Sarah Palin ~ Unbelievable!

chelsea_b

Creationism is not a theory.

dgriego

Evolution is a theory it cannot be 100% proven, things can be assumed from the record but absolute proof is not possible.Creationism or intelligent design is also a theory, it cannot be 100% proven, things can be assumed from the record but absolute proof is not possible. Also if you flip that and assume that belief in God is an act of faith because one is believing in something that cannot be proven and then defending that position with vigor, refusing to acknowledge any other possible theory, then you can also assume that belief in evolution which is something that cannot be proven and defending that position with vigor while refusing to acknowledge any other possible theory would also be an act of faith and thus to a point a religion.

 Evolution is no more a theory than is gravity, or atomic theory, or relativity. But you don't see the fundamentalists arguing these scientific theories, because they are not a threat to religious doctrine.  Yet there is no more evidence for them then there is for evolution.  it is a theory based on empirical evidence (like all scientific theories) wheras creationism is based on faith.  There is nothing wrong with having faith - it gives people strength, morals, and what have you.  But it doesn't mix with science.  Faith hasn't given us modern medicine, technology or space exploration.  In fact it tends to stand in the way of progression, and forcing Christianity on the entire US population is a very dangerous proposition.

Oh please!  I saw a clip on the news this morning regarding the lipstick pig comment and I just had to roll my eyes.  Again the cries from the GOP screaming "sexism" and the like!  Oh.  My.  God.  It is a COMMON phrase, people.  Saying, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" is simply a euphamism for McCain trying to introduce old GOP policies as new.  McCain has been trying to say that he is for change in Washington (hmmm, where did he get that line from?) when his policies are EXACTLY what Bush 2 was pushing for in his elections.

I gagged this morning when I saw the latest GOP commercial.  In short, it used the line, "that's not change, it's more of the same" about OBAMA'S policies.  Uh, what?  And excuse me, but wasn't that the tag line of the DEMOCRATIC convention?  Losers.  Stop taking the Obama taglines and using them as your own.  Seriously.  They must think America is full of idiots.  I would never vote for someone who thinks so little of me and the other American citizens.

Whether we're putting lipstick on pigs or not, the fact still remains that Palin has NOT been allowed to speak independently, has not been allowed to campaigne independently, has not been allowed to open her mouth unscripted.

Palin was a sportscaster.  Palin knows about presentation.  It's not her presentation they are worried about, it's her content.  Why on earth choose a candidate that you fear opening his/her mouth?  More than anything else that she does or doesn't stand for, the fact that her party won't let her speak scares the crap out of me.

janet_rose

aerial1313

I listened to an interview last week with a nurse who told first-hand accounts of babies surviving such procedures (born still breathing), which were then left in a room to die. 

By definition that was not a "partial birth abortion" because the infant was still alive.  It sounds more like the induced delivery of a non-viable infant.  This is considered a "natural" death, but I agree with you.  A quick shot would be kinder, but that gets into the area of murdering an infant, so it is not going to happen. 

aerial1313

I also have a very close friend who, at the age of 16, underwent a partial-birth abortion. 

No one should ever be forced into an abortion and I am very sorry for your friend!!  She may have had a late term abortion, but the term "partial-birth abortion" is a rather recent term (and not a medical one).  If your friend was not actually watching the procedure, I doubt she would know what abortion procedure was actually used.

Semantics aside on "late term" v. "partial birth," I find the assumption that she was unaware of what was going on to be pretty alarming.  She told me, in detail, about the procedure; details that are so horrifying that I will not repeat them here.  Let's just say she was awake during the entire procedure and had complete knowledge of what was happening to her and to her baby.  It would have been completely irresponsible of the doctor to not explain to the patient what they were going to do to her, but she ultimately had no choice.  It was either, do this, or you will be out on the streets to fend for yourself.  I, personally, still, all these years later, have not forgiven her parents for doing this to their daughter.

glenmar

Whether we're putting lipstick on pigs or not, the fact still remains that Palin has NOT been allowed to speak independently, has not been allowed to campaigne independently, has not been allowed to open her mouth unscripted.

Palin was a sportscaster.  Palin knows about presentation.  It's not her presentation they are worried about, it's her content.  Why on earth choose a candidate that you fear opening his/her mouth?  More than anything else that she does or doesn't stand for, the fact that her party won't let her speak scares the crap out of me.

I don't understand where this assumption comes from.  She was supposed to campaign separately this week, but they have chosen to keep her with McCain for a while because she is drawing such huge crowds for him, not because they are afraid to let her speak for herself.

Not sure how many of you know this, but her teleprompter malfunctioned during her convention speech (also happened during Guiliani's speech).  It was supposed to stop for applause, but it kept rolling, so about halfway through the speech, the teleprompter was much farther ahead in the speech than she was.  So, she continued from memory.  That's quite impressive, if you ask me, considering how nerve-wracking it must have been for her to speak to such a large audience at such an important event.  And she did it pretty darn well.  I've heard Obama stutter and trip over his own words when he's caught without a prepared remark several times, so even the most practiced and eloquent speakers have moments of weakness, and she certainly could have done the same thing in her convention speech, but she didn't.

 "Faith.....tends to stand in the way of progression"

Faith does not. Extremists who think they are properly displaying faith do. Very different.

I saw something on tv with a political analyst that said since her nomination was decided on she's got something like 6 huge books of policy stands and information to digest every single day so that she knows the "party line" on the issues.  It was brought up in relation to how much time she'd really have for her infant child.  I think they're trying to get her up to speed on where "the party" stands before they let her speak without a prepared speech.  

