rehmwa

I try hard to just ignore posts like his, he's just poking at people and deep down knows better. But my question stands - would it have been reasonable for this group to demand protection of their free speech rights based on the history of fanatics attacking events like these. at first, it seems like a reasonable expectation of a government that is supposed to protect our inherent rights for us Would that be a slippery and expensive path to start down? where every group of trolling idiots will start requiring personal protection in their efforts to piss off other groups for attention? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

good times......good times ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Shiny Metal Death .... of course..... (considering the blatant killing from a couple weeks ago....) If you assume it's a lethal weapon......Do you pursue that criminal as if he has his hands on a gun? Do you treat those weapons as equal? It's about parity - your premise is that you want the cops to use and handle these as equivalently lethal weapons. Do you also want to treat these items as equivalent, then - if in the hands of a criminal if in the hands of a citizen ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Normal for DZ.com to see a lot of strawmanning telling posters that they are anti-free speech for stating that people should expect retribution. The point that this is expected is not a comment on the nature of free speech or that some overly sensitive groups need to be accommodated - (no matter how much violent fanatics, religious and social agenda, try to scare society into it). One take on the "they need to expect this" is a bit less dramatic - I'd think a reasonable application of "they need to expect this" is likely better used as a statement that we need to protect or be prepared against violent and UNLAWFUL reactions by these groups. i.e., would it be reasonable for a group doing something like this to be able to request, and receive up front, additional protection from law enforcement? (or would that be 'profiling'?) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

So if a criminal gets his hands on a taser, then what is the correct reaction? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Hey, shit for brains, no one can take someone like you seriously since you hate puppies and forgot your Oxford comma. oh yeah? (insert random digression to my favorite unrelated social topic, refuse to return to original topic, claim victory) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

random personal insult, strawman and grammar ding ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I do not say that even one bit - I say that the decision is the woman's decision alone. She has the duty to involve the doctor as part of HER choice. Or anyone else she chooses to involve is also her choice. I'm am only taking exception to the trite saying because it implies she shouldn't involve anyone BUT the doctor, which is also a restriction. And also because it opens up avenues for anti- groups to try and influence doctors as in indirect way of intervening with a woman's choice. the doctor doesn't make the choice - he only advises - like anyone else the woman wants to choose to involve ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Until we approve the "National Free Haircuts for all Paid for by Bill Gates" Law....or the NFHPBGL (Niff Pubgle) - Or the Universal Hair Care Act. Then the barber will be forced to provide the haircut regardless, and at half price, but still be liable for lawsuits if a customer is hurt. You see, (he's probably making it up about the condition, because he's bald and simply hates to treat people with hair), further, passing that law to give that haircut just got 157 congressmen re-elected. It's really for my own good, if he refuses that haircut, then I might try to do it myself, in an alley, or in Thailand. (You scenario is good, much like how a patient still has the SOLE authority to decide on their treatment - again, the doctor can only advise. If the doctor refuses, the patient can go elsewhere - (for now, the question of whether the doctor will be forced to do it or not - or bake a cake for the patient - is likely to be a future issue)) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

you mean a woman can just CHOOSE for herself and not even ask her doctor first? wow!!!! Mmmmmm- personal choice for the win ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

no......just the patient - the doctor is simply a VERY good resource (hopefully) for helping her with HER decision. She can choose to bring in anyone she wants to advise on her decision. here's my simplist version of it, I can't get any more direct: I choose if I want to buy a haircut or not. It's not a "decision between me and my barber" The government shouldn't require the barber to have pictures on the wall of specific styles. (but even if they did, it's still my choice - but it's unneeded and could be intrusive) No one should tell me to come back tomorrow after thinking about it. I already thought about - it's why I'm there and not still at home "thinking" about it. (I might ask the barber if my haircut will look good, I might ask my wife or friends what kind of cut she prefers on me. I might ignore some douchebag standing outside the shop with a sign that says "everyone needs a MoHawk". But the final decision is mine alone. Heck, I doubt any ethical barber would just cut my hair without asking "what'll it be fella?" first. Though I don't see how that makes him a decision maker for my cut one bit.) Now, once anyone starts to pay for my haircut, then the rules might just change - just to stir the pot a little - welcome to government subsidized healthcare people..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Clearly - yet is seems the left and the right love to legislate what most people would call "common sense" regardless "for our own protection". So it's still a threat of them legislating what we'd consider the 'right' thing - and then even going overboard to over legislate excessively and off purpose for partisan purposes of social control/manipulation - types you like and types you're terrified of.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

