SD bans all abortions

[arsevader]

It's sad that's how the American church presents itself to the public...

Exactly, now that's religion...

[Rigmaster]

When Dear Leader signed the "Partial Birth Abortion" bill, here is a photo from the signing.

Can someone spot what is obviously VERY wrong with this picture?????

No one in the pic (except *maybe* Geo W) has a vagina.

[hamann318is]

One of my favorite recent books. I acknowledged the source in my previous posting (#9).

I only really enjoyed the operations of the drug dealers. I never knew how business-like those situations were. Actually, scratch that. I also liked the sections about teachers teaching the test, but a lot of the stuff in that book seems pretty farfetched. It's all interesting, but I just thought I'd point out where your information came from. I didn't see that you already had. ;)

Dave, it's the Republican party represented at it's finest... with a bunch of old white guys.

[AppState325]

When Dear Leader signed the "Partial Birth Abortion" bill, here is a photo from the signing.

Can someone spot what is obviously VERY wrong with this picture?????

nothing is wrong with the picture......those are the people that were ELECTED. Did you eve vote? If you want to see change, do something about it, vote for a woman.

[Dave]

nothing is wrong with the picture......those are the people that were ELECTED. Did you eve vote? If you want to see change, do something about it, vote for a woman.

It slays me how judgmental and conclusory your are. I have been voting since 1988 thank you very much. There certainly were R women in the House AND Senate who voted for that bill. You would think that for PR reasons if none other, they would have some Women there.

But, no , its a bunch of backward thinking white men. They fail to see this for what it is, a woman's issue.

Go crawl back under your rock. Evolution has passed you by.

[AppState325]

I enjoy debating with people. If one of us were 'right', there wouldn't be any issues here, or in any of the governments.
One can only accumulate information to add to the belief...

Correct me if I'm wrong but C-sections does not eliminate the possibility of the baby being born AIDS-free.
Further, as far as I know, there are no laws that states that HIV-positive women are required to have a C-section.

Either way, you are right, the AIDS example wasn't the best. The rate of transmission isn't 100% regardless of method of delivery. However, I still think that a hypothetical situation in which the pre-mature death of a child after delivery must be taken into account when anti-abortionists say no to abortion.

As for the percentages of the particular scenario being low.... that is quite irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, it is a possibility. And such a case is a case that contradicts your belief that "no human has the right to decide the life of another."

If one is an anti-abortionist, he/she must be ready to do the following:

- Knowingly give up the life of the mother.
- Have a child, as a result unconsential sex.
- Have a child regardless of any socio-economic status.

These are all of course based on the current available adoption or child support system.

Those examples may be of the most extreme nature, but the most extreme examples are not non-existent.

Exploitation of abortion, I object, and there should be a system that work to avoid exploitation. That, I don't know how - and I think this is worth debating more.

1) Sorry, I was wrong, having a C Section does not fully eliminate the possibility of the baby having AIDS, I will admit to being wrong when I see it.

2) Yes, you are right, all of those are issues that people have to deal with when they decide their stance on abortions. I personally disagree with any abortion, as one never knows if the baby will be able to survive or not. While we are medically advanced, I think that some chance is better for the baby than no chance. In cases where the mother might die during delivery, that is a very tough scenario for many reasons. 1) being that the baby is fully developed and no one in the right mind can call that baby nonhuman. 2) death is possibly the end result somehow. Not being a woman, and never having to really face thise decision, It is tough for me to have a call on this. I do know however, that most parents will give anything for their child, including, their life.

3) I agree with you on the expoitation of abortion. Like I have said in previous posts, abortion is simply becoming another method of birth control, which makes me sick to my stomach. I agree that debating the restrictions that should already be in place on abortion would be worthwhile as well.

[AppState325]

It slays me how judgmental and conclusory your are. I have been voting since 1988 thank you very much. There certainly were R women in the House AND Senate who voted for that bill. You would think that for PR reasons if none other, they would have some Women there.

But, no , its a bunch of backward thinking white men. They fail to see this for what it is, a woman's issue.

