When Does Life Begin?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

You are twisting the words of the article. Before this law, they were NOT classified as surgical centers and therefore were not bound by the same regulations.

What this article shows is that PP has, for 30 years, benefited from special exemptions to common sense safety and health regulations that all other facilities that perform surgery must abide by.

If they were so concerned with SAFE abortion, why the special exemptions?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

And this idiot (I happen to live in Mo) also refuses to let anyone teach anything other and abstinence-only.

Teach your own kids whatever you wish.

Why do you need public money to teach your own kids what you want them to do?

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

And this idiot (I happen to live in Mo) also refuses to let anyone teach anything other and abstinence-only.

Teach your own kids whatever you wish.

Why do you need public money to teach your own kids what you want them to do?

This argument cuts both ways. Public money because teen pregnancy and STD's are a PUBLIC PROBLEM.

I will never understand why anyone thinks it is better to keep kids in the dark about these things.

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

You are twisting the words of the article. Before this law, they were NOT classified as surgical centers and therefore were not bound by the same regulations.

What this article shows is that PP has, for 30 years, benefited from special exemptions to common sense safety and health regulations that all other facilities that perform surgery must abide by.

If they were so concerned with SAFE abortion, why the special exemptions?

No, not special exemptions. It wasn't classified the same. That's not "special."

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Because I don't think that a fetus without a developed nervous system is a "human being." So even if you can't pin point that exact millisecond that the nervous system is switched on, you still have a long period before the development is complete where you know it not to be active.

And EXACTLY how 'developed' must it be?

How about when there are measurable brain waves?

That still leaves plenty of time before the brain is constructed.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

And this idiot (I happen to live in Mo) also refuses to let anyone teach anything other and abstinence-only.

Teach your own kids whatever you wish.

Why do you need public money to teach your own kids what you want them to do?

This argument cuts both ways. Public money because teen pregnancy and STD's are a PUBLIC PROBLEM.

Typical doublespeak.

They are a PUBLIC problem but the PUBLIC has no business being involved (except to be taxed for it of course).

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I will never understand why anyone thinks it is better to keep kids in the dark about these things.

You certainly do not understand. That is correct.

Not everybody wants you to force your opinions on their children. But you are certainly free to teach your own whatever you wish.

You apparently cannot understand that.

It has nothing to do with 'keeping kids in the dark'. What a red herring.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

You are twisting the words of the article. Before this law, they were NOT classified as surgical centers and therefore were not bound by the same regulations.

What this article shows is that PP has, for 30 years, benefited from special exemptions to common sense safety and health regulations that all other facilities that perform surgery must abide by.

If they were so concerned with SAFE abortion, why the special exemptions?

No, not special exemptions. It wasn't classified the same. That's not "special."

Doublespeak.

'We'll call you something other than a surgical center, even though you perform surgery, so that you won't be subject to the same strict medical and safety regulations as all other surgical centers.'

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Because I don't think that a fetus without a developed nervous system is a "human being." So even if you can't pin point that exact millisecond that the nervous system is switched on, you still have a long period before the development is complete where you know it not to be active.

And EXACTLY how 'developed' must it be?

How about when there are measurable brain waves?

That still leaves plenty of time before the brain is constructed.

Brain waves with no brain?

No.

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

You are twisting the words of the article. Before this law, they were NOT classified as surgical centers and therefore were not bound by the same regulations.

What this article shows is that PP has, for 30 years, benefited from special exemptions to common sense safety and health regulations that all other facilities that perform surgery must abide by.

If they were so concerned with SAFE abortion, why the special exemptions?

No, not special exemptions. It wasn't classified the same. That's not "special."

Doublespeak.

'We'll call you something other than a surgical center, even though you perform surgery, so that you won't be subject to the same strict medical and safety regulations as all other surgical centers.'

Not doublespeak either. I didn't classify them as anything. That is for the government. And I would guess that the people doing the classification understand these reason/regulations and requirements a bit more than you do. So perhaps you just don't know what the legal definition of "surgery" is and what the services they provided are.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

You are twisting the words of the article. Before this law, they were NOT classified as surgical centers and therefore were not bound by the same regulations.

What this article shows is that PP has, for 30 years, benefited from special exemptions to common sense safety and health regulations that all other facilities that perform surgery must abide by.

If they were so concerned with SAFE abortion, why the special exemptions?

No, not special exemptions. It wasn't classified the same. That's not "special."

Doublespeak.

'We'll call you something other than a surgical center, even though you perform surgery, so that you won't be subject to the same strict medical and safety regulations as all other surgical centers.'

Not doublespeak either. I didn't classify them as anything. That is for the government. And I would guess that the people doing the classification understand these reason/regulations and requirements a bit more than you do. So perhaps you just don't know what the legal definition of "surgery" is and what the services they provided are.

Yes it is a government matter to say who is and isn't subject to regulation.

So it's funny that, when the government acted on the information, then you squall like a mashed cat, while I simply commended them for doing their job.

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

And this idiot (I happen to live in Mo) also refuses to let anyone teach anything other and abstinence-only.

Teach your own kids whatever you wish.

Why do you need public money to teach your own kids what you want them to do?

This argument cuts both ways. Public money because teen pregnancy and STD's are a PUBLIC PROBLEM.

Typical doublespeak.

They are a PUBLIC problem but the PUBLIC has no business being involved (except to be taxed for it of course).

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I will never understand why anyone thinks it is better to keep kids in the dark about these things.

