Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

Parking Lot


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-03-2009, 10:14 PM   #91
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 48
Posts: 13,186
Re: republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
It's a perfect response requiring little explanation. Why waste time seeing how you think depression is always treatable via non-abortion means? Abortion can be the treatment, this is obvious to me.
I have a family member, who had an abortion. Her depression and life took huge backwards regressions, as she realized the nature of what she had done. Now mind you, this was an early term abortion, legal at the time(mid 70s) and not life threatening to her. Now, from her experience alone, not stats/facts/morals/logic/etc, I offer one point for you to consider. When a depressed person realizes that a late term abortion actually killed a viable baby life, do you not think it is possible, maybe likely, that a More severe depression may take hold of her?

For me, this does not seem like a solution to providing stable mental health. If the mother is traumatized, then bring the child into life, and let her seek treatment and try to heal her mental, and emotional traumas through other methods.
CRedskinsRule is online now   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 06-03-2009, 10:35 PM   #92
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 27
Posts: 15,994
Re: republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Natural law indeed...let's just cut to the chase people and say you oppose late term abortion under any and all circumstances and we call it a wrap.

p.s. Best believe my wife comes first...always...every day and all day.
Because it's simply never that clear cut. However, I think law should better reflect the reality of the situation, that the closer and closer a woman gets to 9 months, her legal options become progressively more limited.

I'm okay with law reflecting a pro-choice perspective, but I also think that you can have implicit choice situations, and pretty much any situation where the fetus could be considered "near birth" needs to inherit a whole new set of rights. No doubt the situation can be complicated by any number of effects as you have pointed out. But law should not be all that liberal on late-term abortions. It should be much clearer on what constitutes an exception.

I have no problem with you suggesting an abortion might treat the issue, and my answer would just be that it shouldn't be legal treatment. I'm okay with most stem-cell treatments, abortions, not so much.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 11:01 PM   #93
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
I have a family member, who had an abortion. Her depression and life took huge backwards regressions, as she realized the nature of what she had done. Now mind you, this was an early term abortion, legal at the time(mid 70s) and not life threatening to her. Now, from her experience alone, not stats/facts/morals/logic/etc, I offer one point for you to consider. When a depressed person realizes that a late term abortion actually killed a viable baby life, do you not think it is possible, maybe likely, that a More severe depression may take hold of her?

For me, this does not seem like a solution to providing stable mental health. If the mother is traumatized, then bring the child into life, and let her seek treatment and try to heal her mental, and emotional traumas through other methods.
I have always understood the fact that abortion can be mentally traumatic event after the fact and I equally understand that the opposite can be true. That is to say in certain cases it can also be mentally traumatic to continue with a pregnancy. One can not deny one possibility and affirm the other.

I feel bad for your aunt but the fact that she might suffer from sever depression after an abortion should not preclude her from having the choice. I doubt people were as informed back then but now we know a lot more and people can make a conscious decision as to whether they want to take the risk or not. If I am not mistaken "the state can not foolproof people from themselves" is a time tested conservative mantra.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 11:39 PM   #94
Playmaker
 
70Chip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manassas
Age: 44
Posts: 3,048
Re: republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

Assuming that the women has an authentic medical condition that would mean that having an abortion may save her life, the moral dilemma is still vexatious. The reason that there are only a few doctors who perform late term abortions is that apparently you actually have to be an excellent surgeon to do them. Early abortions are quite simple and many states do not even require practitioners to be licensed physicians. Late term procedures are dangerous to the women because a sloppy procedure can leave bone fragments that can damage the uterus (and other parts I guess) and the head of the fetus is usually too large to be removed through the birth canal intact. You have to know what you are doing. This is not the simple extraction of a doughy lump of cells. This is something else and this is why its troublesome. While a doctor performing one of these procedures may be able to say that he has saved the mother's life, he (or she) must also wrestle with the the fact that in order to effectively do so, he has to quite skillfully destroy another.

Furthermore, these procedures are quite expensive. I would worry that the lucrative nature of a practice like George Tiller's would cause an unscrupulous practitioner to treat perfectly healthy women. We all remember the cases of these girls who drop a baby in the bathroom at the prom. In other words, there are mothers who are the picture of health who hit month 6 and suddenly decide "Oh. I need to do something about this". Such a situation may be painful for the women and perhaps the child is doomed to an unhappy life (or maybe not), but one has to weigh that fact against those bone shards and the crushed skull I mentioned above. It seems like we are relying on the people making the money to decide if these women are really in danger and that worrys me.
__________________
This Monkey's Gone to Heaven
70Chip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 12:15 AM   #95
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip View Post
Assuming that the women has an authentic medical condition that would mean that having an abortion may save her life, the moral dilemma is still vexatious. The reason that there are only a few doctors who perform late term abortions is that apparently you actually have to be an excellent surgeon to do them. Early abortions are quite simple and many states do not even require practitioners to be licensed physicians. Late term procedures are dangerous to the women because a sloppy procedure can leave bone fragments that can damage the uterus (and other parts I guess) and the head of the fetus is usually too large to be removed through the birth canal intact. You have to know what you are doing. This is not the simple extraction of a doughy lump of cells. This is something else and this is why its troublesome. While a doctor performing one of these procedures may be able to say that he has saved the mother's life, he (or she) must also wrestle with the the fact that in order to effectively do so, he has to quite skillfully destroy another.

