Republicans: do as I say, not as I do

Salanis wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: It should have never been judged by the Supreme Court in the first place. It's a States Rights issue that was preempted by the federal government unjustly.

Obviously I disagree. I see this as a personal rights issue. Saying the states should be the ones to decide is a way for a simple majority to enforce its will over the populace, just on a smaller scale.

Under the current state of the law, y'all are both right (or wrong) depending on your perspective. This is a bit of an over simplification, but in 1992, the S.Ct. ruled in Casey v. Planned Parenthood that pre-fetal viability the state has no compelling interest in restricting a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. Post-viability, the state does have a compelling interest in protecting the life of the fetus and can craft regulations that are narrowly tailored to protect that interest. (For those of you who know a little bit of Constitutional law, this is pretty much typical strict scrutiny balancing.)

billy3esq wrote:

Salanis wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: It should have never been judged by the Supreme Court in the first place. It's a States Rights issue that was preempted by the federal government unjustly.

Obviously I disagree. I see this as a personal rights issue. Saying the states should be the ones to decide is a way for a simple majority to enforce its will over the populace, just on a smaller scale.

Under the current state of the law, y'all are both right (or wrong) depending on your perspective. This is a bit of an over simplification, but in 1992, the S.Ct. ruled in Casey v. Planned Parenthood that pre-fetal viability the state has no compelling interest in restricting a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. Post-viability, the state does have a compelling interest in protecting the life of the fetus and can craft regulations that are narrowly tailored to protect that interest. (For those of you who know a little bit of Constitutional law, this is pretty much typical strict scrutiny balancing.)

The ruling bypassed trying to define when "life" begins. It's illegal to willfully/carelessly take another's life, but only after that "life" has reached a certain point.

Isn't that the crux of the whole debate?

Just when I thought Douche was my guy...???

Then Turd Sandwhich changs my mind!

Wake Up America.

Write in RON PAUL

McCain keeps saying he's gonna change stuff too, change being the operative buzzword this time around. Nobody seems to care what he changes or how as long as he changes stuff. Oh yeah he's gonna change 10x more stuff than Obama!

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/mccain-on-stem.html

Well okay, he's not changing that. But I'm sure McCain the Maverick plans to do some things differently from Bush...right?

Dr. Hess wrote: She sounds like a winner to me, Curtis. It's real easy to be supportive of wolves and bears when you're sitting in Florida or New Jersey. The people that have to live there may have other ideas.

curtis73 wrote: 9) She supports aerial hunting of wolves and bears even though Alaskans voted twice to ban the practice 10) She used $400,000 of state money to fund a media campaign in support of aerial hunting

Just an oversight I noticed while lurking.

FWIW if anybody has any questions on sex-ed teaching methods, I'm just barely over a year out of my school's program, I'd be happy to answer. In my case the curriculum was pretty much "abstinence is the ONLY 100% effective way to not have a pregnancy or an STD, if you feel like taking the risk here are your options and chances (condom use in conjunction with the birth control pill and having only one partner is recommended for sexually active teens), if you mess up and get an STD here's a bunch of horrifying pictures of what that'll look like." I don't see why it should be any other way; as noted, abstinence-only education makes the moral jump that sex is inherently wrong, which is a personal value. My education basically showed me the results of sexual activity and how to be smart about it without telling me whether or not to have sex.

OTOH, I remember roughly 1/4 the kids in my class simply not giving a E36 M3 about the material presented, but I'd say that was more a problem of improper parental teaching of 'responsibility' and 'foresight'. I'm 19 tomorrow and now a sophomore in college. You should see the 'pickup artist' trash I contend with daily in search of a legitimate monogamous relationship...

Just my $.02. I'm probably writing in Paul based on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygg2uWsKK6w

Happy birthday!

Your college health center probably also provides free HIV and other STI testing. Worth taking advantage of.

Also, I'd heard it said that when you donate blood they test for STIs (obviously), and that they inform you if they find any. Am I correct in understanding they have that obligation? Another benefit of regularly giving blood.

Don't consider yourself "contending" with pick-up idiots. If you're looking for a safe monogamous relationship, you're not in competition with those guys. They'll only catch the gals who aren't interested in the sort of relationship you are, or not bright enough for you to want to spend your time with.

Don't consider yourself "contending" with pick-up idiots.

As a little bit off-topic point, a link from what is close to the second largest car forum in Canada:

http://forums.780tuners.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81938

this one in particular, is personal responsibility.

Woa now. Don't you be going and talkin' this crazy talk now. Personal responsibility? That is sooooo last century.

Edit- took out last paragraph because I parroted that crazy talkin' person above me.

MGAMGB wrote:

SlickDizzy wrote: abstinence-only education makes the moral jump that sex is inherently wrong, which is a personal value.

I disagree. Abstinence can be taught for several reasons.

