This is gonna be a great debate!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Hmmmm, did he have help? Looks like being wired?

Hmmmm, yes I think he had help. It makes perfect sense to me that the President would wear a giant reciever (circa 1974) strapped to his back during the debates. They strapped it to his back because the cord wasn't long enough to reach down to his belt where most people wear those sorts of things -- must not have been a Radio Shack open in Coral Gables that night.

On the other hand, as even the liberals here have pointed out, it just might have something to do with his body armour. Maybe but still, I like the reciever idea better.

. . =(_8^(1)

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

My point is that PhreeZone had answered my question perfectly well,

But you asked the question of me, not PhreeZ, so I am perfectly justified in replying.

"If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"
Harry S. Truman

Applies nicely to Speakers Corner.

Oh, I don't mind for myself. I really could care less. I just find it interesting that someone who has been so quick to yell "P.A." to the moderators in the past would resort to a two word response that was just that and, in addition, completely unnecessary.

It reminds me a little of the two campaigns, how they scream and yell about soft money and negative campaigning on the part of the other guy, yet each wants to reserve the right to exercise them both.

Wayne

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

It reminds me a little of the two campaigns, how they scream and yell about soft money and negative campaigning on the part of the other guy, yet each wants to reserve the right to exercise them both.

Seems to me that it is Kerry that is whining so much, while he is quite happy to take part in so much negative campaigning.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[quade 4]

Quote

Seems to me that it is Kerry that is whining so much, while he is quite happy to take part in so much negative campaigning.

Oh puleezze! Are you suggesting that negative campaigning is NOT being done by the Republicans?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhino 0]

Quote

It's not the act of killing the person that is more expensive, it's the near endless appeals before the actual sentance is carried out.

Well.. I suppose from that angle you may be correct. But if you have someone on video tape killing someone then send them directly to THE CHAIR and do not collect 200$ when you pass go... Then it's cheaper.. lol

Rhino

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Oh puleezze! Are you suggesting that negative campaigning is NOT being done by the Republicans?

Not at all, just that the Dems complain about being victims as if they haven't been doing it since the primary season started.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

But if you have someone on video tape killing someone then send them directly to THE CHAIR and do not collect 200$ when you pass go... Then it's cheaper.

Not realistic, unfortunately.

The appeals are not so much based on the veridict of guilty or innocent, but on the punishment.

If the death penalty were not imposed, the appeals and court costs would go away.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

It's not the act of killing the person that is more expensive, it's the near endless appeals before the actual sentance is carried out.

Well.. I suppose from that angle you may be correct. But if you have someone on video tape killing someone then send them directly to THE CHAIR and do not collect 200$ when you pass go... Then it's cheaper.. lol

Rhino

Regardless of what might be, it remains a well documented fact (to anyone that pays attention) that the death penalty costs taxpayers a lot more than locking the perps up for life and throwing away the key.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

the death penalty costs taxpayers a lot more than locking the perps up for life and throwing away the key.

Completely, absolutely positively, 100% false. Try again.

Forty-two

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Completely, absolutely positively, 100% false. Try again.

Find us something to support your position, Tuna. I support the death penalty, but it is well known that death row inmates cost more than 'lifers'.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[quade 4]

Ah, that's the beauty of being Tuna . . . no proof required of anything. If he says it, it must be true (at least on Tuna's Planet).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

it remains a well documented fact (to anyone that pays attention) that the death penalty costs taxpayers a lot more than locking the perps up for life and throwing away the key.

Very true. I did a research paper on this very subject for my unversity speech class. Lifers cost less than those on Death Row.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Find us something to support your position, Tuna. I support the death penalty, but it is well known that death row inmates cost more than 'lifers'.

I doubt you get a response to this. When Tuna gets his ass handed to him, the consistent response is to drop the conversation.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

the death penalty costs taxpayers a lot more than locking the perps up for life and throwing away the key.

Completely, absolutely positively, 100% false. Try again.

OK

The death penalty costs taxpayers a lot more than locking the perps up for life and throwing away the key

Is that clearer?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dorbie 0]

These strawman arguments are very misleading. It's only expensive to execute the worst of our murderers because we execute so few and spend a fortune in years of appeals on the few we do execute, and we have statutes that prevent guilty pleas in capital cases forcing expensive trials, moreover I'm not altogether sure that these aren't worst case numbers including defense costs.

If the anti-death penalty crowd weren't so hellbent on frivilous defence of stone cold killers it would be a darned sight cheaper to dispatch them. We're not talking just about dodgy convictions here, it seems everyone is fair game for incessant appeals & attempts to call any method of execution outside of old age cruel and unusual.