You certainly do not understand. That is correct.

Not everybody wants you to force your opinions on their children. But you are certainly free to teach your own whatever you wish.

You apparently cannot understand that.

It has nothing to do with 'keeping kids in the dark'. What a red herring.

This isn't "doublespeak" at all. It isn't my opinion that teaching nothing but abstinence doesn't work. There are stats to back that up. It isn't my opinion that a condom will protect from pregnancy and stds.

It IS my opinion that it is better to teach the kids these things than no refuse to acknowledge it. If you think it is immoral for kids to have sex, that's great. Tell them that. But you shouldn't be so idiotic to think that just because you say that, they won't do it. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

You are twisting the words of the article. Before this law, they were NOT classified as surgical centers and therefore were not bound by the same regulations.

What this article shows is that PP has, for 30 years, benefited from special exemptions to common sense safety and health regulations that all other facilities that perform surgery must abide by.

If they were so concerned with SAFE abortion, why the special exemptions?

No, not special exemptions. It wasn't classified the same. That's not "special."

Doublespeak.

'We'll call you something other than a surgical center, even though you perform surgery, so that you won't be subject to the same strict medical and safety regulations as all other surgical centers.'

Not doublespeak either. I didn't classify them as anything. That is for the government. And I would guess that the people doing the classification understand these reason/regulations and requirements a bit more than you do. So perhaps you just don't know what the legal definition of "surgery" is and what the services they provided are.

Yes it is a government matter to say who is and isn't subject to regulation.

So it's funny that, when the government acted on the information, then you squall like a mashed cat, while I simply commended them for doing their job.

Except that I didn't' "squeal" at all. I merely pointed out that you twisted the words of the article. Seems you have a knack for that.

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Because I don't think that a fetus without a developed nervous system is a "human being." So even if you can't pin point that exact millisecond that the nervous system is switched on, you still have a long period before the development is complete where you know it not to be active.

And EXACTLY how 'developed' must it be?

How about when there are measurable brain waves?

That still leaves plenty of time before the brain is constructed.

Brain waves with no brain?

No.

Surely you can't be so stupid as to understand this. I figured it was pretty obvious that with no brain, there would be no "brain waves." Apparently I was wrong.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

And this idiot (I happen to live in Mo) also refuses to let anyone teach anything other and abstinence-only.

Teach your own kids whatever you wish.

Why do you need public money to teach your own kids what you want them to do?

This argument cuts both ways. Public money because teen pregnancy and STD's are a PUBLIC PROBLEM.

Typical doublespeak.

They are a PUBLIC problem but the PUBLIC has no business being involved (except to be taxed for it of course).

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I will never understand why anyone thinks it is better to keep kids in the dark about these things.

You certainly do not understand. That is correct.

Not everybody wants you to force your opinions on their children. But you are certainly free to teach your own whatever you wish.

You apparently cannot understand that.

It has nothing to do with 'keeping kids in the dark'. What a red herring.

This isn't "doublespeak" at all. It isn't my opinion that teaching nothing but abstinence doesn't work. There are stats to back that up. It isn't my opinion that a condom will protect from pregnancy and stds.

It IS my opinion that it is better to teach the kids these things than no refuse to acknowledge it. If you think it is immoral for kids to have sex, that's great. Tell them that. But you shouldn't be so idiotic to think that just because you say that, they won't do it. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

My kids listened to me.

Maybe yours didn't or don't.

So I'll teach mine, and you'll fail to teach yours.

Why would I want you teaching mine when you can't get your own to listen to you?

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

And this idiot (I happen to live in Mo) also refuses to let anyone teach anything other and abstinence-only.

Teach your own kids whatever you wish.

Why do you need public money to teach your own kids what you want them to do?

This argument cuts both ways. Public money because teen pregnancy and STD's are a PUBLIC PROBLEM.

Typical doublespeak.

They are a PUBLIC problem but the PUBLIC has no business being involved (except to be taxed for it of course).

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I will never understand why anyone thinks it is better to keep kids in the dark about these things.

You certainly do not understand. That is correct.

Not everybody wants you to force your opinions on their children. But you are certainly free to teach your own whatever you wish.

You apparently cannot understand that.

It has nothing to do with 'keeping kids in the dark'. What a red herring.

This isn't "doublespeak" at all. It isn't my opinion that teaching nothing but abstinence doesn't work. There are stats to back that up. It isn't my opinion that a condom will protect from pregnancy and stds.

It IS my opinion that it is better to teach the kids these things than no refuse to acknowledge it. If you think it is immoral for kids to have sex, that's great. Tell them that. But you shouldn't be so idiotic to think that just because you say that, they won't do it. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

My kids listened to me.

Maybe yours didn't or don't.

So I'll teach mine, and you'll fail to teach yours.

Why would I want you teaching mine when you can't get your own to listen to you?

I don't have kids. This entire post is just pointless and inflamatory. It still doesn't address the fact that the righteous feel the need to old back education from children.

I said "constructed" not completed.

You tried to imply that 'the brain hasn't been constructed' (i.e. that it did not yet exist) which is misleading.

You can all my opinion worthless if you want. The fact still remains that kids are getting pregnant and contracting diseases. Often this is because they were never taught about save sex and mitigating these risks. Parents don't want to teach their kids about this for any number of selfish reasons - and it's not working.

Ignorance and stubborn-minded parents aren't helping so solve the problem, they're contributing to the epidemic.