patrick.net

FortWayne says

Their stupid message of "war on women and minorities" is getting annoying, since we know it isn't real.

Tell that to the women forced to get a transvaginal ultrasound to have an abortion after a "legitimate" rape. The "war on women" sounds a lot more real than the "war on Christmas".

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003779.htm

How the Test is Performed

You will lie down on a table with your knees bent. Your feet may be held in stirrups.

You will be given a probe, called a transducer, to place into the vagina. The probe is covered with a condom and a gel.

The probe sends out sound waves, which reflect off body structures. A computer receives these waves and uses them to create a picture.
The ultrasound technician or doctor can see the picture on a TV monitor.
The health care provider will move the probe around the area to see the pelvic organs.

In some cases, a special transvaginal ultrasound method called saline infusion sonography (SIS) may be needed to more clearly view the uterus.

How to Prepare for the Test

You will be asked to undress, usually from the waist down. A transvaginal ultrasound is done with your bladder empty or partly filled.

Yeah, exactly what a rape victim wants to go through.

Vicente says

“Asked to describe Republicans, they said that the Party is ‘scary,’ ‘narrow minded,’ and ‘out of touch’ and that we were a Party of ‘stuffy old men,’” it states.

The Liberal idiots said the same back in the 60s/70s...

show me how the Liberals since the 60s have added to the economic welfare of the nation.

drop out of education, read poetry, protest the war and the 'man", embrace the drug culture, go do your own thing at some commune..

sound familiar ?

that old white guy.. didnt, he and many others went to schools/universities, got jobs/career, worked hard, didnt ask for handouts, raised a family and contributed to the economic growth of the nation.

yea! that old white guy did that... what did you do ?

thomaswong.1986 says

show me how the Liberals since the 60s have added to the economic welfare of the nation.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USARGDPH

Damn the intolerance and closed mindedness is thick on PAtnet. Funny since most here would probably self describe as tolerant and open minded.

I blame Maddow, Matthews, and Olberman.

Dan8267 says

Tell that to the women forced to get a transvaginal ultrasound to have an abortion after a "legitimate" rape. The "war on women" sounds a lot more real than the "war on Christmas".

That's a very loosely defined "war". That word used to mean something. Anything that affects at most few hundred people with no real consequences isn't called a war.

And war on Christmas isn't what you think it is. Propaganda in our country first works by changing the language so we think differently of our problems. And of course the left wing media has done a lot of it, even with Christmas. They changed "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays". We don't have "Def or Blind or Dismembered", we have "Differently Abled". It's no longer "Taxes" it's "Revenues". It's no longer "Homosexuals and Perverts" it's "Gays". And of course we don't have "Homeless" anymore, just people who have been "Displaced".

At this rate instead of addressing joblessness they won't call people "unemployed" they'll start calling them people with "alternative income". This way the nation can feel great about having poverty and unemployment so we won't keep on wanting anything and just accept the constantly reducing standards of living.

FortWayne says

Propaganda in our country first works by changing the language so we think differently of our problems.

Like renaming the Department of War to DEFENSE? Or calling women and children killed by a drone "collateral damage". Or perhaps being primarily concerned that the MESSAGE of the GOP isn't being properly presented and conveyed, rather than considering that maybe messages ARE the problem not phrasing. Liberals did not invent such ideas, they existed from the first words of any humans I am sure.

One man's propaganda is another's useful restatement to shape the right public opinion. Strom Thurmond "States Rights" party for example was racist to the core but obfuscated it as being about a FREEDOM issue. He was astoundingly successful at selling this lie to himself and to many others.

But back to your earlier complaint about "too many coloreds on my TV". There is NO explosion of brown faces on TV. That you see more of them, is your perception issue. Perhaps it's like you buy a car or truck and suddenly seems you see it everywhere and didn't notice it before.

Vicente says

Liberals did not invent such ideas, they existed from the first words of any humans I am sure.

I didn't say they have a monopoly or patent on bullshit. But they are using it, and I find it a problem, especially within our government.

Vicente says

But back to your earlier complaint about "too many coloreds on my TV". There is NO explosion of brown faces on TV. That you see more of them, is your perception issue. Perhaps it's like you buy a car or truck and suddenly seems you see it everywhere and didn't notice it before.

