Open Thread

By NB Staff | January 22, 2008 - 10:38 ET

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Fed cuts funds rate 3/4, markets ready to plunge again.

On Saturday, NewsBusters addressed the break of the five-year bull market trendline. While America observed Martin Luther King, Jr., yesterday, stocks across the globe plummeted.

Despite the Fed's action, markets are opening broadly lower this morning.

With all this in mind, is the current stock behavior a repeat of 1987, vis a vis a market event predicting a recession that isn't going to happen? Or, are the markets right this time, and this economy is in big trouble?

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Roe" likes Ron...

Rally for life today in less than an hour in the belly of the beast.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

C-Span, this morning...

Of course, C-Span had a nice back & forth discussion between the
two sides of the debate with a few call-ins. The most level-headed was
the woman from NOW, the pro-choice side. As the RU-486 pill becomes the
method of choice for most women, abortion has become more of an issue
of privacy for women than a surgical procedure not to be carried out by
doctors. Now, any doctor can prescribe the pill without the pro-lifers
being able to find out. The debate maybe hot, but, the RU-486 pill is
having a cooling effect on the actual abortions being reported. As a
man, I will never have to decide on nor experience an unwanted pregnancy...it should
always be the woman's choice, period.

Syrius

 

only a woman??

Why do you feel it is only the woman's right to "terminate" the life of her infant?

It's a BABY, not a choice.

It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong

It's a fetus...

...period. It's the woman's choice to terminate, not yours.

Syrius

 

Syrius....

You are one sick individual.  

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

Yeah CT, He is sick. I

Yeah CT,

He is sick.

I would have said blastocyte, not fetus.

Ok Leon...

Don't want to have you feeling left out now do we.... you are #2 sick individual! 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

the blastocyte is always

the blastocyte is always innocent...

i thought libs were against the death penalty - even for the guilty - much less the innocent... 

anyway what kind of people could approve of killing 3000 cute little baby blastocytes every day in the US...

it's just like the Nazi's exterminating Jews - although even the Nazi's cared about the Jews a little bit...

Fred dead yet?

Just a man supporting a woman's right to choose. You should try it
sometime. You never know, you may need their support for your rights
one day.

Syrius

 

Sy... Regarding this

Sy...

Regarding this issue and you bringing up the CSPAN show on this that was on this morning, pray tell why was Kim Gandy head of NOW unable to answer the point about her and her ilk stopping the person deciding whether to have an abortion access to the picture of her baby they take with the ultra sound?

Eh?

She couldn't answer either because we all know why.

Doesn't ultrasound hurt the developing fetus?

Causing problems down the road?

It's a woman's choice, not yours.

Syrius

sy... Take two aspirin

sy...

Take two aspirin and take a long rest.

well then I say we up the

well then I say we up the legal age of blastocyte abortion to 5 years old - and after they're born allow the dads and siblings over 10 to have the choice too - some of these toddlers are complete brats - it's much better if we kill em nice and young...

Gosh...

TruthMonster,

Why do you hate kids? Are you saying ALL Dads
& Siblings are homocidal maniacs? Maybe, right wingers who support
the death penalty not me...

It's a woman's choice, not yours.

Syrius

It's a woman's choice, not yours.

one out of every two abortions is a "woman"...what about her choice?

v

http://www.pathlight...

Wow.... You just sunk his

Wow.... You just sunk his battleship :-P

 

 

i don't hate kids

i don't hate kids - they're just a choice:) the bratty ones probably woulda had crappy adult lives anyway - dontcha think...?

a fetus at 8 to 15 weeks begins to...

...develop the genitals. Before 8 weeks it is an embryo with
no sex organs. Are you referring to a female fetus as a "woman" with
fully developed sexual organs ready to produce offspring? You need to
have a clearer definition.

Syrius

 

"It's a woman's choice, and a man's responsibility."

this is helpful

so some guys "feel like women"

do they get choices then?

some guys get sex changes...

do they get choices, then?

what about hermaphrodites?

cross dressers?

The choice was made before the pregnacy

 It's a woman's choice, not yours.

Then is should be the woman responsibility to not get pregnant in the first place.

She had a choice, and had already chosen.

 

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

Are you saying...

GC,

The Virgin Mary had a choice? God decided for her. Probably like most rightwingers have over their wives.

