AIDS infections are on the increase in the United States.

http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/F...Epidemic-in-the-United-States-2005-Update.pdf

This link has a graph [/url]

Your graph makes it look like there is a very, very slight increase after years of decline. Does sex ed get the kudos for the sharp decrease or does your myopic eye only count the very slight increase as "evidence"...

The only sites you will accept are those that will support your position. You haven't provided any proof to support your side of the argument, when I challenge you to do so, you tell me it's up to me to provide proof. I already have. Wikipedia isn't a biased site, either. It clearly states that in the case of hydroencephaly, a procedure exists to deliver the baby without killing it.

What is my side of the argument? I have already said I do not support the procedure if it is elective.

So what is the purpose of being accused of a crime if there is no difference in sentencing?

I already said I ain't explaining mens rea to you again. But that is the reason.

Well, the fact that you are an atheist doesn't really surprise me. Your argument that fetuses aren't human are eerily similar to those advanced by Hitler when he spoke of the Jews and of the slave owners in the antebellum South.

Great, now you are comparing me to Hitler and slave owners. Great comparison Karl. Just because YOU see them as human, doesn't mean they are. Can they breath outside of the womb by themselves? You do realise it is SCIENCE that allows premature babies to survive...not divine intervention. But science is a crock, right?

Back to my claim.Yes, they are humans. They have human chromosomes, they have human organs, they're born and become adult humans.

Hey, why not start at the second of conception?

For your information, the "people" didn't bring about "separation of church and state". That is another case of judicial activism.

Ah, the old separation "of" and "from" argument. As long as the religion is YOUR religion, right?

Grump, read my post again. I said, that my right to VOTE on issues has been violated.

And why should you get to vote on things that have no affect on you but affect the lives of others. Let's say you like green cars and red letterboxes. I hate them. Can we have a vote, and if my side wins no more red cars and letterboxes...that is how vacusous your argument is.. The need to votes should be reserved for those things that have direct negative/positive affects on your life. Not just your own bigotted opinion.

Blair was fired only after intense public pressure on the New York Times. The result of which was due to information about the whole affair from conservative media. Dan Rather had a history of reporting fiction for the sake of sensationalism.

Untrue. He was a goneburger teh moment it was found out he made up articles. As for Rather, after 40 years he'll have skeleton's in his closet, as will your heroes Hannity, Coulter and O'Reilly...

 

[Dr Grump]

For partial-birth abortions???!!!

Naw, just in general

Why? This is totally irrelevant nonsense, Dr Grump.

No, it is not irrelevant. Part of your argument (IMO) is to make it emotional.

They were "invented" to enable a mother and an abortionist to terminate a late-term pregnancy without facing infanticide charges, since technically, what is delivered is a corpse. I find the procedure appallingly cruel, but it was "invented' in order to allow very selfish people to tap dance around the law.

You can back this up, right? OK, I'm calling you it. Give me the facts MM. Give me the document that says this procedure was invented the above specific reasons.

Dr Grump, I must insist that, in the future, you debate me on the words I actually post.

Ditto

There is nothing unsubstantive about gruesome, willful murder. It's inflammatory as all hell, though - I'll admit. I just don't know of any cheerful, "let's keep this light, guys" way to describe it.

Again, prove it is wilful murder. How many doctors and women have been charged with murder? Stump up your facts MM...

Moreover, I find little to need to embellish a description of partial-birth abortion. Perhaps you can find a prettier way of relating what happens; if so, perhaps you should consider pursuing a career in mainstream jounalism. They are past masters as packaging and prersenting shit as filet mignon.

I already said I rarely what Fox....

There's no disgrace in admitting you can't defend the indefensible, Dr Grump. Come on - try it. You wouldn't believe how liberating it is to just face the truth.

We have already agreed that we will debate only on words I have actually said. Here's a hint, I have already said on at least two occasions before the above post that I do not support PBA as an elective procedure.

 

[musicman]

You can back this up, right? OK, I'm calling you it. Give me the facts MM. Give me the document that says this procedure was invented the above specific reasons.

Make it necessary that I do so. Provide your reasoned, common-sense argument that partial-birth abortion can have any other purpose for existing. Tell me how delivering a baby's intact head could conceivably endanger the health of the mother. Tell me why a human being - alive in the birth canal - must die before he is delivered.