Go crawl back under your rock. Evolution has passed you by.

1)don't even get me started on evolution.....wow, you must enjoy your evolutionary tree that the fossil record doesn't support one bit. haha, and how are your embryo models treating you?

2) why have women their for PR relations? That sounds kind of disrespectful to women to me. "Hey come over here to make us look good"

3) I simply asked if you voted, you take offense very easily I have noticed. I am glad that you vote, thank you for doing so.

[Dave]

1)don't even get me started on evolution.....wow, you must enjoy your evolutionary tree that the fossil record doesn't support one bit. haha, and how are your embryo models treating you?

What "science" book are you reading from????? Holy shit!!!!

2) why have women their for PR relations? That sounds kind of disrespectful to women to me. "Hey come over here to make us look good"

Disrespectful was failing to include a woman in the signing ceremony. But then, the current administration really does not care too much about women, so long as they are good obedient little wives.

3) I simply asked if you voted, you take offense very easily I have noticed. I am glad that you vote, thank you for doing so.

Re-read it - you clearly implied that I did not vote and should have done so if I wanted some change.

[AppState325]

What "science" book are you reading from????? Holy shit!!!!

ok, you asked for it.....

this is from an interview with Jonath Wells, PHD from Berkeley, who works at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

when asked about the Darwinistic Tree, and if it has held up to more than a century of fossil discoveries.
" Absolutely not. As an illustration of the fossil record, the Tree Of Life is a dismal failure. But it IS a good representation of DARWIN'S THEORY. A key aspect of his theory was that natural selection would act, in his own words, 'slowly by accumulating slight successive, favorable variations, and that no great or sudden modifications were possible."

he goes on to talk about what is known in Science today as the "cambiran explosion." for millions and millions of years, the fossil record shows nothing but simple cellled organisms, but then, all of the sudden, it gives rise to the sudden appearance of most of the major animal phyla that are still alive today, as well as some that are extinct. In short, there is no evidence of the macro-evolutionary idea of gradual-long periods of change.
"

[Dave]

ok, you asked for it.....

this is from an interview with Jonath Wells, PHD from Berkeley, who works at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

when asked about the Darwinistic Tree, and if it has held up to more than a century of fossil discoveries.
" Absolutely not. As an illustration of the fossil record, the Tree Of Life is a dismal failure. But it IS a good representation of DARWIN'S THEORY. A key aspect of his theory was that natural selection would act, in his own words, 'slowly by accumulating slight successive, favorable variations, and that no great or sudden modifications were possible."

he goes on to talk about what is known in Science today as the "cambiran explosion." for millions and millions of years, the fossil record shows nothing but simple cellled organisms, but then, all of the sudden, it gives rise to the sudden appearance of most of the major animal phyla that are still alive today, as well as some that are extinct. In short, there is no evidence of the macro-evolutionary idea of gradual-long periods of change.
"

You have proven my point - the Discovery Institute is a Christian Conservative thinktank. Come back when you have a real scientist.

Try again . . . .

[AppState325]

oh, i see.....sooo Just b/c something comes from a Christian Scientist, it is not valid? The fact remains, the fossil record does NOT support macro-evolution. The Cammrian Explosion fully illustrates this. Accept the facts. Now if you want to show me some evolutionary evidence that is credible, feel free.

[asubimmer]

whooooaa there buddy...scientist carbon date tested a LIVE turtle and the test results showed the turtle was a couple BILLION years old. Hows that for accurate? yes the turtle died durring testing and no the testing did not take a couple billion years. Evolution is a load of crap.

[Apex381]

Hmm hate to rain on your parade Charlie, But where does that claim come from?

[boom-monkey]

Wow, shot down all your credibility with that one.

[Dave]

oh, i see.....sooo Just b/c something comes from a Christian Scientist, it is not valid? The fact remains, the fossil record does NOT support macro-evolution. The Cammrian Explosion fully illustrates this. Accept the facts. Now if you want to show me some evolutionary evidence that is credible, feel free.

No, but when it comes from a non-scientific Religious advocacy group, then its not credible.