The Official Republican Debates Thread

[red states rule]

another op-ed cut and paste....how droll.

Oh, it is OK when libs do it

Another debate rule per MM

 

[wiggles]

Oh, it is OK when libs do it

Another debate rule per MM

Woman Gets Tattooed With Virgin Mary Image From Sandwich

POSTED: 7:53 am EDT May 7, 2007

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. -- The woman who sold a grilled cheese sandwich that she claimed resembled the face of the Virgin Mary for $28,000 wanted to remember the holy food with a tattoo.

The sandwich, which was bought on eBay by GoldenPalace.com in 2004, was on display in front of Miami Ink Tattoo Studio on Friday while Diana Duyser had the image from the sandwich tattooed near her heart.

A representative from Golden-Palace joined Duyser while she got her tattoo. The work cost about $1,000, and Golden-Palace picked up the bill.

Duyser was pleased with her new body art.

"We all believe in certain things, OK, and this is what I believe in, and this is what I want near and close to my heart. She'll be there forever," she said.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[Care4all]

gee'z....

 

[red states rule]

gee'z....

a lib trying to derail the thread

 

[Care4all]

No1,

I took your link and case law and read it...I am uncertain if you actually read through it all...

It confirms what I have said and I am correct, you are mistaken in your assumptions.

The partial birth abortion ban, banned IDX OR Intact D & E's...

The procedure that these women will NOW have to use to abort their child to be, is a D & E.....NOT AN INTACT D & E, but a D & E....

This procedure is described in the link you provided me, and IS THE LEGAL PROCEDURE TO USE now that IDX OR IDE abortions are no longer permitted and this specifically means that the baby CAN AND WILL BE crushed and dismembered inside the woman's womb, but sometimes partly in their vaginal canal...

There is no injection to anestetize the baby...it is just torn apart inside the mom.

The ruling was not made on pain and suffering...it was made on the position of the child to be, either inside the mother or outside the mother in a partial delivery position.

I don't know why you just can't accept what is going on here and the TRUTH ABOUT THIS?

I have no reason to lie about this...

Please, if you are as mild mannered and level headed as you proclaim, Read the link that YOU provided, and tell me that you were mistaken and that I am right!

And yes, if the baby is still born, then it is dead already and if they still want to suck it's brains out before delivery, that is still legal, I agree...

It does not allow for the cases of insephalitis, where the child's head is sometime 200 times the normal size....it gives this woman no other choice but to have her child cessarian... and in this case only, I believe it was wrong not to consider the woman's health.

(i) The Act's text discloses that it prohibits a doctor from intentionally performing an intact D&E. Its dual prohibitions correspond with the steps generally undertaken in this procedure: The doctor (1) delivers the fetus until its head lodges in the cervix, usually past the anatomical landmark for a breech presentation, see §1531(b)(1)(A), and (2) proceeds to the overt act of piercing or crushing the fetal skull after the partial delivery, see §1531(b)(1)(B). The Act's scienter requirements limit its reach to those physicians who carry out the intact D&E, with the intent to undertake both steps at the outset. The Act excludes most D&Es in which the doctor intends to remove the fetus in pieces from the outset. This interpretation is confirmed by comparing the Act with the Nebraska statute in Stenberg. There, the Court concluded that the statute encompassed D&E, which "often involve a physician pulling a 'substantial portion' of a still living fetus ... , say, an arm or leg, into the vagina prior to the death of the fetus," 530 U. S., at 939, and rejected the Nebraska Attorney General's limiting interpretation that the statute's reference to a "procedure" that "kill the unborn child" was to a distinct procedure, not to the abortion procedure as a whole, id., at 943. It is apparent Congress responded to these concerns because the Act adopts the phrase "delivers a living fetus," 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A), instead of " 'delivering ... a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof,' " 530 U. S., at 938, thereby targeting extraction of an entire fetus rather than removal of fetal pieces; identifies specific anatomical landmarks to which the fetus must be partially delivered, §1531(b)(1)(A), thereby clarifying that the removal of a small portion of the fetus is not prohibited; requires the fetus to be delivered so that it is partially "outside the [mother's] body," §1531(b)(1)(A), thereby establishing that delivering a substantial portion of the fetus into the vagina would not subject a doctor to criminal sanctions; and adds the overt-act requirement, §1531(b)(1), thereby making the distinction the Nebraska statute failed to draw (but the Nebraska Attorney General advanced). Finally, the canon of constitutional avoidance, see, e.g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575, extinguishes any lingering doubt. Interpreting the Act not to prohibit standard D&E is the most reasonable reading and understanding of its terms. Pp. 20-24.