 

[jillian]

Doctor testifies that abortion banned under 2003 law is similar to other procedures

by Kevin O'Hanlon, reprinted with permission of The Associated Press, published April 9, 2004

In a major victory for lawyers fighting a federal ban on a type of abortion, a doctor testifying for the government acknowledged that a main part of the procedure may be necessary in other types of abortion.

Dr. Elizabeth Shadigian, and obstetrician and gynecologist from the University Of Michigan, made the statement to a judge Thursday after she finished testifying in a trial challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

The law, signed last year by President Bush, bars a procedure doctors call "intact dilation and extraction," or D&X, and that opponents call partial-birth abortion. During the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester, a fetus is partially removed from the womb and its skull is punctured or crushed.

The law has not been enforced because judges in Lincoln, New York and San Francisco agreed to hear evidence in three simultaneous non-jury trials on whether the ban violates the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf asked Shadigian what would happen if complications arose during a more common abortion procedure called "dilation and evacuation," or D&E, which is not covered by the ban.

Shadigian acknowledged that collapsing the skull might be necessary during D&Es in some cases, such as when the woman is hemorrhaging.

Lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the law on behalf of abortion provider Dr. LeRoy Carhart and three other physicians.

Carhart testified earlier that the ban is so broad that it could be interpreted as covering more common procedures, including D&E, which sometimes result in a fetus being removed whole.

Congress declared that "a partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman" and is "outside the standard of medical care."

The Bush administration has argued that the procedure is "inhumane and gruesome" and causes the fetus to suffer pain.

Doctors who use the D&X procedure have said it is the safest method of abortion in some cases. But Shadigian said that has not been proven.

"It's just anecdotal evidence that they think it's safe," she said. "Medicine is based on evidence."

An estimated 140,000 D&Es take place in the United States annually, compared with an estimated 2,200 to 5,000 D&Xs.

A total of 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States each year. Almost 90 percent occur in the first trimester.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/abortban-040407-ohanlon.xml

(emphasis added)

 

[Abbey Normal]

Make it necessary that I do so. Provide your reasoned, common-sense argument that partial-birth abortion can have any other purpose for existing. Tell me how delivering a baby's intact head could conceivably endanger the health of the mother. Tell me why a human being - alive in the birth canal - must die before he is delivered.

Good questions, MM.

If you want to get sick to your stomach and then some, google PBA and look at the pictures of the way it is performed, and the way the fully grown baby is tossed into a bucket like so much detritus. It can make a grown man cry. And there are no pictures to show the wrenching guilt and remorse many women who do this feel for the rest of their lives. I am honestly ashamed to live in a country where such barbarism is legally sanctioned.

We have a lot to answer for.

 

[musicman]

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/abortban-040407-ohanlon.xml

(emphasis added)

Dr. Shadigian addresses a hypothetical. This does nothing to mitigate partial-birth's abortion's sole reason for existing.

Oh - and this...

An estimated 140,000 D&Es take place in the United States annually, compared with an estimated 2,200 to 5,000 D&Xs.

A total of 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States each year. Almost 90 percent occur in the first trimester.

...doesn't mitigate anything, either. Partial-birth abortions are taking place at a brisk rate, for reasons of pure, selfish barbarianism.

 

[jillian]

Dr. Shadigian addresses a hypothetical. This does nothing to mitigate partial-birth's abortion's sole reason for existing.

So the doctor addressing the reality of the circumstances is trumped by propaganda?

Oh - and this...



...doesn't mitigate anything, either. Partial-birth abortions are taking place at a brisk rate, for reasons of pure, selfish barbarianism.

Yeah...damn them wanting to save the lives of the mothers.

You asked for reasons, you got them.

 

[MissileMan]

The PERCENTAGE of births being out of wedlock births is not a function of increasing population. By your line of thinking, if the population doubles again, then, for instance, the percentage of black teens with out of wedlock births would be nearly 200%. That isn't possible.

This is true, however you are misreading what the numbers are saying. The numbers don't show that 90% of black teens are getting pregnant. It shows that of the black teens that are getting pregnant, 90% are unwed. Again, read what the person who performed the study attributes the rise to. There's no mention of sex-ed.

 

[musicman]

So the doctor addressing the reality of the circumstances is trumped by propaganda?

What REALITY??!! The judge offered up a HYPOTHETICAL. And - speaking of propoganda - you can rest assured that if one such factual case had ever occurred, it would have been front page headlines in the heat of this debate.