No it's not. The day Obama got elected being black became the new "cool". Some kind of weird media cycle.

FortWayne says

That's a very loosely defined "war". That word used to mean something. Anything that affects at most few hundred people with no real consequences isn't called a war.

All "the war on X" statements are meaningless propaganda. It's all marketing. I find it hard to object to Democrats using the catchphrase when Republicans have been using it for two decades now. Turn-about is fair play.

In any case, transvaginal utlrasound requirements affect way more than a few hundred people and have very real, if emotional, consequences. It is in fact the emotional consequences that are the very intention of them. It is meant to be so unbearably painful and humiliating that women do not seek abortions. Even if you are against abortions, this is not a good way of going about it.

FortWayne says

all I see on television is black actors and black celebrities.

LOL - the irony - FortWayne lives in an area where the only channel is BET. It's his own personal hell, like No Exit. Try visiting a different neighborhood, or just looking at other channels.

dodgerfanjohn says

Maddow, Matthews, and Olberman.

Please tell FortWayne about these three examples of white people on TV.

FortWayne says

It's no longer "Homosexuals and Perverts" it's "Gays".

LOL what did you call the black people who took over your TV before the "left wing media" made you start calling them black?

Dan8267 says

thomaswong.1986 says

show me how the Liberals since the 60s have added to the economic welfare of the nation.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USARGDPH

surely you jest Dan... did you expect all those anti-war protesters, anti-establishment hippies ( a minority on its self) who went against the grain for 30 years all of sudden become productive members of society... they all bought a suit and tie and went to work for the man as Accountants, Doctors, Lawyers, Banks, Engineers and many Industries (Auto, Energy, Aerospace, Machinery, Transport, Food ... etc etc etc)...

its comical how the ubber lefty party all of sudden are singing a different tune as they were left out of the economic boom.. laughable !

thomaswong.1986 says

surely you jest Dan... did you expect all those anti-war protesters, anti-establishment hippies ( a minority on its self) who went against the grain for 30 years all of sudden become productive members of society...

Since when are hippies liberal? The hippies of the 1960s were the yuppies of the 1980s and the bankers of the 2000s. Sure they preached free love when they were teenagers and their dicks were hard, but when Gen X came of age, they told us if we had sex even once we'd die of AIDS. The hippies were just hypocrites.

Dan8267 says

Sure they preached free love when they were teenagers and their dicks were hard, but when Gen X came of age, they told us if we had sex even once we'd die of AIDS. The hippies were just hypocrites.

Laughable ! anti-war, anti-business, anti-American , anti-family, anti-religion, anti-American culture... it all sounds familiar and very very old...

but now today.. you have to call Conservative African Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and many others... " THE MAN " .. including conservative women.

robertoaribas says

Problems like 78% of hispanics won't vote for them

Problems like 80% of asians won't vote for them

Problems like 60% of the under 30 won't vote for them.

and whites ...who are young... but what does it say about adults.. different story.

Abortions are a problem even as Hilary Clinton stated.. Abortions should be RARE and only in extreme cases" .. I guess that would make here also restrictive and obstructionist as well. She too spelled out the responsibilities of parents to police their children.

Economy ? Laugh Laugh! liberals like Obama have no clue about Business/Industries in the US.. utterly clueless ! They lie about Swiss Bank accounts to the public yet dont mention we have 100s of foreign banks operating in the US borders ...Count the number of Swiss banks operating in the US... Obama cant tell the different between ordinary income tax and capital gains tax. Not to mention trashing existing Bankrupcty/Contract laws... What exactly do they know ! Today, pumping US housing market telling the public .. Prices are coming back.. back to what.. a bubble!

Why should anyone shut Rush up.. he has a 2nd amendment rights, just like the clowns on MSNBC.. If you dont like what he says.. just turn the channel. You sure do not hear crack pot right wingers denying the right of free speech from Liberal slanted MSNBC ? Do you hear anyone on FOX that MSNBC should be shut down ?

You should be carefull .. calling your fellow patriotic Americans ...Teatards.

Perhaps you can tell us what happened to the 10 Million 2008 Obama voters who didnt vote for him in 2012 ?

Vicente says

scary, narrow-minded, stuffy old men

Lol! you call "this" scary.. narrow minded.. stuffy old men as well...

well yes... they were scary to some, with a narrow minded view of what govt can do and highly disciplined old men .... and on occasions read and quoted the Bible...oh! really scary stuff!

Follow them or follow what some crack pot from Davis, CA states...

thomaswong.1986 says

Follow them or follow what some crack pot from Davis, CA states...

None of those men would be part of today's Republican Party.

FortWayne says

Since Obama became president all I see on television is black actors and black celebrities. Liberal media is overdoing on the black thing.

I find this fascinating.

Oh yeah, and Obama is a "liberal."

Funny, what I notice about our media, is that the right wing entertainment complex has had a dramatic impact on about 30% of the U.S. population. This didn't start with Obama's presidency but it got cranked up then. I guess when the President is black, the whole concept of respect for the office goes out the window for about a third of the country.

Did any of you actually read the article? If you're a Republican then this should be good news for your party. The reason is because clearly the GOP's belief for losing in 2008 was that they "weren't conservative enough" was the wrong decision and they lost badly this time around. Instead the GOP is actually talking about making some changes to their party that would make them more desirable to more people.

If they were to have continued as they were, they would continue to lose elections. Their status quo puts them at an increasingly greater odds with the general public and as such we have the total deadlock in congress. On the other hand if their party shrinks that delta and the differences become less extreme and especially if they stop putting so much focus on witch hunts and social issues then perhaps this will give Americans a more compelling reason to vote for them. Ultimately a 2 party system where the two parties are less opposed ideologically is good for the US population because likely more would get done.

The problem isn't that the gop are scary old cranky white men, we all know this. The problem is the nitwits that think that the scary old white men of the democrat party, are some folks idea of a solution!

Death, or oogoo

marcus says

FortWayne says

Since Obama became president all I see on television is black actors and black celebrities. Liberal media is overdoing on the black thing.

I find this fascinating.

Oh yeah, and Obama is a "liberal."

Funny, what I notice about our media, is that the right wing entertainment complex has had a dramatic impact on about 30% of the U.S. population. This didn't start with Obama's presidency but it got cranked up then. I guess when the President is black, the whole concept of respect for the office goes out the window for about a third of the country.

Because of dishonesty of the situation Marcus. See, I grew up with a notion that neither being white or black was cool, race didn't matter. Accomplishing something was cool, you are what you accomplish in life.

But that is not the attitude the media is spreading, they are spreading attitude of entitlement, that simply being black or whatever is the president of the day is is cool.

And that is a stupid message, it will ruin lives and teach young pinheads that in order to be cool they just need to be born certain color, accomplishing and achieving is out the window!

FortWayne says

Propaganda in our country first works by changing the language so we think differently of our problems

thomaswong.1986 says

anti-war, anti-business, anti-American , anti-family, anti-religion, anti-American culture...

I see what you mean.

Dan8267 says

In any case, transvaginal utlrasound requirements affect way more than a few hundred people and have very real, if emotional, consequences. It is in fact the emotional consequences that are the very intention of them. It is meant to be so unbearably painful and humiliating that women do not seek abortions. Even if you are against abortions, this is not a good way of going about it.

That is because abortions should not be taken lightly. It's human life we are talking about, it's killing a child. You make it sound like all abortions come from rape, and that is not true. Most come from irresponsible behavior by teenagers.

Respect for life and each other starts at conception.

FortWayne says

That is because abortions should not be taken lightly. It's human life we are talking about, it's killing a child.

Ah, but that's the one million dollar question. At what point does a developing offspring become a person? What is the criteria for personhood? Is it just the crude animation of cells performing chemistry? If so, then aren't E. coli persons? Is it just the presence of human DNA? If so, aren't chimps 98.8% persons?

See the thread The abortion question answered. Turns out, both sides were wrong. for the answers.

In any case, the pro-life efforts should be made towards changing the law, not circumventing it. The ends do not justify the means. If the situation were reversed, abortion was illegal but people found a loophole, you would adamantly be objecting to the use of that loophole as unethical.

FortWayne says

Respect for life and each other starts at conception.

What exactly is so special about conception? You are alive before conception. The sperm and the egg that made you are both alive. In reality, every cell in your body is over 3.8 billion years old and has been growing and dividing for all of that 3.8 billion years with occasional short breaks.