no issues - I'm just stating that any desire to legislate the "discussion" (for her own safety) is not better than legislating any of these other things -and, frankly, would open the door to other laws. the statement "between her and her doctor" is a PR attempt that can be abused to open the door. BTW - my last knee surgery I consulted with the intern primarily and hardly even shook Dr Dave's hand until right before the operation.....So even there, the woman could get whatever medical or procedural info SHE NEEDS from another doctor or the intern, or lead nurse or whatever. If she's already determined she needs the procedure.....Dr Dave is VERY ethical and a leader in his field.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Nope, that's not one of Skimmer's ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I'm not sure what "other side" you are talking about. Everyone seems to agree that consulting with a doctor and anyone else she chooses to consult with is a great idea. The point is the assumption about how that's implemented - required or not vs legislation vs a doctor's internally established procedural requirement, etc..... You guys are simply talking about a practicality that seems good and obvious. Andy and I were simply taking that innocent comment and fleshing out if it matches real life politics, or the true intent of choice or not. (and how it can be abused by those with less than pure intentions.....) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

So who is the arbitor of what the "appropriate" questions to be asked are? Perhaps a waiting period is appropriate? Maybe for 'information' purposes, they should watch a video of an abortion..... or consult with a couple doctors (medical and psychologist).....perhaps a religious counselor......etc etc etc I appreciate you guys' views and in a perfect world it's a laudable. But, if we are a country of individuals....and if we trust each other to make our own decisions on our own terms (perhaps this is the conflict). Then we need to let people figure it out for themselves. The question really isn't whether the patient SHOULD do what you think is right....the question is whether you feel so strongly about these "shoulds", that you'd cross the line to LEGISLATE it vs trusting a woman to seek out the advise she needs on her own without legislation. If you legislate it, then there will always be other people that would want to add to the list you started for various reasons. Andy notes the more exceptional and nefarious (to many) in his good post.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I think this happens when people actually read the posts without a pre-existing bias and an intent to strawman me before even starting. (I slip up a lot, though, when I see people attacking others and I just jump in to mock them. then it's a pretty bad slip) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

My point is simply - The position is the woman's. She can and should consult with anybody she considers pertinent to "her" decision. Anybody. or nobody. (we have opinions on what is the responsible way to do it, do you want to legislate that?) The statement "between and woman and her doctor" is restricting in intent, and I believe, was coined that way on purpose. It's a nice sounding bumper sticker. It's phrased that way to intentionally do 2 things: 1 - to remove ANY reference of the male involved, or the family of the woman. A restriction of her options - subtle. 2 - to place the term doctor in there specifically to add an impression of logic or responsibility to the choice. Frankly, IMO, if it's her choice, she can make it for ANY reason at all and it's still none of our business. that reason can be illogical and irresponsible (I'd HOPE not, but I shouldn't REQUIRE it on someone that can independently make decisions for themselves - as long as they take full responsibility for their decision - morally, personally, financially, and the consequences. simple enough). Here's the backfire from that - That single phrase is a foundation for so many of the counter movements to force doctors to add to the checklist before supporting the decision..... Such as this one the thread is started on. Hey - the decision is between the woman "and her doctor" - OK gang - let's go after the doctor with legislation then......still not right, but the fanatics on the one side trying to obtusely push that anti-father agenda, opened a door for the fanatics on the other side with their anti-choice agenda ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Why so personal? He said he was just playing Devil's Advocate. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I think the rote quote is absolutely counter to the pro-choice movement's intent. It should be the adult woman's decision ONLY. It's not partly the doctor's decision at all. He just executes the procedure. Period - final decision rests with the woman if we want to be philosophically pure. Who are you to tell the potential mother/or not who she is allowed to get advise from? Why do you hate choice? (She can include anybody she chooses to get advise from - I think if it's an adult woman - then the father and the doctor are typically good choices. but neither is remotely the final decision). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Good post, and I agree. But allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment for the sake of the debate to clarify things. Some states have a required waiting period for the purchase of a gun. The idea being that if the purchaser intends to use it to attack someone, or to commit suicide, that the waiting period provides time for the person to cool off and reconsider their thoughts. Why wouldn't that same idea apply to abortion? Before allowing the killing of a future human being, shouldn't we make sure that the expectant mother has had sufficient time to consider all the various aspects of what she is about to do? I don't agree with a waiting period for any personal property purchase. Not if the reasoning is about the personal choice of the consumer. If it's needed to confirm a licensing process that has a cycle time, etc? yes. If it's just a "are you sure?" concept - absolutely not. None of the government's business. Maybe we should have a 2 hour waiting period to purchase an ice cream cone - considering we are all now paying for health care..... "BUT I'M ANGRY NOW!!" Homer Simpson ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