Yeah...damn them wanting to save the lives of the mothers.

Oh - I don't think the mothers' lives are in so much danger here. Their FREEDOM, maybe.

You asked for reasons, you got them.

No - I got more bullshit from the blindered poster who offered "hydrocephalus" as a serious response.

 

[jillian]

What REALITY??!! The judge offered up a HYPOTHETICAL. And - speaking of propoganda - you can rest assured that if one such factual case had ever occurred, it would have been front page headlines in the heat of this debate.

And if you had one factual instance of a woman not deciding to have the procedure until the last minute, for purely elective reasons, *that* would have been repeatedly used as an example.

Oh - I don't think the mothers' lives are in so much danger here. Their FREEDOM, maybe.

The procedure is not elective. That's just baiting.

No - I got more bullshit from the blindered poster who offered "hydrocephalus" as a serious response.

Ummmmm...that would be me. Thanks. And I listed it because it was in the report done by the OB's/Gyns when they opposed the hysteria that sought to end their ability to treat their patients. I just can't find it now, though I've been trying since yesterday.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Someone please call social services on this guy.... (and yes, I know it's a year old article guy is still certifiable....)



[MORE]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61804-2005Apr17.html

umm...as a mother of 2, I would probably do the same thing if I could. I can totally see it from his point of view.

 

[jillian]

umm...as a mother of 2, I would probably do the same thing if I could. I can totally see it from his point of view.

As a mother of one, while I understand the grief, I would never abuse my child by doing what they did. *That* was my objection... That and the fact that he then politicized it.

 

[musicman]

jillian:

Am I to understand that you're saying partial-birth abortion is NOT an elective procedure?

 

[jillian]

jillian:

Am I to understand that you're saying partial-birth abortion is NOT an elective procedure?

It would not be covered by Roe v Wade. It is only done if the doctor thinks there is a medical reason for it. The problem with the laws that seek to govern it is that they are overbroad and try to prohibit it in all instances.

I'm not saying this is a great thing. But I'm not a doctor and I'm not going to substitute my judgment for theirs if they do something to save the life of their patient.

I think the need for such a procedure would be heartbreaking enough without having legislators try to insert their judgment over that of doctors simply to pacify a very vocal group.

 

[dilloduck]

It would not be covered by Roe v Wade. It is only done if the doctor thinks there is a medical reason for it. The problem with the laws that seek to govern it is that they are overbroad and try to prohibit it in all instances.

I'm not saying this is a great thing. But I'm not a doctor and I'm not going to substitute my judgment for theirs if they do something to save the life of their patient.

I think the need for such a procedure would be heartbreaking enough without having legislators try to insert their judgment over that of doctors simply to pacify a very vocal group.

Pacifying vocal groups---you mean like people who vote?--How terrible to be responsive to the electorate!

 

[Stephanie]

Oooooooo. How dare Santorum use his child in his beliefs on abortion.



BUT, it's OK for Mother Sheehnan to use her son every other week to rail against the United States...
Oh I forgot, it's OK because she's bashing President Bush with him.....


The liberal hypocrisy is glaring here..

 

[jillian]

Oooooooo. How dare Santorum use his child in his beliefs on abortion.



BUT, it's OK for Mother Sheehnan to use her son every other week to rail against the United States...
Oh I forgot, it's OK because she's bashing President Bush with him.....


The liberal hypocrisy is glaring here..

Hey...he can do what he wants. But it's disingenuous to then castigate me for having a political response. Poor psycho santorum.... no one can criticize him. :cof:

Just some more right-wing hypocrisy from Steffie. lol...

Good to have some consistency in the world, eh?

 

[jillian]

Pacifying vocal groups---you mean like people who vote?--How terrible to be responsive to the electorate!

No like radicals who make up a minority of that electorate but who raise lots and lots and lots of $$$ for the GOP and looooooooooooooove wedge issues to vote on.

 

[Nienna]

The decision in Roe determined nothing more than that the governmental interest in the pregnancy does not outweigh the right of the individual to determine her own choices.

Would you prefer that men had veto power?

I think it would be only fair for the father of the baby to have some legal say in NOT letting the baby be aborted (Not that the father should be allowed to force a woman to HAVE an abortion).

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No like radicals who make up a minority of that electorate but who raise lots and lots and lots of $$$ for the GOP and looooooooooooooove wedge issues to vote on.

Replace GOP with DEMS and you have moveon.org.