Furthermore, these procedures are quite expensive. I would worry that the lucrative nature of a practice like George Tiller's would cause an unscrupulous practitioner to treat perfectly healthy women. We all remember the cases of these girls who drop a baby in the bathroom at the prom. In other words, there are mothers who are the picture of health who hit month 6 and suddenly decide "Oh. I need to do something about this". Such a situation may be painful for the women and perhaps the child is doomed to an unhappy life (or maybe not), but one has to weigh that fact against those bone shards and the crushed skull I mentioned above. It seems like we are relying on the people making the money to decide if these women are really in danger and that worrys me.
If there a few practitioners who must be very skilled, are constantly under threat that they must wear bullet proof vests, and aren't even safe in god's house the money is bound to be good. The question is are they doing it for the money and is it worth it?
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 02:44 PM   #96
Playmaker
 
724Skinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 3,508
Re: republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
Yea, it takes alot of skill to suck the brains out of a 6 month old fetus an if it was that hard how did the peopl back in the days do them in a dark alley. I heard last night this guy has performed over 64,000 abortions. Not sure how you can have any heart or feelings with those kind of numbers and if you look at the guy he looks like one of those guys you see on the post office wall wanted for some creepy crime.
Good lord! He's like the anti-Wilt Chamberlain.
__________________
"I hope I'm getting better. I hope you haven't seen my best." - Jim Zorn
724Skinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 05:57 PM   #97
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 41
Posts: 5,303
Re: republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
Yea, it takes alot of skill to suck the brains out of a 6 month old fetus an if it was that hard how did the peopl back in the days do them in a dark alley. I heard last night this guy has performed over 64,000 abortions. Not sure how you can have any heart or feelings with those kind of numbers and if you look at the guy he looks like one of those guys you see on the post office wall wanted for some creepy crime.
If you're one of only a few doctors in the country who performs these types of abortions, then the numbers will naturally be high.

When it comes to late term abortions, I think we have ask what the alternative is, and what type of world we'd like to live in. If we're talking about the saving the life of the mother, then horrific as these procedures are, there doesn't seem to be much of a choice. It's a tragedy any way you look at it. But I'd rather live in a country where the individual and her doctor are able to make this decision rather that some bearucrat in Washington D.C. or a state official dictating those decisions for us.

Last edited by Beemnseven; 06-06-2009 at 07:11 AM.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2009, 04:56 PM   #98
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 53
Posts: 10,525
Re: republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

At first, it seemed like a joke. Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto opined on Monday that -- if the 2012 election were to turn to national security -- "it's hard to think of a better candidate... than Richard B. Cheney."

But while his headline -- "Cheney for President" -- provoked guffaws in some quarters, several of the party's most well-regarded strategists and pollsters are actually taking the idea deadly seriously.
anyone down for this?
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2009, 04:58 PM   #99
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 48
Posts: 13,186
Re: republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

Sadly, my first expectation for reading this was that someone had caught another Republican in some base scandal. The expectation of what that might have been forced me to open and read. Very disappointing post.
CRedskinsRule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2009, 06:41 PM   #100
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,458
Re: republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25 View Post
At first, it seemed like a joke. Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto opined on Monday that -- if the 2012 election were to turn to national security -- "it's hard to think of a better candidate... than Richard B. Cheney."

But while his headline -- "Cheney for President" -- provoked guffaws in some quarters, several of the party's most well-regarded strategists and pollsters are actually taking the idea deadly seriously.
anyone down for this?
I saw him on TV today (you know, me being at home all day) and his basic premise, which is a huge assumption, is if we have another 9/11 during Obama's presidency. Based on that assumption, Taranto thinks Dick Cheney would be the most credible and strongest voice in the Republican party regarding national security. And that somehow Republicans would flock to Cheney lock and step based on that one policy position alone.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Cheney would have folks ear if something on that scale took place on American soil again, but the majority of Americans just couldn't swallow another four years of Dick Cheney. Not even the most loyal Republican feel that way.

National security gravitas aside, I don't think Cheney has the physical stamina to run a national campaign for two years. But then again I didn't think John McCain could endure such a grueling schedule either.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.29939 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25