Shotgun

I don't know. Is it? I don't know either, I think so. What do you think? I think it's unimportant, and by mentioning it, I created a distraction from what my actual point was. I also think that I should get back to doing homework instead of goofing off on here.

Hmm, I think that might deserve some electric shock too.

I don't know. Is it?

And you think the zygote should have the exact same rights as a newborn baby? (which seems to be what he is saying with HR 1094) Yes, he's saying that. And then he's contradicting himself within the text of HR 1094 (which does specify that abortion should be up to the states, but the rest of the text is opening up a big can of worms, in my opinion). Here is the text if you're interested: http://www.prolifealliance.com/H.R.1094%20Sanctity%20of%20Life%20Act.pdf

Then why does he want to pass legislation that defines life as beginning at conception? Would that not make abortion illegal at a federal level, since it would then be murder? Seems like a contradiction in his position to me.

I believe its okay to have an abortion, but whether abortion is legal or not it doesnt affect our taxes, roads, schools, international policy, drugs, environemnt etc..... It's definitely an issue, but no major one, in my opnion, compared to the issues such as security, health, environment...etc My problem is not so much with his position on whether abortion should be legal or not; it's his position on legally defining life as beginning at conception. That has greater implications than simply making abortion illegal.

He also said this: "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." (which is what I have a problem with) If, at a federal level, life is defined as beginning at conception, then abortion will be murder. So will the legality of murder be left up to the states?

If life does not begin at conception, then when does it? For the most part, I think that life does begin at conception. But to put that into legislation, it seems that an embryo would then be given the same rights as a newborn baby, and I don't agree with that. I think that abortion would then legally be murder. And what about miscarriages? Would we need to do a criminal investigation every time a woman had a miscarriage? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I just don't think it's a good thing to define by law. And the fact that he wants to makes me question his judgment on the issue.

As I mentioned in another thread, this one quote from his website is enough to make me unlikely to vote for him: "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." I don't consider that to be an "irrelevant issue" to how he will run the country.

I'd post a picture, but..... Already have it. Sheesh, for a moment there I thought I was gonna have to kick Remi's ass! (as if he wouldn't like that)

I received this quote in my "Daily Inspiration" email this morning, and it made me think of this thread, even though it's not the type of quote you were looking for. It's credited as a Hasidic saying: Also, here is an excerpt from an interview with Dr. George Vaillant (a name you probably recognize in your line of work): http://www.unhooked.com/trxpro/Vaillantp_composite_reduced.pdf. Again, not what you were looking for, but perhaps helpful.

But (at the federal level) he wants to define life as beginning at conception. And I think one of the implications of this would be that abortion would then be defined as murder, so would that still be up to the states? Too much doubletalk from Thompson to believe his states rights notions. Actually, we were talking about Ron Paul.

I knew I shouldn't have sent you that picture.

Steve, I'm curious: do you know what the relapse rate is with support groups? I have close to zero exposure to CD treatment issues... It would be pretty hard to get accurate numbers either way. Those who have never sought help of any kind are not going to be counted in most statistics. And those who have sought help only through 12-step programs (which are thought to be the most successful help for addiction), would also not be followed because these are supposed to be anonymous groups. Statistics vary widely from source to source, regarding recovery from substance abuse problems. Most show little difference with or without professional help, but the stats I have seen show anywhere from a 1% to 30% chance of recovery. But again, I think that these stats have little significance except to show that it's a difficult problem to overcome. From my personal experience, it seems that those who "find God," or some form of spirituality, are the ones who are most likely to recover. (Which I guess is what Steve is getting at by looking for these quotes?) And I think we need a much greater understanding of how the human brain works before we'll make significant progress in treating addiciton.

I'd post a picture, but.....

So I guess none of you people have tried the green goblin??? Geez, what a bunch of prudes.

And it's a great excuse for all sorts of fun and sinful behavior.

But (at the federal level) he wants to define life as beginning at conception. And I think one of the implications of this would be that abortion would then be defined as murder, so would that still be up to the states?

Hmm, I'm not sure how that would get organized. And if it could be organized, then the other parties could do the same, and everything would even out.

They could, if they meet the deadline for changing it, but then they wouldn't be able to vote for a candidate in their own party.

You've always been nice to ME, and that's all that really matters.

Thanks, asshole. I haven't finished my morning coffee yet, so I'm not awake enough to realize what I have done.

No, I haven't had much time for TV lately, so I probably won't notice if they're playing re-runs. And now that Rock of Love is over, I don't have anything I want to watch anyway. (Did I just publicly admit that I watched that show??? ) Actually, when I watch TV, it's usually PBS or something like that, and I don't think they're even affected by the strike.

I like Ron Paul too, but I'm a little concerned about his pro-life position, especially this (from his website): "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." Now I tend to doubt that he would get such legislation passed, but the fact that he wants to makes me unlikely to vote for him.

I see young people in my classes texting with their phones quite a bit. They'll get called out on it, yet they continue to do it. It's weird; it seems to be some sort of obsessive/addictive behavior. It seems like a good idea to these jamming devices in schools or other places where cell phone usage is disruptive, but I guess it would be a problem if there was ever an emergency. Anyhow, I learned a new word from the article - schadenfreude.