 

[red states rule]

If you say so Care - some people cannot see the forest for the trees

You seem to be one of those people

 

[Care4all]

If you say so Care - some people cannot see the forest for the trees

You seem to be one of those people

just read no1's link....what i am saying regarding this issue is true.

there is no reason to be enemies on things as simple as this, that we mostly agree on....

civility is an asset!

 

[no1tovote4]

No1,

I took your link and case law and read it...I am uncertain if you actually read through it all...

It confirms what I have said and I am correct, you are mistaken in your assumptions.

The partial birth abortion ban, banned IDX OR Intact D & E's...

The procedure that these women will NOW have to use to abort their child to be, is a D & E.....NOT AN INTACT D & E, but a D & E....

This procedure is described in the link you provided me, and IS THE LEGAL PROCEDURE TO USE now that IDX OR IDE abortions are no longer permitted and this specifically means that the baby CAN AND WILL BE crushed and dismembered inside the woman's womb, but sometimes partly in their vaginal canal...

There is no injection to anestetize the baby...it is just torn apart inside the mom.

The ruling was not made on pain and suffering...it was made on the position of the child to be, either inside the mother or outside the mother in a partial delivery position.

I don't know why you just can't accept what is going on here and the TRUTH ABOUT THIS?

I have no reason to lie about this...

Please, if you are as mild mannered and level headed as you proclaim, Read the link that YOU provided, and tell me that you were mistaken and that I am right!

And yes, if the baby is still born, then it is dead already and if they still want to suck it's brains out before delivery, that is still legal, I agree...

It does not allow for the cases of insephalitis, where the child's head is sometime 200 times the normal size....it gives this woman no other choice but to have her child cessarian... and in this case only, I believe it was wrong not to consider the woman's health.

You didn't read the whole of my post. I presented why an injection would allow for this type of delivery, as the law only specifies to the positioning of the child when killed. Therefore an injection before the child reached that point would allow this type of abortion to continue within the law.

Yet you regard nothing of my post except the link, then read as taught by the sites that think the SCOTUS decision was foul.

Pretending that the only option now available is the Standard D&E is ridiculous, and untrue. They present it that way to effect just such an emotive response as yours.

You even presented, as an example, earlier a woman bearing an already dead fetus as an example of why these types should be done. I agree, so does the law.

It also includes the life of the mother. Which before I read the ruling I had assumed was missing from the law. The sky is falling crowd has gripped you by your emotions and you won't set them aside so you can actually read the law as it was written.

 

[Care4all]

You didn't read the whole of my post. I presented why an injection would allow for this type of delivery, as the law only specifies to the positioning of the child when killed. Therefore an injection before the child reached that point would allow this type of abortion to continue within the law.

Yet you regard nothing of my post except the link, then read as taught by the sites that think the SCOTUS decision was foul.

Pretending that the only option now available is the Standard D&E is ridiculous, and untrue. They present it that way to effect just such an emotive response as yours.

You even presented, as an example, earlier a woman bearing an already dead fetus as an example of why these types should be done. I agree, so does the law.

