Originally Posted by buggyone

"fiction as this..."As to a fetus not being a part of a woman's body...that is just too far out to even give any credence to."


Katz's statement has me somewhat confused. She is saying that it is fiction to believe that a fetus is not part of a woman's body? Or is she saying it is fiction to believe a fetus is part of a woman's body.

A simple knowledge of biology knows that it is the woman's body where a fetus is formed and grows. If you do not have that woman's body, you cannot have a fetus - except for the petri dish conceptions and medical machines, etc. Of course, it is part of the woman's body.

An outrageous view, and a false premise. A baby is a distinct human being apart from his or her mother. Human beings shouldn't be discriminated against based on where they reside. A person's body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of the body.

An unborn baby's genetic code differs ENTIRELY with the mother's. It is not part of the woman's body. The fetus merely resides in the mother's womb.
The baby is a unique individual being and is not a physical part or organ of the mother.

THEREFORE, THE MOTHER'S "RIGHT" TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY ENDS AT THE EDGE OF THE WOMB. A mothers has the right to control the food she chooses to put into her body but she does not have the right to kill another distinct human life in her womb.

HUMAN BIOLOGY FACTS ARE NOT AN ABORTIONIST'S FRIEND.

Originally Posted by ladydoc

You are absolutely right about the Greeks...the men had no problem with homosexuality and often preferred it. The problem with marriage had to do with producing heirs and transfer of property to progeny. Had nothing to do with morality...

Civil unions are OK...as long as the partner gets the same benefits as a heterosexual couple.

Originally Posted by ladydoc

I agree with cutting spending, but I also just read in the paper today about what the house came up with. Decrease payroll social security taxes. Great...good for you and terrible for your kids...there will soon be a shortage of funds, so putting even less in is a fine idea.
Cut medicare payments 27% to doctors. Swell....if you think you get little time with your doctor now, just wait until he or she needs to increase the number they see a day to ofset the decrease in reimbursement. Or even try finding a doc who will take medicare.
All this concern about what federal employees make...another swell idea..just as long as the house and senate include themselves in that definition of federal employees and take the same cuts or lack or increases. They are federal employees as far as I am concerned. All of this from republicans...so very interesting.

Also just heard that the house threw out the above. At least they have some hint of an idea. But in that report they also said that the house majority leaders said NO COMPROMISE. That is a wonderful way to get a concensus that might actually help us.

As to a fetus not being a part of a woman's body...that is just too far out to even give any credence to.

Yesterday there was article in our paper (surprised the heck out of me that it got published) saying that a long term study of abortions effects on the mental health of women were NOT due to abortion, but due to the unwanted pregnancy. Another conclusion was that those women who had abortions and had mental health problems afterwards are the women who had mental health issues before the pregnancy/abortion. That makes sense.....past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. I have not read the actual study, so I have no idea of the methodology invovled.

But the best story of all was the one this morning saying that the decorated trees that were actioned off made Special Olympics over $5000.

Well, I need to go bake some cookies for the cookie exchange. Anyone for mint chocolate chip cookies?

LadyDoc your response as respect the Greeks triggered a story I heard long ago. Being of Italian extraction I must admit a bias but will confuse the issue and me by stating my ancestors geographical origins were original Greek. Now I am confused...

Anyway an Italian and Greek were arguing. The Greek said "Well we built the Parthenon and the Threatre and Temple of Apollo. And the Italian said "Well we built the Colosseum and invented the Roman Arch"

The Greek said "Well we had great men like Aristole and Socrates." and the Italian replied "Well we had great men like Leonardo Da Vinci and Galileo."

The Greek very frustrated at this point quickly blurted out "Well we invited sex." And the Italian with a quick smile and quick wit said, "Yes but we invited it with women ."

Originally Posted by buggyone

Rubicon,

What problem would you have with gays and lesbians having civil unions with all the rights of marriage - except it would be done in a non-religious place? It would be very similar to a man and woman being married in a court setting but would not be called marriage.

Michelle Bachmann stated that since 47% of Americans pay no income tax, they should be forced to pay some tax. She did not want to increase tax on the very wealthy but would force everyone to pay "their fair share" and those are her words from the Republican debate last Saturday. Tax the poor and lower-middle classes more and not the wealthy. Now, that makes real social justice.