As has been pointed out: abstinence is being taught. The debate is over the values of abstinence-only sex-ed. The value of abstinence is still taught in classes that comprehensively cover other forms of birth control and how to use them effectively. The debate is whether or not those other forms should be taught as well.

And the Christian point of view, that you should abstain until married, is based almost exclusively on the presumption that pre-marital sex is wrong.

Salanis wrote: Also, I'd heard it said that when you donate blood they test for STIs (obviously), and that they inform you if they find any. Am I correct in understanding they have that obligation? Another benefit of regularly giving blood.

Subaru must be livid.

Donating blood to get a "free" communicable disease test is one of the most irresponsible things ever to come out of Salanis. Doing so risks massive contamination to our blood supply. In fact, they won't take blood from people that show up and say they really want the "free" disease tests, or those who have recently had a tattoo, body piercing, IV drug users or "gays." Guess what? If Salanis has HIV from one of the 100 times he has banged his girlfriend or sharing needles with her and he just aquired it a few days ago, his blood stream is full of the little virus particles and infectious. He goes to donate blood to get his "free" test and that can slip through, because the test doesn't look for virus particles, but antibodies to the virus particles, and that takes time for the body to make. Oh well, Salanis just killed 20 people. Hope you enjoyed your "free" test.

The latest testing finds HIV earlier than previously available, but there is still a period where the blood is infectious but not detectable. That's why the blood banks won't accept blood from high risk donors.

If you are someone who gives blood more often than you change partners, get tattoos, or use IV drugs, it can certainly give you confirmation that you haven't picked anything up.

OOOPS, you just killed 2 more.

Dr. Hess wrote: OOOPS, you just killed 2 more.

Cool.

Don't fell too bad, the people who get my blood will probably have massive heart attacks

The people who get mine will never have to drink beer again. They just need to be careful with open flames if they scratch themselves.

Doc is right on the money about HIV infected donated blood, it's already happened more than once. The blood banks are having to be very careful about who they stick.

Jensenman wrote: The people who get mine will never have to drink beer again. They just need to be careful with open flames if they scratch themselves. Doc is right on the money about HIV infected donated blood, it's already happened more than once. The blood banks are having to be very careful about who they stick.

If more people were careful who they stick we wouldn't have that problem

But wait, Salanis has banged his girlfriend 100 times without catching a STD!!! He is obviously an expert on these things.

I've drained the entire Texas blood bank and started in on Louisiana's treating patients. Down to "If we don't find some more blood somewhere in the next 12 hours, he's going to die." You go through a lot of blood products when a refinery/chemical plant blows up. It is irresponsible (to say the least) to risk contanimating that blood supply, putting my patients' and your friends' and relatives' lives at risk just to get "confirmation that you haven't picked anything up."

Wally wrote: Don't fell too bad, the people who get my blood will probably have massive heart attacks

I'm just disappointed that my hypothetical blood was only able to kill 22 hypothetical people. I'd figured I could rile Hess enough to at least break into triple digits!

Edit: Hehehe... I just got this horrible image of a bunch of HIV infected terrorists giving blood. A dozen of them walking into a blood bank with robes, turbans, and Osama-beards. Then sitting down with serious expressions and darting eyes while they spin the little stress-ball thingy. And finally congregated in a tight circle eyeing everyone while they drink little juice boxes and nibble chocolate chip cookies before slinking outside, where a panel van screeches to a halt and speeds off as soon as they all jump inside.

MGAMGB wrote: That's why I don't trust the banks anymore. I've withdrawn all my blood and now keep it in Mason jars in my safe at home.

Har har har! Ye be given me even more horrible images to put in me scurvy addled brain today!

Imagine, if ye will, a run on the blood banks with people stashin' they're bloody booty in old mattresses.

Or a blood (stock) market where ye have gentlemen in scrubs and surgical masks, wearing blazers rushing around frantically shouting at each other and waving around bags of plasma.

"I'll trade ye three-thousand B-negative futures!"

Yes you ARE saying sex out of wedlock is wrong if you are only teaching abstinence. What SlickDizzy is saying is that abstinence IS being taught and given the proper perspective that it is the best way to do things given the consequences. What is also being taught is how to possibly avoid the consequences if you decide to still take the risk and have sex.

The fact is people want to have sex, no matter if you're 10 or 110. If people are not taught ways of reducing the unwanted risks then the unwanted things happen more often. You cannot teach people abstinence only and expect that to work for 100% of the people. The fact is abstinence IS being taught and presented as the BEST POSSIBLE OPTION. The christian conservative's want people to believe abstinence is not being taught at all and sex ed consists of hardcore porn videos.

Its funny how this FAIR AND BALANCED approach of teaching both options and their consequences or lack thereof does not seem to fit with these peoples morals. And that brings us right back to the do as I say not as I do topic!