Not that I'm a gung-ho pro death penalty advocate, but groups who tie the states up in legal knots for years then complain about the cost of the cases are contemtible. We can be pretty sure that if the death penalty were abolished the costs of fighting defense actions from the same cabal would probably be about the equivalent in other areas, in other words the activists would simply move on to other areas.

FYI - I'm not taking sides here, but this argument by anti-death penalty crowd has always struck me as the most ludicrous. If they really cared about the cost they's stop running up the bills.

[billvon 3,112]

>There is no medical reason whatsoever that would justify a procedure
>such as this and at this time in the pregnancy.

Increasing the odds that the other child will do well.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

These strawman arguments are very misleading. It's only expensive to execute the worst of our murderers because we execute so few and spend a fortune in years of appeals on the few we do execute, and we have statutes that prevent guilty pleas in capital cases forcing expensive trials, moreover I'm not altogether sure that these aren't worst case numbers including defense costs.

If the anti-death penalty crowd weren't so hellbent on frivilous defence of stone cold killers it would be a darned sight cheaper to dispatch them. We're not talking just about dodgy convictions here, it seems everyone is fair game for incessant appeals & attempts to call any method of execution outside of old age cruel and unusual.

Not that I'm a gung-ho pro death penalty advocate, but groups who tie the states up in legal knots for years then complain about the cost of the cases are contemtible. We can be pretty sure that if the death penalty were abolished the costs of fighting defense actions from the same cabal would probably be about the equivalent in other areas, in other words the activists would simply move on to other areas.

FYI - I'm not taking sides here, but this argument by anti-death penalty crowd has always struck me as the most ludicrous. If they really cared about the cost they's stop running up the bills.

Well, of course, all convictions are absolutely sure and just until they are overturned. Illinois didn't keep people on death row for 20+ years because the judge and jury were ambivalent about their guilt.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

There is no medical reason whatsoever that would justify a procedure such as this and at this time in the pregnancy.

Quote

Increasing the odds that the other child will do well.

Your statement is completely false. Your example might have some merit with earlier term pregnancy abortions, however, it is irrelevant with regards to "partial birth abortion" the ban of which John Kerry voted against. Partial birth abortion involves the abortion of the baby during the delivery process. The life of the mother, whatever her condition, is not put more at risk whether the baby being delivered is dead or alive. Neither is the risk of life put at additional risk for any additional fetuses. Whether you agree with abortion or not, this type of scenario should have been done at an earlier stage in the pregnancy. Again, there is no reason to abort a baby at this stage other than the personal selfish convenience reasons of the mother. My OB/GYN Physician wife approves this message.

Give me an example in the case of partial birth abortion where it would increase the survivability of a twin.

Again, John Kerry voted against the ban of this procedure. Very sad, disturbing, and disappointing IMO.

[billvon 3,112]

>Give me an example in the case of partial birth abortion where it would
>increase the survivability of a twin.

One twin has thanatophoric dysplasia, and will not survive more than a few minutes outside the womb. The second is normal, and the pregnancy has other risk factors. One option is selective reduction of the fetus that will not survive, to give the other fetus a better chance.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>Give me an example in the case of partial birth abortion where it would
>increase the survivability of a twin.

One twin has thanatophoric dysplasia, and will not survive more than a few minutes outside the womb. The second is normal, and the pregnancy has other risk factors. One option is selective reduction of the fetus that will not survive, to give the other fetus a better chance.

Selective reduction is not the same thing as a partial birth abortion. In a partial birth abortion, the baby is delivered completely except for the head. The skull is then punctured and the contents of the skull removed. In a twin gestation, this would put the second twin at HUGE risk from infection, abruption, preterm delivery, etc. The reason is that you would have to leave the placenta intact for that twin and thus even when you cut the cord at the cervix; there is still a route for infection. This would NEVER (or should NEVER) be used in the situation that you described.

AGAIN!!! Kerry's decision to oppose a ban on this brutal procedure is a glaring example IMO of his radical left leaning liberal stance, if he truly believes his bullshit, or he's just a no backbone, easily influenced, scared to piss off anyone in his party, puppet.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Your statement is completely false. Your example might have some merit with earlier term pregnancy abortions, however, it is irrelevant with regards to "partial birth abortion" the ban of which John Kerry voted against. Partial birth abortion involves the abortion of the baby during the delivery process. The life of the mother, whatever her condition, is not put more at risk whether the baby being delivered is dead or alive. Neither is the risk of life put at additional risk for any additional fetuses. Whether you agree with abortion or not, this type of scenario should have been done at an earlier stage in the pregnancy. Again, there is no reason to abort a baby at this stage other than the personal selfish convenience reasons of the mother. My OB/GYN Physician wife approves this message.