It also includes the life of the mother. Which before I read the ruling I had assumed was missing from the law. The sky is falling crowd has gripped you by your emotions and you won't set them aside so you can actually read the law as it was written.

i have no idea what you are talking about.... shakes head...

and i don't believe you really know what you are talking about either....

but i will give you the bennie of the doubt and see when i reread your posts, if you make any sense....

and pretty please stop with your ''emotional'' CRAP.... it is demeaning towards a woman...i'm a little bit tired of you continually ''using it'' as justification for YOU being right....and your opponet obviously wrong....FACTS are sufficient and so far i've seen NONE coming from you... you give a link and then tell me to ignore it...??? ok damo?

i never thought you were a sexist, but you come off that way every time you use THAT term, imho!

care

 

[no1tovote4]

i have no idea what you are talking about.... shakes head...

and i don't believe you really know what you are talking about either....

but i will give you the bennie of the doubt and see when i reread your posts, if you make any sense....

and pretty please stop with your ''emotional'' CRAP.... it is demeaning towards a woman...i'm a little bit tired of you continually ''using it'' as justification for YOU being right....and your opponet obviously wrong....FACTS are sufficient and so far i've seen NONE coming from you... you give a link and then tell me to ignore it...??? ok damo?

i never thought you were a sexist, but you come off that way every time you use THAT term, imho!

care

Rubbish, just as emotive response can be a man's response on the "right to life" side. Emotive reasoning is not an insult to women, it is a clear way that people use this issue to get the desired response from certain groups.

Describing an Intact D&E gets an emotive response from those who desire to end the practice and often gets people to look past the reasons such things are done.

I re-explained why it would allow for a lethal injection then I D&E in my last response, no need to re-read all of my posts.

 

[Care4all]

Tsk. Tsk... It is after the child has been injected. At least read more than just on the anti sites there, Care. I also notice you didn't have much to say on the fact that the youngest that an early birth has survived was at 20 weeks saying that they are not viable is no longer an option.

What do you mean by this no1?

Where do you get this procedure that injected the child before it is DISMEMBERED....and injected with a pain killer or injected with something to kill it in the womb before dismemberment?

please PROVIDE a link for YOUR information....

What is the name of this abortion procedure that you SPEAK OF, then I can look it up on my own....

d & e is the procedure the supreme court said could be used as an alternative to the INTACT D & E....

A D&E is the most common late term abortion. d&E is dismemberment in the womb of a later term abortion....NO PAIN KILLER GIVEN TO THE progeny...

which is what I have called you on! PLEASE provide a link...if it is TRUE as YOU say or understand it to be....

11% of all abortions are D&E's....

less than 1/2 of 1% late term abortions were partial birth abortions or in medical terms INTACT D&E.


I do agree that after reading the ruling that still borns will still be able to go through this procedure, but insephalitis babies will not.

and another thing, is ANY abortions in late term going to be stopped by this ban? Are any lives saved by this bann of the unborn children as RSR says?

What's your take on this?

care

 

[no1tovote4]

What do you mean by this no1?

Where do you get this procedure that injected the child before it is DISMEMBERED....and injected with a pain killer or injected with something to kill it in the womb before dismemberment?

please PROVIDE a link for YOUR information....

What is the name of this abortion procedure that you SPEAK OF, then I can look it up on my own....

d & e is the procedure the supreme court said could be used as an alternative to the INTACT D & E....

A D&E is the most common late term abortion. d&E is dismemberment in the womb of a later term abortion....NO PAIN KILLER GIVEN TO THE progeny...

which is what I have called you on! PLEASE provide a link...if it is TRUE as YOU say or understand it to be....

11% of all abortions are D&E's....

less than 1/2 of 1% late term abortions were partial birth abortions or in medical terms INTACT D&E.


I do agree that after reading the ruling that still borns will still be able to go through this procedure, but insephalitis babies will not.

and another thing, is ANY abortions in late term going to be stopped by this ban? Are any lives saved by this bann of the unborn children as RSR says?

What's your take on this?

care

Read the next one there, Care. The one you clearly didn't read, or just read two above this one that explains how an injection changes the legality.

I will reiterate it in this post. Because the law specifies only the position of the fetus when it is killed, an injection pre-procedure would once again make the I D&E legal. This was how it was explained on the radio by a local Doctor (MD style)/Lawyer (Yes both).

It is specifically to get such a response of "Rs are evil" that many look past this option and say that only the standard D&E is now available. It is not a fact.

Even Darla argues that there is a "suggestion" that such injections may cause problems rather than attempting to say that only standard D&E is the only remaining legal option.

 

[Care4all]

Rubbish, just as emotive response can be a man's response on the "right to life" side. Emotive reasoning is not an insult to women, it is a clear way that people use this issue to get the desired response from certain groups.

Describing an Intact D&E gets an emotive response from those who desire to end the practice and often gets people to look past the reasons such things are done.

I re-explained why it would allow for a lethal injection then I D&E in my last response, no need to re-read all of my posts.

If YOU explained it then I did not understand it so please explain it again...

surely you can do that for me!

 

[Care4all]

time out! hahahah!

give me the post number.

 

[no1tovote4]

If YOU explained it then I did not understand it so please explain it again...

surely you can do that for me!

I did again, and again, and will one more time.

Because the law specifies the position of the fetus when it is killed, an injection pre-procedure changes the legality and allows for an I D&E.

This was how it was explained on the radio by a local Doctor (MD)/Lawyer (Yes one person, both Degrees).

Therefore, those who wish to make the decision look as terrible as possible attempt to say that the only remaining legal option is a standard D&E, but it isn't.

The most honest argument I have heard against it is that there is a suggestion that such injection may cause other complications to the mother, but there is not yet scientific studies done on that.

 

[Care4all]

I did again, and again, and will one more time.

Because the law specifies the position of the fetus when it is killed, an injection pre-procedure changes the legality and allows for an I D&E.

This was how it was explained on the radio by a local Doctor (MD)/Lawyer (Yes one person, both Degrees).

Therefore, those who wish to make the decision look as terrible as possible attempt to say that the only remaining legal option is a standard D&E, but it isn't.

The most honest argument I have heard against it is that there is a suggestion that such injection may cause other complications to the mother, but there is not yet scientific studies done on that.

So YOU are saying that I d&e's are NOT BANNED if they inject the baby SOMEHOW and kill it in the womb, then they can breach deliver and suck the brains out before full delivery and that the courts did NOT BAN intact delievery if they found a way to kill the baby by keeping it INTACT?

Show me in the ruling where it says such? ( hahaha, or did you do that already?)

And if this injection procedure is dangerous then why DO you say or act like it is a valid option for the woman?

I heard most all of the hearing on c-span and did not take note of such....?

 

[no1tovote4]

So YOU are saying that I d&e's are NOT BANNED if they inject the baby SOMEHOW and kill it in the womb, then they can breach deliver and suck the brains out before full delivery and that the courts did NOT BAN intact delievery if they found a way to kill the baby by keeping it INTACT?

Show me in the ruling where it says such? ( hahaha, or did you do that already?)

And if this injection procedure is dangerous then why DO you say or act like it is a valid option for the woman?

I heard most all of the hearing on c-span and did not take note of such....?

It isn't dangerous. The complications that are suggested are not life-threatening, nor proven.

Yes, I did. As I said, the ruling specifies deliberately that it is position of the child when killed that makes it illegal.

And who was participating in the hearing on c-span?

 

[Paul Revere]

He is close to be being a cyber net stalker

I tend to think of myself as more of a celery stalker.

 

[red states rule]

More like a nut case looking for attention

 

[Care4all]

It isn't dangerous. The complications that are suggested are not life-threatening, nor proven.

Yes, I did. As I said, the ruling specifies deliberately that it is position of the child when killed that makes it illegal.

And who was participating in the hearing on c-span?

It was the Supreme Court Case on Partial Birth Abortion.....they showed the case with just audio on c-span....(they showed you a picture of the Justice speaking and asking questions)

you can listen to it if you go to c-span, they have a link, so that you can hear the lawyers argue the case before them..... it was cool! and informative!

I heard most of it....missed maybe 10 minutes of it at the most.

and good morning no1!

care