Syrius

 

 

syrius just doesn't care

syrius just doesn't care about blastocytes - it's his/her choice

Hey truth, it occurred to me

Hey truth, it occurred to me on the way home that I missed the boat when my kids were born. Perhaps I should have named one of them "Blastocyte". Hell, I could have even gone with "Blastocyte" and "Blastocyte 2.0" Has a nice ring to it huh?

absolutely - we have a 2.5

absolutely - we have a 2.5 year-old blastocyte right now...

fo course it's illegal to kill him now - but 3 years ago no problem:)

unfortunately you never know if you're going to get a brat or not until it's too late:(

Just give the pro-death

Just give the pro-death crowd some time. Soon we'll be able to make all of our problems go away. It is our "choice" after all. ;>)

Are you saying...?

No, but I did think there was a bit more to you then that. Your not worth the time folks here (including me) have given you. You fain morality, and shun responsibility.

 

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

Then Mary said, “Behold

Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. - Luke 1:38

Besides, you're citing a woman from an account you don't believe in anyway. 

But I admire the attempt. 

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Syrius

Why doesn't the father have any rights according to you? It may be the woman's body, but it is the man's child as well.

It's the woman's choice...not yours.

Restless,

Not until the fetus is born is it considered a
child under the rule of law. In some special circumstances, such as in
the case of Lacy Peterson's murder, it could be determined the child
could live outside of the mother and be deemed a person with the
protection of the laws of the US. Scott got what he deserved for
killing two people.

How do you really know it's yours?

Not
every child is born into a loving, nurturing family. A woman has the
right to decide what is best for her and the fetus she may carry to
full term.

Syrius

 

choose life - democratically...

we just need to reinstate original murder law to then re-establish the reality of a blastoctye's right to life...

we're getting there...

Syrius

Your're kidding right? You didn't even come close to answering my question. Platitudes don't cut it here. What about the father's right???

Not until the fetus is born is it considered a...

...child. Parental rights should apply at the time of birth. I did
answer it. If it is yours...Are you sure it is? Sounds like you might
want to go get your kid checked to see...

Syrius

"It's a woman's choice, and a man's responsibility."

You have GOT to be kidding!

You have GOT to be kidding! You mean to tell me it is OK to kill the "fetus" without telling the husband, AKA the FATHER of the CHILD? If so, then why is the father of this child responsible AFTER he or she is born?

I know you libs always want it both ways, but this is ridiculous.

BTW, what about partial birth abortions? In this case you are killing a kid that would live outside the womb. What say you about this barbaric act? If that's OK, why isn't it OK to kill a kid later on?

Past that, what is your position on the death penalty? We know you don't care if an innocent life is snuffed out, but what say you about the life of a murder, or a child rapist?

 

people like syrius have this

people like syrius have this very carefully crafted - it's probably best if you don't understand it:)...

Time out.  Syrius is

Time out.  Syrius is ignoring C-sections and preemies.  Referee is on the field and reviewing the play. 

It's confirmed.

Ten-yard penalty, Liberal Demoncats.  First down, Lifers.

:cheers: 

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Syrius

"If it is yours...Are you sure it is? Sounds like you might
want to go get your kid checked to see..."

Ahh!! Relegated to insults I see. I'll tell you what, I'll check... Yep both the 2 year old and the four year old. Both mine. How do I know?? Both are already more intelligent than yourself. Actually, you are mine too, but I disowned you years ago for stupidity. That trait I will have to blame on the mother. Sorry.

Nothing against your kids...

Restless,

My points up 'til now have supported the woman's
right to choose, her privacy and the rule of law. We could argue
back & forth about aborted fetuses, the procedures involved,
descriptive barbaric pictures & videos to incite a shock to the
system. Once, all said and done, we still return to the right of the
woman and her privacy. There is no one taking away your right to
privacy, so, it's quite easy for you to sit in judgement of her right
to privacy. This is a two way street, if you could take away her
rights, at somepoint, she could take away yours. Too many times in
these arguments, rightwingers are deciding what is right and wrong,
good and evil. Take morality out of the equation and follow the rule of
law. At the end of the day, you're just trying to tell a woman what she
can & can't do to her body and that's it. Now, that's just stupid.

Syrius

"It's a woman's choice, and a man's responsibility."

Syrius is not only being

Syrius is not only being evasive, but in the above post, he is further bouncing back & forth between:

"Privacy rights" <--- versus ---> A woman's right over her own "body."

Can't be both in the same time at the same place.  See Dscott's post January 22, 2008 - 14:34 ET.  Note also Syrius never replied to it either. 