Give me an example in the case of partial birth abortion where it would increase the survivability of a twin.

How much I love to see/hear men talking about something they never will understand!

It just gives hope to know they never will know, that's the positive part.

Men should give up and only talk about cars and weapons (I mean in certain parts of the world).

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[PhillyKev 0]

Here are a few reasons they are necessary.

The fetus is dead.

Continued pregnancy could kill the mother. (heart problems, etc)

The fetus is malformed so badly that it would never gain consciousness and die immediately after birth.

I have one simple question which no one has ever answered that makes the claims you do. Ready...here it comes...

If as you state, there is no medical necessity to perform this procedure, then why not introduce a bill that would ban it EXCEPT in the case of medical necessity? If you do that, and as you claim, it is NEVER medically necesarry, than it will never be done. For some reason, though, pro-lifers oppose a bill that containst that stipulation. Why?

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

How much I love to see/hear men talking about something they never will understand!

What? Men can't understand the science and medicine behind a developing fetus and birth?

Quote

Men should give up and only talk about cars and weapons (I mean in certain parts of the world).

Sounds reasonable, especially if you're willing to stick to fashion, makeup, how you'll cook my dinner and clean my house. Deal?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

***How much I love to see/hear men talking about something they never will understand!

What? Men can't understand the science and medicine behind a developing fetus and birth?

Quote

Men should give up and only talk about cars and weapons (I mean in certain parts of the world).

Sounds reasonable, especially if you're willing to stick to fashion, makeup, how you'll cook my dinner and clean my house. Deal?


Deal?
1st question:
No. Men cannot. Mother nature put an end to it.
FYI: I lost my twins in 5th month, 4 weeks before my 40th birthday. Kidneys' breakdown. There never was a question: mother or babies? If mother dies, babies are dead. Simple like that. Who will decide? You?

Sorry to talk free like that. It's only for above reason, just for once in a while.

2nd:
"How you'll cook my dinner and clean the house."
We clean our house, or you can go back to mum which will clean her house for you.

Fashion, make-up: thats pretty OK. But not the centre of my life. I am not Barbie. That's not counting at all.

Men seem to overestimate that part.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Here are a few reasons they are necessary.
The fetus is dead.
Continued pregnancy could kill the mother. (heart problems, etc)
The fetus is malformed so badly that it would never gain consciousness and die immediately after birth.

These are reasons you’re giving why “partial birth abortion”, in particular, should remain legal? They are not valid.

In your first example, “The fetus is dead”, why would you need to perform a partial birth abortion? If the fetus is already dead, why would you need to then stab it in the back of the head and suck its brains out? To kill it again? The mother can deliver a dead baby just the same as a live one.

In your second example, “Continued pregnancy could kill the mother”, how is killing the fetus during delivery going to rectify that? They would have done something about it prior to the stage where partial birth abortion would be considered. Again, how is waiting until the baby is partially delivered and then stabbing it in the back of the head to suck out its brains going to alleviate any more danger to the mother’s life once she’s reached that stage in her pregnancy?

In your third example, “The fetus is malformed so badly that it would never gain consciousness and die immediately after birth”, how is a partial birth abortion going to do any good. If abortion was a viable option in this case, why would it be necessary to wait until the point of birth and to end its life in this way? If the baby is going to die after birth, then it’s just going to die after birth. Partial birth abortion is just not an appropriate solution. Its only purpose is to end a baby’s life for the convenience of the mother. Not for any medical purpose.

Quote

I have one simple question which no one has ever answered that makes the claims you do. Ready...here it comes...

If as you state, there is no medical necessity to perform this procedure, then why not introduce a bill that would ban it EXCEPT in the case of medical necessity? If you do that, and as you claim, it is NEVER medically necesarry, than it will never be done. For some reason, though, pro-lifers oppose a bill that containst that stipulation. Why?

Because there is NO VALID MEDICAL REASON why this procedure should ever be performed. EVER. Assuming that you agree with abortion (which I don’t except for when the mother’s life is at risk), something should be done earlier in the pregnancy. There is no reason whatsoever for partial birth abortion. The bill is justified in being absolute and without exception. That’s not just coming from me but also from a medical doctor’s opinion.