I saw info on the Obama comment and in context, it's not about her at all and a very common phrase, yes.  Snipped, it sounds terrible, but it's not what it appears when you take that one single sentence out of the whole.

I still love the drama anyway.  Better than my stories!  LOL 

BCMixs

I saw info on the Obama comment and in context, it's not about her at all and a very common phrase, yes.  Snipped, it sounds terrible, but it's not what it appears when you take that one single sentence out of the whole.

I agree that he probably didn't intend it as a slam against her, but, c'mon, he's a smart guy...he should have known some people would interpret it that way given the popularity of her lipstick joke.  I bet he regrets it now!

BCMixs

I just don't see a conceivable situation where a c-section couldn't be performed and give the  infant a fighting chance at life. 

Late 2nd trimester abortions (1% of all abortions) are primarily done in situations where there are problems with the woman's health or with the fetus's health.  A C-section is major surgery and would not be advisable if the woman is in poor shape.  Induced labor is quite a strain even on a healthy woman, so that has the same problem.

Due to the "partial birth" ban, a fatal injection is now often (usually?) given to the fetus before a late 2nd trimester abortion, so one is not going to wind up with a live infant.

I personally don't approve of a healthy woman aborting a healthy fetus in a late 2nd trimester abortion.  However, I don't fault parents electing to abort a fetus with severe defects - especially if the the infant would only suffer and die.  The 2nd trimester is when a lot of those defects are detectable.

I wish we had stats that divided up late 2nd trimester abortions into "elective"," woman's health", and "severe defects"!! 

 I don't know, I'm not an MD or a nurse, and don't know all the details re: partial birth abortions, so I guess there are situations where the woman is in such bad shape that the PBA is going to be safer for her than a c-section and her choice is to have the PBA rather than risk death with a c-section, but geez, it sounds worse than a c-section to me and I've had 2.  Like I said in the other thread, I'm glad I'm not a legislator trying to make these decisions.

janet_rose

Can you come up with a single view of creationism that all religions can agree on?  If not, it doesn't belong in public schools.

cyclefiend2000

i am not a believer in creationism or allowing it be taught in schools, but your reasoning is flawed. scientists and historians have problems agreeing on many many historical and scientific issues... however, that doesnt mean that science  or history shouldnt be taught.

My view is a matter of practicality - not logic.  Parents seldom storm into the classroom upset about historical and scientific issues.  Religion is a whole different ball game.  Some parents even get upset about their child saying "God" in the pledge of allegiance. 

Creationism (as many versions as you wish) taught in college or in optional high school courses is fine.  Otherwise, the subject is just too volatile an issue for public school.  Any time you start blurring the line between church and state, you are asking for trouble.

cyclefiend2000

not sure when you graduated from school, but i know since i graduated from high school in 1991 there have been a number of things that i learned changed based on new information being learned.

LOL!!  I'm old enough to be your mother.  One of the first things I learned when I finished college is that one never gets out of "school".  There is always new and revised stuff to learn - or just more stuff to learn.

One of my favorites:  When I was in high school, I was taught that two parents with type "O" blood could only have children with type "O" blood.  That falsehood periodically caused paternity and maternity issues until scientists learned that blood type is controlled by more than two genes.

Can you imagine being a woman who has a baby (no egg implantation or baby swap) and is told that the baby isn't her's?    This was before DNA testing, of course.

Even DNA testing has to sometimes be taken with a grain of salt.  In the case of a chimera (a fraternal twin who absorbed the other twin), DNA in the blood can differ from the DNA in the egg or sperm. 

BCMixs

I guess there are situations where the woman is in such bad shape that the PBA is going to be safer for her than a c-section and her choice is to have the PBA rather than risk death with a c-section, but geez, it sounds worse than a c-section to me and I've had 2. 

I fail to see how dilation of the cervix and removal of the fetus could come anywhere close to being as physically traumatic as cutting a woman open.

jenn52

You're right, it's truth! I personally see a lot more proof for creation than for evolution. We'll all find out in the end, won't we!

I have absolutely no desire to debate creationism vs. evolution. I was just correcting the use of the word "theory" as if it were "hypothesis" or "idea". If something is a scientific theory, as Evolution is, as gravity is..it will never be more than a theory. Most people think theories graduate to scientific law if there's enough proof. They don't. A theory is always a theory, and no matter how much proof there is, it will never be a law. They are two totally different things. A law is always a law, it was never a theory.

I think people who don't believe in Evolution just don't understand that there's no question about it at this point. We evolved. Science has proven it, and can prove it over and over again. It's fact like gravity is fact, like relativity is fact. Period, the end. If you want to say some god guided evolution, made it happen..then fine. But that should not be taught in public or secular schools. Anyone guessing WHY we evolved, or what the original cause was, should not be brought up in school. That's for people to decide on their own. The scientific HOW is what matters, and is all that should be taught.

janet_rose

BCMixs

I guess there are situations where the woman is in such bad shape that the PBA is going to be safer for her than a c-section and her choice is to have the PBA rather than risk death with a c-section, but geez, it sounds worse than a c-section to me and I've had 2. 

I fail to see how dilation of the cervix and removal of the fetus could come anywhere close to being as physically traumatic as cutting a woman open.

I'm seriously not going to get into a disgustingly graphic debate here but the descriptions provided by you and the ones I've heard during Congressional testimony indicate something much more traumatic and dangerous than the c-section with spinal block I experienced which was over much more quickly than the time I've heard described for PBA.  But like I said, I'm not a doctor, I've probably only heard those graphic stories designed to shock and repulse, which they did, but they occurred none the less.