Furthermore, conception does not happen in an instant. It take trillions upon trillions upon trillions of Plank times to complete the extremely long process of penetrating the egg, combining the DNA, and starting a large number of chemical processes, each of which starts at a different time. Just because on the human scale of experience this happens quickly doesn't make it instantaneous. So exactly when during the arduous process of conception does the life go from worthless to priceless?

FortWayne says

You make it sound like all abortions come from rape, and that is not true.

Obviously I have never said anything even remotely like that. However, the Republican laws did apply to rape victims and that is the prime reason Democrats called such laws the "war on women".

FortWayne says

Most come from irresponsible behavior by teenagers.

It is your opinion that the teenagers are being irresponsible. Another opinion would be that the teenagers are being responsible by getting the abortion.

But in either case, why should the state violate the rights of an irresponsible person? Whether or not the person is "irresponsible" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is at what point does the offspring have the right to live, and the only way to answer that question is to answer a far more fundamental one: what is it that constitutes a person?

The entire abortion debate dances around that fundamental question. The fact is that the rights of the mother and the rights of the offspring are inherently in conflict. I'm all for erring on the side of safety and preferring the rights of the offspring once a case can be made that the offspring is a person. However, there is no rational reason to believe that personhood is achieved at the arbitrary period of conception. If you are going to make a "soul" argument, then you had better read The abortion question answered as I have thoroughly destroyed the soul argument in that thread.

Dan8267 says

But in either case, why should the state violate the rights of an irresponsible person? Whether or not the person is "irresponsible" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is at what point does the offspring have the right to live, and the only way to answer that question is to answer a far more fundamental one: what is it that constitutes a person?

Yes, because right to life comes before the right to abortion. Life is fundamentally more important.

You have a right to live, angry neighbor next door does not have a right to kill you.

Dan8267 says

It is your opinion that the teenagers are being irresponsible. Another opinion would be that the teenagers are being responsible by getting the abortion.

But if they were responsible these teenagers would not be pregnant in the first place. If teenagers feel shame for certain actions they are less likely to do them, that is a big portion of morality.

FortWayne says

Yes, because right to life comes before the right to abortion. Life is fundamentally more important.

And I would agree with that as long as we are talking about persons, which is the fundamental question.

FortWayne says

But if they were responsible these teenagers would not be pregnant in the first place. If teenagers feel shame for certain actions they are less likely to do them, that is a big portion of morality.

There is nothing inherently evil about sex, even when teenagers do it. Nor is there anything inherently immoral about sex, even when teenagers do it.

Furthermore, shame is an emotional reaction to something that threatens one social standing in a community and as such does not necessarily indicate immorality. For example, most people would be ashamed to be forced to take a dump in public, but it is not the case that such a person is being immoral.

In any case, the morality, ethics, and legality of abortion all come down to the simple question of what exactly constitutes a person. This is the question that neither side is willing to address. Luckily, I have already answered this question thoroughly. Not a single counter-argument has stood up to my reasoning. Unless that happens, we can accept the answer I provided here.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, shame is an emotional reaction to something that threatens one social standing in a community and as such does not necessarily indicate immorality. For example, most people would be ashamed to be forced to take a dump in public, but it is not the case that such a person is being immoral.

Supreme Court has made that decision with a compromise, I don't remember the details but it's something tied to trimesters and seemed reasonable.

But about abortion, only reason to make something difficult is to discourage it. The more difficult an abortion is, the less likely it is to happen and less likely teenagers are going to murder an unborn child. This does reduce unwanted pregnancies in teenagers. That's a good thing.

Dan8267 says

The "war on women" sounds a lot more real than the "war on Christmas".

You forgot about the Democrat party's war on men.

zzyzzx says

You forgot about the Democrat party's war on men.

You mean the family court system's war on men.

FortWayne says

But about abortion, only reason to make something difficult is to discourage it. The more difficult an abortion is, the less likely it is to happen and less likely teenagers are going to murder an unborn child.

If an abortion is murder, it should be made illegal, not discouraged by humiliating girls and women including rape victims. The entire question once again is exactly what constitutes a person. And you are still dancing around that question.