This is not supported in the Bible. He walked up to individuals, administered no test of faith, simply healed them. you mean he just did it on his own? voluntarily? that's crazy!! he must really hate the poor and minorities. Because, as a good liberals, he should have had his services hijacked by Caesar so he could only administer to those the government chose - and paid for by taxes by others I don't think socialism has any part of, or monopoly on, individuals choosing to help each other as per person choice for action. It's pretty close to the opposite. Maybe idealized communism....or idealized libertarianism. certainly not part or complete socialism - not as the left is advocating today. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Quite frankly that is your assumption. Not saying you are necessarily wrong, but you simply don't know if that was her reasoning at the time. It is probably the reasoning that alligns best with your opinion of her. cheerfully agree ***yet contributing to the wounded warrior project is a pretty decent thing - If I donate a dollar to the wounded warrior project for every person that tells a rape victim she deserved it, am I doing a pretty decent thing? the donation is, the reason isn't...unless the sudden influx of money prompts the wounded warrior project to then start a campaign to encourage rape in areas with a high population of insensitive assholes - then the donation has bad long term consequences and I'd have to say the entire concept is bad. But it's still different than a simple donation to mock a rather grimm political personality. frankly, your question is so nuanced, that I can't yet fully answer it...stay tuned Not sure why you are adding that, never claimed any different. Unless you are trying to say it is fine "cause Johnny did it to"? nope, not fine either way, just noting it's pretty normal stuff, (ref - GWB's beady eyes, or BHO's big ears to start then gets worse as you go) see 8 of every 9 threads here in SC. I'm commenting in general that people are large scale crap producers on these issues. I'm not sure if you are one of the crowd that throws out the - "hey, they are in the public eye, they deserve what they get" which I've also seen from both sides. I'll assume not. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

A vasectomy .......If they're going to make the argument that it does, then they should ban male masturbation. yes, it was a stupid analogy, but so is requiring a wait period for any medical procedure including abortion. Clearly the pros are motivation by religious actions, and the anti's (based on this adder which purely retributive) there are biased by assumptions of patriarchal attitudes of their opponents - no reasoned debate will happen in Florida with those two sides squaring off. IMO - if one is of a mental orientation to be swayed by a waiting period, then they already likely have agonized over the decision prior to seeing the doctor - it's not the right of the state to tell the citizenry the ORDER or length of time in which they are required to make PERSONAL decisions. if one is not so introspective, a waiting period or not is pointless stupid proposed law...... when I got my vas, I had a 2 week waiting period and my wife had to sign off on doing it at all - I don't know if it was the practice's policy, or state law, but it seemed pretty stupid and I told them so. I imagine the uproar in our state if the same requirement was to be placed upon woman looking at sterilization procedures for themselves the ONLY reason for any waiting period for any medical procedure is for collection of pertinent MEDICAL information in support of the procedure - anything else is none of the government's or the doctor's business ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

you are such a religious conservative why do you hate minorities and children and the poor? and the poor minorities and children? and women? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants