Glad I got that right--my gender has been called into question a number of times here!

By me no less!  Way back when????

Ok, so the whole "Supreme Court Nominee Hearing" process is, a bunch of Senators get together with the nominee and ask him or her questions that they know the nominee won't answer in an apparent attempt to disqualify the nominee by answering the questions that they ask?

If the nominee actually answers a question, then that casts doubts on the nominee's ability to judge fairly, but the fact the question is asked of the nominee in the first place is fair game, but only to the people who didn't want the nominee confirmed in the first place?

So I guess the best thing for the nominee to do is exactly what Judge Roberts is doing, which makes those who want to see him confirmed in the first place happy... even though both sides know he's going to be confirmed... even the Senators asking the questions they know he won't answer...

Ok, it's all so clear to me now. ;~D

Baker, can you prove to me that it is an unborn child, and not a mass of cells? If I take it out of its environment will it not just die? Was it even alive in the first place?

Next question. Can you prove the reverse? That is, that it's a mass of cells and not an unborn child?
If you take it out environment will it not just die? Not necessarily. Depends on how it's removed and at what point in it's gestation it's in.
Was it even alive in the first place? That goes right back to my question to you. Can you prove it's not alive?

Okay shades, I'll give you this one. But in turn answer a question for me. How many insurance companies cover the cost of rubbers? That falls under my argument--birth control (of a variety of types) is not covered (for the most part), but viagra is. Seems like we've got some priorities messed up.

Having re-read it you're right it does. But you'll have to admit that viagra is not nor could it be any form of birth control. It's made to help a medical problem that a lot of men suffer from.

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Tuesday, September 13, 2005Ok, so the whole "Supreme Court Nominee Hearing" process is, a bunch of Senators get together with the nominee and ask him or her questions that they know the nominee won't answer in an apparent attempt to disqualify the nominee by answering the questions that they ask?If the nominee actually answers a question, then that casts doubts on the nominee's ability to judge fairly, but the fact the question is asked of the nominee in the first place is fair game, but only to the people who didn't want the nominee confirmed in the first place?So I guess the best thing for the nominee to do is exactly what Judge Roberts is doing, which makes those who want to see him confirmed in the first place happy... even though both sides know he's going to be confirmed... even the Senators asking the questions they know he won't answer...Ok, it's all so clear to me now. ;~D

also if they {the left} can get Roberts to commit to an answer, if a case comes up concerning that answer roberts must recuse himself.

Having re-read it you're right it does. But you'll have to admit that viagra is not nor could it be any form of birth control. It's made to help a medical problem that a lot of men suffer from.

Quiet the opposite of birth control actually--so we have perscription coverage for men to be able to have sex long after their bodies are capable of doing so, but we won't cover birth control. Seems a bit strange to me.

Dr. Guy--I'm not ignoring your question--but my answer is that I honestly don't know. I've thought about it a lot, and I see the reasoning on both sides. It's not a question that I can answer.

#107 by shadesofgrey Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Quiet the opposite of birth control actually--so we have perscription coverage for men to be able to have sex long after their bodies are capable of doing so, but we won't cover birth control. Seems a bit strange to me.

I find it sad that things that affect men are covered, while things that affect women are not. I did not cite examples because they are already cited.

I think it is hypocritical that some think "a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body" is the same as "a woman's right to choose what to do with an unborn child." As if the child is universally accepted as being some vestigial organ until it pops out.

Well said.

Baker, can you prove to me that it is an unborn child, and not a mass of cells? If I take it out of its environment will it not just die? Was it even alive in the first place?

If I take you out of your enviornment will you not just die? Are you alive in the first place?

Quiet the opposite of birth control actually--so we have perscription coverage for men to be able to have sex long after their bodies are capable of doing so, but we won't cover birth control. Seems a bit strange to me.

Not really. If you think about it. One is a medical problem, the other isn't. I think you can figure which is which.

Next question. Can you prove the reverse? That is, that it's a mass of cells and not an unborn child? If you take it out environment will it not just die? Not necessarily. Depends on how it's removed and at what point in it's gestation it's in. Was it even alive in the first place? That goes right back to my question to you. Can you prove it's not alive?

I wasn't looking to prove anything, and I definitely didn't have an answer when positing the question, but it seemed pertinent to the conversation. I go back and forth on the topic too much to take a position, but the question popped into my head while reading Bakerstreet's post. My only intent was to provoke thought. Oh, and it was already the reverse, since Baker had asked for proof in the direction you state. Hmmm, sounds like some dirty double crossing going on here.

If you take a look at Para's reply in #56, I think he does a pretty good job of answering.

We don't want the government in our bedrooms, in our living rooms, or even in our body cavities.

For a communist, someone whose ideals would seem to champion big government, you're talking a lot like a rightie, here.

112 by Rightwinger Thursday, September 15, 2005

We don't want the government in our bedrooms, in our living rooms, or even in our body cavities. For a communist, someone whose ideals would seem to champion big government, you're talking a lot like a rightie, here.

like all liberals it only matters when it is HIS rights being messed with.

would everyone at least agree there is SOMETHING IN A HUMAN BEING THAT SETS US APART FROM THE ANIMALS?

Yes MM, Human DNA, which also make a fetus human. To say anything else is simply rediculous and denies biological science completely.

Yes MM, Human DNA, which also make a fetus human. To say anything else is simply rediculous and denies biological science completely.

um I already know where you stand my friend. as you know where I stand and the issue of "soul" and I ain't talkin bout james brown either.

I'd like to see Myrrander living in a hard-line socialist country... all 15 minutes before he is shot. Not some half-assed socialist country like France, mind you, but some sweaty, mosquito-infested place Che Guevara would have been the hero in his fairy tale.

Isn't it heartwarming to see someone who would be jailed for insulting the President in his beloved Venezuela cry and moan about a nation where he is ALLOWED to insult the president?

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Friday, September 16, 2005I'd like to see Myrrander living in a hard-line socialist country... all 15 minutes before he is shot. Not some half-assed socialist country like France, mind you, but some sweaty, mosquito-infested place Che Guevara would have been the hero in his fairy tale. Isn't it heartwarming to see someone who would be jailed for insulting the President in his beloved Venezuela cry and moan about a nation where he is ALLOWED to insult the president?

myrr would last about 2 seconds in an hardline commie state, could you see him shooting his mouth off about the president of N.korea? hahahahahaha

"could you see him shooting his mouth off about the president of N.korea? hahahahahaha"

Hmm, I'm trying to imagine hearing Myrrander use the words "Beloved Leader". I'm just not able to get my head around it, oddly enough...

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Friday, September 16, 2005"could you see him shooting his mouth off about the president of N.korea? hahahahahaha"Hmm, I'm trying to imagine hearing Myrrander use the words "Beloved Leader". I'm just not able to get my head around it, oddly enough...

hahahahahahahaha and remember they kill duggies there too.

Dr. Guy--I'm not ignoring your question--but my answer is that I honestly don't know. I've thought about it a lot, and I see the reasoning on both sides. It's not a question that I can answer.

Thank you for an honest answer.  I hope you find your answer, as I think you do realize the implications it can have.