That's it.  Keep concentrating on the soft targets only, and ignore the rest.  

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Furthermore, where Syrius

Furthermore, where Syrius is contending against the existence of an unchangeable moral law, he goes on to assert that conversely, civil law is somehow immutable by virtue of its existence as well.

Care to clarify that one Syrius?

-PJ  

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

First of all, if a woman

First of all, if a woman wants to "protect" her body from pregnancy, she should take precautions to safeguard it in the first place. Her "choice" is made at the time of copulation.

Secondly, I do take morality out of it. The Constitution does not grant the right to abortion, and abortion is not a right to privacy issue. I have said many times that the SCOTUS did not err in their ruling on ROE v WADE. They erred in hearing the case instead of keeping it a state's rights issue. They should have declined to hear the case and let the state's ruling stand.

Yes...

Killing a baby should always be the mothers choice. My mom tried to get us serveral times with a frying pan, broom handle, fly swatter...whatever was handy... what she should have done was have a doctor scrape us out before we had a chance to run.. she missed and we are all grown up now. Yep 5, men with families who are nothing more than a messy part of our mothers body. She should have thought ahead...pitty...

You get a great big raspberry "Syrius"!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

With the RU486 pill...

...the doctor prescribes the meds, no need to scrape. Clean & simple. It's a mother's choice, not yours...

Being
a man, you'll never experience an unwanted pregnancy. You have no right
to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. It's her
privacy.

Syrius

Being a man, you'll never

Being a man, you'll never experience an unwanted pregnancy

Not true, tell that to all the guys who have to pay 25% of their income in child support for 18 years for a kid they didn't even know they had after having a trist.  It takes two to make the decision to have unprotected sex or for the more religious among us, sex outside of marriage.

You have no right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body.

Not True either, even as a man I do not have a right to do with my body as I please. 

1. I can not commit suicide, i.e. kill my body, that's against the law;

2. I can not chop off my fingers or other extremities, i.e. harm my body, that's against the law and you will end up in the loony bin if you did it;

3. I can not sell my organs, i.e. sell parts of my body, that's against the law.

4. I can not take a controlled substance (drugs) without a doctor's express orders, i.e. pollute my body, that's against the law.

As a liberal you should realize that if you participate in this society and receive it's benefits, you also accept the claims that society has upon you, even your body!

However, you have nicely sidestepped the bigger issue, a fetus, blastocyte or whatever you want to call it, is human, when it's born won't be a cat or a dog, it can't be anything else.  Even athiest's recognize the imperitive of Life and the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the devaluation of everyone's life (the survivors of your so called choice). 

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

This base is covered. 

This base is covered.  Times noted.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Wowww...BRAVO, my man, BRAVO!!!

Dscott,

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."

BRAVO! I am clapping my hands, slapping your back & rejoicing in the fact you just realized the need for civility in an argument. As we rename/label someone we do erase their humanity. Such as the ongoing theme of calling someone a "liberal", a "rightwinger", or any other term we wish to use in describing a group or person we disagree with on issues. Thank you!

Syrius

However, being a man, who

However, being a man, who happens to be on the same page with my wife - being a woman - we have experienced the feeling of losing a desperately wanted pregnancy. At eight weeks, we experienced the joy of seeing our daughter's heartbeat on the ultrasound. A few weeks later, my wife miscarried.

Losing that baby was one of the toughest, most devastating periods of our life. But it made us both even more frustrated with the thought that there are people out there who would willfully and selfishly terminate a life - a gift - because it's not convenient for them.

No, I haven't walked in their shoes; but they haven't walked in the shoes of the thousands of couples who are unable to carry a child to term, who would do anything to have a child to love. And don't forget the child that will never have a chance to wear shoes at all.

Your attitude toward abortion is clearly that of someone who has not experienced the joy of childbirth or the devastating loss of a child. I dare you to watch an ultrasound, to witness the beating of a tiny heart, to experience the joy of a new life starting to grow, and then wrap things up with a blase "OK, let's terminate that baby."

Just something for you to think about.

*****

"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will 

Life is brutal.

Hero Squad,

I've found there is a certain amount of
insensitivity on this site when you share anecdotes, I'd suggest you
should keep it to yourself and not share it with the group. I will say
I am sorry for you and your wife to have experienced one of life's most
disappointing moments. Some of my friends have gone through the same
and it was devastating for them to say the least. The baby wasn't ready
to be born. My friends went through 4 invitro treatments with the
assortment of miscarriages, and other ups & downs. They had a
decision to make on three hearbeats- two strong, one weak. The
probability was very high of a miscarriage of all three if left alone.
They 'reduced' the three down to two. They have two beautiful children.

Again, you'll never experience directly what the woman is going through. You can sympathize but that's it.

Syrius

Hello Pot? This is Kettle.

"I've found there is a certain amount of
insensitivity on this site when you share anecdotes..."

Hello Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. 

*****

"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will 

Ask...

...Dan the Man2. He'll enlighten you.

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Syrius, at what split second in time...

...do YOU think a developing human beings' brain can sense pain and disruption? Can you prove it?

Again, you'll never experience directly what the woman is going through. You can sympathize but that's it.


Syrius

 

Thank God your mother had more sense than to force you to experience the act yourself; or don't you believe the growth of cells within her was actually you until you knew you were you. What would you have been going through? Who would have cared? Do you have sympathy only for the one who has a choice in the matter? I reserve sympathy for the victim, not the perpetrator.

 

Of course, Communist-Span

Of course, Communist-Span had a nice back & forth discussion between the
two sides of the debate with a few call-ins. The most bevel-headed was
the woman from NOW, the pro-death side. As the RU-486 pill becomes the
weapon of choice for most women, murder has become more of an issue
of privacy for women than a surgical strike not to be carried out by
doctors. Now, any doctor can prescribe the poison without the pro-lifers
being able to find out. The debate maybe hot, but, the RU-486 pill is
having a cooling effect on the actual murders being reported. As a
girly-man, I will never have to decide on nor experience killing my offspring...it should
always be the woman's choice, period.

Not-very-Syrius

Did you actually listen...? Oh, I get it you did a rewrite..lol.

Karma,

It is a privacy issue for woman, which can be related to how wide
of a stance you have in a bathroom stall & the type of illicit
activity you wish to engage in with others. So, how many sperm do you
kill in one of those encounters? Don't answer I'm impinging upon your
right to privacy. Every sperm is scared!

Syrius

 

Nice job! You managed to

Nice job! You managed to make no point at all, AND throw in an insult.

Is this a privacy issue, or a moral one? You liberals want married women, and young underage girls to be able to kill their babies in complete privacy. Of course, your kind are the same idiots who run the school system and lose you f-ing minds if a kid has an aspirin in their backpack!

Abortions scar a woman for life, both figuratively and literally. The pushers of "choice" do not want the woman to know about the downside of her "choice". They do not want women to be educated on the procedures, or the other options. Most women regret their "choice" for the rest of their life.

But back to you're idiotic privacy issue. Do you really think an underage kid, say 13 or 14 should be able to go to a doctor and have such a traumatic, life altering procedure done by herself? Heck, a kid can't even go by themselves to the doctor for a cold!

And if a woman is married, and gets pregnant don't you think the husband has some rights? You can bet your butt if she has the kid, married or not, the daddy is gonna be responsible, so why are you libs afraid of letting the man know up front?

You pro death liberals make me sick!

You pro death liberals make me sick!

God is not too pleased with them either...

v

You can take it...

Gary,


Is this a privacy issue, or a moral one?
(It's a total Privacy issue) You liberals want married
women
, and young underage girls to be able to kill their babies in
complete privacy.
(To be able to decide for themselves what they want for themselves, it's not for me to decide for them.) Of course, your kind are the same idiots who run the
school system
(I don't) and lose you f-ing minds if a kid has an aspirin in their
backpack!
(No problem, they can have aspirin. I hope if they are deciding to have sex, they should have condoms in their backpacks, too.)

Abortions scar a woman for life, both figuratively and literally.(Psychologically,
possible...Physically, with the RU-486 pill not so bad. Of course, how
would you and I know? We're not empathic beings.)

The pushers of "choice" do not want the woman to know about the
downside of her "choice". They do not want women to be educated on the
procedures, or the other options. Most women regret their "choice" for
the rest of their life.
(Proof?Please no anecdotes...)

But back to you're idiotic privacy issue. Do you really think an
underage kid, say 13 or 14 should be able to go to a doctor and have
such a traumatic, life altering procedure done by herself?
(YES, at least they should be able to go with a person who respects them for the decision they will make for themselves.) Heck, a kid
can't even go by themselves to the doctor for a cold!
(But, it's ok for them to have unprotected sex since you educated them on "how to"?)

And if a woman is married, and gets pregnant don't you think the
husband has some rights?
(No, none, zero...how many times has a husband killed his wife & baby because he couldn't except the fact she was pregnant? You can bet your butt if she has the kid,
married or not, the daddy is gonna be responsible, so why are you libs
afraid of letting the man know up front?
(Just supporting her right to privacy.)


You pro death liberals make me sick!
(Right back at you!)

Syrius

 

"It's a woman's choice, and a man's responsibility."

 

I know the silliest thing

I know the silliest thing one can do is argue with a fool, but here goes.

An underage girl is just that, underage. In most states you can't get a tattoo or a piercing until you reach the age of consent. You can't enter into a legal agreement. And again, a doctor won't treat you for a cold without a parents permission. And yet, you have no problem with a girl as young as 13 waltzing into a doctor all by herself and making a life altering decision all by herself? That is simply insane.

To put it differently, the kid can't even legally buy cigarettes to smoke after having sex, but it's OK to have an abortion performed by a group, Planned Parenthood, that won't even allow her to be presented with other options, or fully explain the ramifications of the ones they offer? Im mean at the grand old age of 13 she has plenty of life experiences to make such a lofty decision doesn't she. With all of the worldly experience she might have gained, shouldn't she be able to hear ALL of the options, hmmm?

And you just try being a kid in school and get caught with an aspirin in you're backpack. You'd have an easier time if they caught you with a nuclear device, you liberal loon!

I'm not even going there with RU-486, because while that might be an option for an adult, whose lifestyle is such she engages in meaningless sex, most 13 year olds might not even realize they are pregnant until well past the time it is effective. And there is plenty of data out there that says that it may indeed cause problems in later life.

And oh yeah, by ALL means lets hope someone accompanies the 13 year old girl who respects her well informed worldly wise opinions. Because we know at 13 we have learned everything we will ever learn! Wow, are you a moron.

No, it's not OK for a 13 year old to have unprotected sex. It's not OK for a 13 year old to be having sex at all. Granted, I'm not that naive, but I also don't think abortion should be the preferred birth control method for 13 year olds!

So just because an extremely small percentage of men, since the beginning of all time have chosen to kill a woman rather than deal with an unwanted pregnancy, men get no say at all in pregnancy. Do I have that right? Man, could I run laps with that one. How about women who trick men into THINKING they are pregnant, so they will marry them? I bet the percentages are higher of that than the "murdered woman and baby" scenario!

There is no such thing as a right to privacy in the Constitution. That was one of those "found" rights. Here's the thing, a parent has a right to know what their kid is up to. Would you defend a kid's "right to privacy" if say mom was putting their socks away, and found a baggy of dope in the drawer? Or a bottle of booze. If you do, you're an idiot, and if you don't, your "right to privacy" argument just fell through!

As for a married woman, if she gets pregnant, and doesn't tell her husband she had an abortion, that is totally unfair to the man. It would be grounds for divorce, but of course, you'd probably say this say woman was deserving of all sorts of spousal support.

A single woman can do whatever she wants, but until the day comes a single man is not held responsible for an unwanted baby, I don't want to hear it's none of his business!

 

Well said Gary, and just to

Well said Gary, and just to pile on, Taking a child, a minor, without the consent of their parents for an abortion is a violation of parent's rights, you know that one covered under the 9th Amendment.  Just because it isn't listed doesn't mean the founding fathers at the time didn't consider it a right.  In fact, just like gun ownership, parental rights were sacrosanct at the time.  If you were to have told the founding fathers that the government or any person other than a child's parents took a child for a medical procedure without their knowledge or consent in the absence of a life threatening emergency you would have been not simply laughed at, you probably would have been branded a kidnapper and hung.   The Constitution was written under a certain set of assumptions that were taken as an obvious given.  Any change in the underlying assumptions were to be addressed by the legislature, the people's representatives, to update the laws given the approval of the people's common values.  John Locke spoke of this in his Treatise of Government. Abortion as a right was never considered an assumed right by the founding fathers, no writing of the period ever reflected this idea.  Hence any change in "rights" requires the legislature to make that change, not the Courts.  What the SCOTUS did in Roe v Wade was inherently wrong, it had no right to legislate a right or behavior where one did not exist before and in fact was denounced by society at large. They strained gnats (privacy) to swallow camels (life of the child). What ever happened to Stare decisis? Apparently it only applies when liberals want to engage in social engineering. 

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

Hmmmm...to answer...

dscott,

I agree with a parent's right to know. Once, a child has become pregnant she can no longer be considered just a child but also a future mother to the child she is about to have. It is imperative that she decide or least be part of the decision to have the child or not have the child. If the parents are firm anti-abortionists & only filter to her what they want her to know, how is that an informed opinion? What if the child decides to have an abortion against her parents' wishes, who would she be able to turn to for support? Planned Parenthood presents both sides at all times. At least the child would have a choice.

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Once, a child has become

Once, a child has become pregnant she can no longer be considered just a child but also a future mother to the child she is about to have.

That's the crux of the issue isn't?  Does a child cease to be a child upon becoming pregnant or siring a child?  The fact that a person is a child, i.e. a minor, a person under the age of 18 as determined by our society, a child by definition can not make informed choices - adult choices, they require their parent's to make those choices.  Any attempt by the State is inject their authority to supplant the natural law, i.e. the recognised rights of the individual protected by the Ninth Amendment, not ceeded to the government is a usurptation of liberty.  Just because you have the power to force yourself into someone else's business doesn't mean you have the right to do so. 

Furthermore, the fact that a person, who is a child, made poor choices in the first place to get engage in sex and then becomes pregnant demonstrates a disregard for the consequences which is a juvenile act not an adult act.  Engaging in juvenile behavior and then experiencing the consequences does not make one an adult. This is no different than a child commiting a crime of theft or murder, the child is not treated like an adult because they did an "adult" like behavior.  They are dealt with in the juvenile court in a setting that is appropriate to their age.  The only exception to this is if the minor is 16 or older, if the court determines that are of sufficient mental capacity to appreciate the consequences. The legal term I believe is mens rea, the child does not have the mental capacity to appreciate the consequences of their actions.  That's why children need the protection and guidance of their parents.  They (parents) assumed responsibility for the child at conception by the act of consumation. 

the parents are firm anti-abortionists & only filter to her what they want her to know, how is that an informed opinion?

Irrelevant. Anyone other than the parents making or influencing such decisions for the child's welfare is usurptation and a violation of the Ninth Amendment. The rights of parenthood is natural law and predates government. No one has the right to judge the parental fitness of a person based on some political agenda, and abortion is a political agenda - feminism.  Not even the courts have a right to interfere in parental rights unless the parents have previously acted to harm the child, thus nullifying their rights.  In order to nullify a right, there must be due process, 14th Amendment, i.e. a court hearing must occur based on probable cause. 

You can not willynilly snatch a child from their parents and then do what you think is best.  Anyone who thinks they can is playing with fire.  The Rule of Law is predicated on the consistent application of the Law to everyone without prejudice as supported by the people.  If the people cease supporting the Law as administered by the Courts, you have a break down in the Rule of Law and then anarchy and revolution.  I can tell you one thing, if anyone ever did that to my child, they would be dead or living in fear of the day I deal out justice.  No army on earth or fortified walls could protect the person from me who did such a thing to my child.  Sooner or later I would get them, even if it took years.  Do you understand what I mean about playing with fire?

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

I understand...

dscott,

You might want to review the following as a clarification...

http://www.medscape....

&

http://www.aclu.org/...

I hope you never have to face this situation. If you do, I hope you make the right choice.

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

It is interesting that the

It is interesting that the ACLU is fighting parental rights using their euphemisms as usual as though they were protecting children or in this case the school system when they meddle in the family where they have no business.  As I said before: Any attempt by the State is inject their authority to supplant the natural law, i.e. the recognised rights of the individual protected by the Ninth Amendment, not ceeded to the government is a usurptation of liberty.  Just because you have the power to force yourself into someone else's business doesn't mean you have the right to do so. 

What the group, Of the People are seeking do is undo the usurptation of the school systems in interfering with parental rights.  It's a shame it has come to this, but know-it-all, meddling, do-gooders cause more harm than good.  The old saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Unfortunately, it's going to take a needless law to undo the unlawful acts of judges and school systems who arrogantly decided that they not the parents know what's best for the child.  This demonstrates what the anti-federalists feared most, when the assumptions are not specifically written down, it is easy for some fool judge to say because it's not there the government is free to fill the vacuum.  It is the habit of judges and lawyers to strain gnats in order to swallow camels in their quest to push the boundaries of the Law to satisfy some agenda. http://www.constitution.org/afp.htm Which goes to the core of the issue, government is not here to micromanage the lives of people, it's there to facilitate the orderly functioning of society and deal with those who trangress the values of that society.   The Law is the reflection of society's values, if it were not, we would be under a tyranny.  Any judge or public official that is not accountable to the people over whom he/she exercises power is a tyrant by definition.

You might find this reference site very useful: http://www.constitution.org/liberlib.htm 

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

The truth is...


I know the silliest thing one can do is argue with a fool, but here goes.
(I agree, but, here it goes...)


An underage girl is just that, underage. In most states you can't get a
tattoo or a piercing until you reach the age of consent. You can't
enter into a legal agreement. And again, a doctor won't treat you for a
cold without a parents permission. And yet, you have no problem with a
girl as young as 13 waltzing into a doctor all by herself and making a
life altering decision all by herself? That is simply insane.
(Why didn't she listen to her parents about abstinence?)

To put it differently, the kid can't even legally buy cigarettes to
smoke after having sex, but it's OK to have an abortion performed by a
group
(I believe it's a doctor that performs the procedure), Planned Parenthood, that won't even allow her to be presented
with other options, or fully explain the ramifications of the ones they
offer?
(Proof?) Im mean at the grand old age of 13 she has plenty of life
experiences to make such a lofty decision doesn't she.
(She probably learned most of what she knows from her parents.) With all of the
worldly experience she might have gained, shouldn't she be able to hear
ALL of the options, hmmm?
(Sure, I don't have a problem with that as long as you're ok with her final decision in the end.)

And you just try being a kid in school and get caught with an
aspirin in you're backpack. You'd have an easier time if they caught
you with a nuclear device, you liberal loon!
(Stop with the name calling, you self-righteous buffoon...sarc.)


I'm not even going there with RU-486
(too tough for you?), because
while that might be an option for an adult, whose lifestyle is such she
engages in meaningless sex
(Mmmm...meaningless sex, you should try it sometimes but not alone), most 13 year olds might not even realize
they are pregnant until well past the time it is effective.
(MOST 13 year olds are having sex? Maybe, immaculate conception might be in the works?) And there
is plenty of data out there that says that it may indeed cause problems
in later life.
(Proof? Please cite an unbiased Medical Study other than a biased right wing, pro-life study.)

And oh yeah, by ALL means lets hope someone accompanies the 13 year
old girl who respects her well informed worldly wise opinions.
(It should be obvious to you, she doesn't respect authority.) Because
we know at 13 we have learned everything we will ever learn!
(That fact has been proven by ALL of your statements...) Wow, are
you a moron.
(Name calling again...)

No, it's not OK for a 13 year old to have unprotected sex. It's not
OK for a 13 year old to be having sex at all. Granted, I'm not that
naive, but I also don't think abortion should be the preferred birth
control method for 13 year olds!
(I absolutely agree for the first time in your long winded diatribe!)

So just because an extremely small percentage of men, since the
beginning of all time have chosen to kill a woman rather than deal with
an unwanted pregnancy
(So, you do agree with me.), men get no say at all in pregnancy.(Correct.) Do I have
that right?
(NO.) Man, could I run laps with that one(I think you're a little winded at the moment.) How about women who
trick men into THINKING they are pregnant, so they will marry them?
(I'm sorry that happen to you.) I
bet the percentages are higher of that than the "murdered woman and
baby" scenario!
(Relevance?)

There is no such thing as a right to privacy in the Constitution.
That was one of those "found" rights. Here's the thing, a parent has a
right to know what their kid is up to. Would you defend a kid's "right
to privacy" if say mom was putting their socks away, and found a baggy
of dope in the drawer? Or a bottle of booze. If you do, you're an
idiot, and if you don't, your "right to privacy" argument just fell
through!
(Name calling diminishes your argument, you self-righteous buffoon. sarcasm, lots of sarcasm)

As for a married woman, if she gets pregnant, and doesn't tell her
husband she had an abortion, that is totally unfair to the man.
(Some women do get 'raped' by their husbands. You do know that, correct?) It
would be grounds for divorce, but of course, you'd probably say this
say woman was deserving of all sorts of spousal support.
(Your own personal experience? Bitter?)

A single woman can do whatever she wants, but until the day comes a
single man is not held responsible for an unwanted baby, I don't want
to hear it's none of his business!
(As I have said before- It's a woman's choice, a man's responsibility. A man is allowed to fight in court against supporting a child if he feels he was trapped in the pregnancy. He has no right in forcing her to have an abortion to avoid the pregnancy.)

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Syrius

Do you REALLY want to be the one who equates a sperm with an unborn child?. That just goes to the mentality of your side on this. You just don't want to be told you can't do anything you want without consequences. I wish just once, someone on the liberal side would man up and admit the truth.

Btw, most posters here don't condone the expulsion of sperm the way you are suggesting, so that is a moot point as well.

Without it, you got a clone or Jesus.

RestUp,

Without sperm, you got a clone or Jesus. You do believe in Jesus, don't you?

I'll
'MAN UP'!!! You better start believing buddy. I'm admitting the
truth- God came to the Virgin Mary and, well, the rest is history...

 

Btw, most posters here don't condone the expulsion of sperm the way you are suggesting, so that is a moot point as well.(You are the one makin' the point moot.)

Syrius

"It's a woman's choice, and a man's responsibility."

 

Huh???

Now you are talking in circles. Go hit the meds, FAST!!!!

Did you actually listen...?

Did you actually listen...? Oh, I get it you did a rewrite..lol.
January 22, 2008 - 13:50 ET by Syrius


Karma,


It is a privacy issue for woman, which can be related to how wide
of a stance you have in a bathroom stall & the type of illicit
activity you wish to engage in with others. So, how many sperm do you
kill in one of those encounters? Don't answer I'm impinging upon your
right to privacy. Every sperm is
scared!


Syrius

 

Are you telling us sperm is capable of emotion? If so, you may want to wipe that grin off your chin.

http://www.abort73.com/

→ Big trouble

War funding and credit card debt.

Sure there is plenty of reason to say "I'm setting pretty", but which kind of trouble are we talking about?

I ♣ My Seal

IMO this is not gloom and

IMO this is not gloom and doom from the msm this is very scary. 400 points down a few minutes into trading. Another interest rate cut from the feds will lower the dollars value, making oil even more expensive.

How does Romney stop the applause?

Romney shows his compassion

→ House of cards, Shawn.

There's going to be a humongous credit card default.  Lots of people are going to be very angry when they realize their plastic rates have been jacked up to 30%

It's happening already to people barely making their mortgage payments.

Established consumers will do OK.  My home is paid for.  My job is somewhat insulated from a catastrophic crash, and my 401k hit will be significant but not crushing.  I can actually benefit from this situation.  But I realize I'm the exception rather than the rule.

Lots of people are living for the next paycheck and too many forces are exerted on them.

I ♣ My Seal

cool arrow

God help us CA :-( Many folks on this site say that the msm is all doom and gloom and want to point out record setting #s on the dow and great economy. I hope I am proven wrong on this one, but I believe we are headed into a recession.

I love tax cuts as much as the next person, but does this make sense in the time of war? Or our Presidents plan. How doe 800 per person stimulate the economy? That can barely buy a decent LCD player.

How does Romney stop the applause?

Romney shows his compassion

→ Tax cuts

Tax cuts are actually the best hedge against a recession.  Booming economy with low taxes beats depressed economy with high taxes every time.

This rebate nonsense is a shot of B12.  You'll feel good all day, but you really need to exercise and lose weight.

I ♣ My Seal

Tax cuts can never hedge

Tax cuts can never hedge resession. Hedging is taking an offsetting position where you lose X on one side but gain Y on the other side with X and Y being roughly equal.

Tax cuts make the total cost of goods cheaper and hence lower the risk of engaging in a new enterprise. Optimally, engaging or non-engaging in a new enterprise is only determined by how risk-free rate of return stacks up against non-risk free rate of return.

 

→ Tax cuts

Tax cuts are actually the best hedge against a recession.  Booming economy with low taxes beats depressed economy with high taxes every time.

This rebate nonsense is a shot of B12.  You'll feel good all day, but you really need to exercise and lose weight.

I ♣ My Seal

cool arrow

"
This rebate nonsense is a shot of B12. You'll feel good all day, but you really need to exercise and lose weight."

100 percent agree CA. Hey you and I did not mention porn once, how bout that? lol. Have a good day.:-)

How does Romney stop the applause?

Romney shows his compassion

Shawn

Will wonders never cease?

I ♣ My Seal

Hey you and I did not

Hey you and I did not mention porn once...

Oops. You just did. 

*****

"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will 

It will help not only

It will help not only those who want a decent LCD player, but those who manufacture them as well.

For me, it's probably the difference between being able to take the tribe on a trip to