Hi buggyone, see my post #32. To answer your question to acknowledge civil unions is to accept that lifestyle. When my daughter came from college with her boyfriend they slept in separate rooms because I personally don't believe in pre-martial sex. I am not naive nor am I a prude but my wife and I met at 13 and promised to wait until we were married. If we could commit to such a promise then I would not expect anything less from my children. Having said that I understand the mores had changed since we were kids. However, sacriface and restraint are not out of date. The wait that my wife and I endured was well worth it because it strengthened our releationship made it real and lasting.

When it comes to increasing taxes my response is to resist because the more money congress gets the more they spend. Let's face it thre 1% willalways be able to dodge the tax man and those increase commitments by congress that were suppose to be fu ded by the 1% will always fall back on us.

Originally Posted by rubicon

[B]

LadyDoc your response as respect the Greeks triggered a story I heard long ago. Being of Italian extraction I must admit a bias but will confuse the issue and me by stating my ancestors geographical origins were original Greek. Now I am confused...

Anyway an Italian and Greek were arguing. The Greek said "Well we built the Parthenon and the Threatre and Temple of Apollo. And the Italian said "Well we built the Colosseum and invented the Roman Arch"

The Greek said "Well we had great men like Aristole and Socrates." and the Italian replied "Well we had great men like Leonardo Da Vinci and Galileo."

The Greek very frustrated at this point quickly blurted out "Well we invited sex." And the Italian with a quick smile and quick wit said, "Yes but we invited it with women ."

LOL....that is a good one...I will have to print that out and memorize it!!!

Originally Posted by buggyone

"fiction as this..."As to a fetus not being a part of a woman's body...that is just too far out to even give any credence to."


Katz's statement has me somewhat confused. She is saying that it is fiction to believe that a fetus is not part of a woman's body? Or is she saying it is fiction to believe a fetus is part of a woman's body.

A simple knowledge of biology knows that it is the woman's body where a fetus is formed and grows. If you do not have that woman's body, you cannot have a fetus - except for the petri dish conceptions and medical machines, etc. Of course, it is part of the woman's body.

She is saying that a fetus is NOT part of a woman's body and says this because she thinks that this negates the position that a woman should have control of her own body. Interesting, no?

Originally Posted by ladydoc

She is saying that a fetus is NOT part of a woman's body and says this because she thinks that this negates the position that a woman should have control of her own body. Interesting, no?

A baby (fetus) is categorically not part of a woman's body, but a complete and distinct and separate human being with a disparate genetic code.

Biologically speaking, when you destroy a fetus you are killing a distinct human life. You are not amputating, by definition.

A fetus merely resides in a woman's womb? Never have I heard it phrased it that way - and it is ludicrous to think that.

I was going to write a lengthy piece on why it is ludicrous to think that a fetus merely resides in a woman's womb but is not part of the woman's body - but no amount of sane reasoning would change the mind of someone whose mind is set in stone.

It is good for you to have your thoughts be so passionate. I applaud you for that.

There is more to your story.
After the college TAKES her 1 point of GDP to have a "balanced approach",
she tells her father that she is no longer going to work hard, is going to start partying and getting drunk, will end up pregnant on welfare..
Why NOT? no matter what she does she ends with a GPA of 3.0 after the "balanced approach" by the liberal college.
Soon everyone gets a 3.0 but knows nothing, produces nothing, productivity drops, and Atlas Shrugged. That is what happens to every socialistic, Maxist country in history.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
The reward goes to those who reduce their ability and increase their need.
JJ

Originally Posted by mrdills

The Difference between Conservatives and Liberals

A rather gentle explanation of the difference in thinking between people with
opposite outlooks.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others
her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal
ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government
programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a
feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated
in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for
years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the
rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth
and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in
school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him
know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very
difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go
out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a
boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her
time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she
never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college
for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times
she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and
ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a
2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair
and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back,
"That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my
grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done
next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative
side of the fence."