It's not an unimportant question. I'm not going to forbid a woman at gunpoint from having an abortion unless I know that the offspring is a person. This is especially true for a rape victim. If personhood really did begin at concept as you propose, but do not justify, then even a raped girl should be forced to carry the rape baby because two wrongs don't make a right. Sucks for the girl, but that would be the lesser of the two evils.

However, if personhood does not begin at conception, then it would be outright evil to force a raped girl to bear the offspring.

So, the question of personhood is not academic. It is the critical question in the entire abortion debate. This is exactly why you should ask yourself what precisely distinguishes a person from a non-person and why do you believe that. Until you do that, you're just dancing around the issue.

As for me, I've already answered that question clearly, thoroughly, objectively, honestly, and accurately in this thread. No person on this planet has ever found a flaw in my reasoning in that thread. I'm willing to entertain new counter-arguments from either the pro-life or the pro-choice crowd, but I reserve the right to defend the position I took there. Of course, if someone actually does make a descent counter-argument, I reserve the right to change my position and accept that argument, though I doubt that will happen.

marcus says

I guess when the President is black, the whole concept of respect for the office goes out the window for about a third of the country.

The rule is, when the President is a Democrat, certain quarters abandon their pretense of respect for the office. Hillary Clinton lamented the "vast, right wing conspiracy" nearly 20 years ago. JFK worried about the John Birchers. IIRC, Clinton and Kennedy were both white.

BTW, Democrats usually didn't even pretend to have much respect for W either. A worrisome exception was, his approval rate climbed above 70% in the aftermath of the worst national security failure in American history. Somehow when people are scared they behave like North Koreans, frantically praising the dear leader.
So maybe Democratic presidents get less devotion because they tend to do a better job, or rather a less terrible job. There are exceptions to that rule too of course, e.g. LBJ starting the Viet Nam draft.

Dan8267 says

The entire question once again is exactly what constitutes a person. And you are still dancing around that question.

I'm not danceing around it Dan. A human being is the supreme court definition of where life begins. Second trimester? I don't know exact definition.

FortWayne says

I'm not danceing around it Dan. A human being is the supreme court definition of where life begins. Second trimester? I don't know exact definition.

Screw what the Supreme Court says. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. What do you think makes a person a person? And does a person really have to be human? Why can't a chimp be a person? You can have a meaningful conversation with a chimp using sign language. Why can't an extraterrestrial be a person? Why can't a robot be a person?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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."

Note that the Constitution says "born," not conceived. Note also the Constitution does not provide any exceptions, e.g. for people of a disfavored color, or anchor babies or gay couples, or whoever else might become the target of any political faction.

Dan8267 says

Screw what the Supreme Court says. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. What do you think makes a person a person? And does a person really have to be human? Why can't a chimp be a person? You can have a meaningful conversation with a chimp using sign language. Why can't an extraterrestrial be a person? Why can't a robot be a person?

I think it is roughly a month after conception. We are a society of humans, and humans matter. Robots can't be persons because they should not matter, as they are artificial creations with no soul.

FortWayne says

Robots can't be persons because they should not matter, as they are artificial creations with no soul.

Artificial vs natural does not matter. If I build a human, atom by atom, is it not a human?

As for the soul, neither you nor I possess a soul as there is no such thing. And if there were such a thing and the Christian afterlife true, then it would be a moral and ethical obligation to kill every baby before it could possibly risk its immortal soul, losing an eternity of bliss and gaining an eternity of damnation. The fact that you do not believe it is a moral duty to kill babies before they can endanger their souls proves that deep down, you do not believe in a soul any more than I do regardless of what you tell yourself when you cannot deal with your own mortality.

Furthermore, we can ask the question of whether or not chimps have souls. If they don't, then what about the common ancestor of humans and chimps? There would have to be a point where a mother has no soul but her child does. And how incredibly cruel would that be? A child who has to spend an eternity bearing the loss of her mother?

The very concept of a soul is fundamentally flaw and the only purpose it serves is to delude people about their own mortality. And that is not a good thing as it causes people to make very bad decisions in life.

Dan8267 says

Artificial vs natural does not matter. If I build a human, atom by atom, is it not a human?

You can't and it's a sort of unrealistic discussion. And yes natural does matter, it matters to me. A vcr will never and should never be as important as a human being. For it has no soul and it is not human.