Originally Posted by ladydoc

She is saying that a fetus is NOT part of a woman's body and says this because she thinks that this negates the position that a woman should have control of her own body. Interesting, no?

A woman, a man, a child, a baby...fill in the blank. They should all have control over their own bodies! My statements negate nothing regarding this mindset!

Originally Posted by buggyone

A fetus merely resides in a woman's womb? Never have I heard it phrased it that way - and it is ludicrous to think that.

I was going to write a lengthy piece on why it is ludicrous to think that a fetus merely resides in a woman's womb but is not part of the woman's body - but no amount of sane reasoning would change the mind of someone whose mind is set in stone.

It is good for you to have your thoughts be so passionate. I applaud you for that.

Why so negative? If you could write a lengthy piece defending your position, why not do it? You have very little confidence in your ability to persuade or present the truth that you seem to know. If it is true and rational why are you unwilling to share with others on the forum.

Originally Posted by rubicon

Hi buggyone, see my post #32. To answer your question to acknowledge civil unions is to accept that lifestyle. When my daughter came from college with her boyfriend they slept in separate rooms because I personally don't believe in pre-martial sex. I am not naive nor am I a prude but my wife and I met at 13 and promised to wait until we were married. If we could commit to such a promise then I would not expect anything less from my children. Having said that I understand the mores had changed since we were kids. However, sacriface and restraint are not out of date. The wait that my wife and I endured was well worth it because it strengthened our releationship made it real and lasting.

When it comes to increasing taxes my response is to resist because the more money congress gets the more they spend. Let's face it thre 1% willalways be able to dodge the tax man and those increase commitments by congress that were suppose to be fu ded by the 1% will always fall back on us.

I applaud you sir, and your wonderful wife, on you self respect, respect of each other, and strength of charactor and resolve to wait until your committment to each other was properly declared! I am sure that it strengthened your relationship and started it out on a very strong foundation of trust and dedication! There are still those in the younger generation that aspire to maintain their virtue in such a way! More POWER to them and may they achieve what you and Mrs Rubicon have! Here's to the two of you...

Originally Posted by buggyone

A fetus merely resides in a woman's womb? Never have I heard it phrased it that way - and it is ludicrous to think that.

I was going to write a lengthy piece on why it is ludicrous to think that a fetus merely resides in a woman's womb but is not part of the woman's body - but no amount of sane reasoning would change the mind of someone whose mind is set in stone.

It is good for you to have your thoughts be so passionate. I applaud you for that.

Give your opinion, that is your right. Your opinion is unequivocally wrong in any scientific aspect, but I guess it's your right to be so wrong . The facts of human biology is my proof and my evidence. You cannot dispute the facts as I presented them.

Give your "lengthy piece" on how this human being inside a woman is merely a body part akin to a finger or a kidney. It's pretty absurd, scientifically speaking, and especially humanly speaking.

The unbending facts of human biology is why only you have even attempted to dispute my post.

Rubicon,
The answer you gave as why you would not agree with civil unions for gays and lesbians is that you do not agree with that lifestyle. Not a very valid reason at all. You may not agree with Muslim religion but I hope you do not say they should not be allowed to worship in America.

As for your sexual beliefs and your family, I will not go there.

Originally Posted by rubicon

Hi buggyone, see my post #32. To answer your question to acknowledge civil unions is to accept that lifestyle. When my daughter came from college with her boyfriend they slept in separate rooms because I personally don't believe in pre-martial sex. I am not naive nor am I a prude but my wife and I met at 13 and promised to wait until we were married. If we could commit to such a promise then I would not expect anything less from my children. Having said that I understand the mores had changed since we were kids. However, sacriface and restraint are not out of date. The wait that my wife and I endured was well worth it because it strengthened our releationship made it real and lasting.

When it comes to increasing taxes my response is to resist because the more money congress gets the more they spend. Let's face it thre 1% willalways be able to dodge the tax man and those increase commitments by congress that were suppose to be fu ded by the 1% will always fall back on us.

Kudos to you and your wife! Congratulations!
That showed more strength of character then most of us have.

I want to see congress declare a moretoreum on giving themselves raises and they need to consider themselves federal employees rather then whining about how much other federal employees make.