Schiavo Autopsy Released

[desflood]

Schiavo Autopsy Finds No Sign of Trauma

By MITCH STACY
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 15, 2005; 11:41 AM



LARGO, Fla. -- An autopsy released Wednesday found no evidence to contradict the diagnosis that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state after her 1990 collapse, backing up her husband's contention that she would not have recovered if she was given additional therapy as her parents requested.

"There's nothing in her autopsy report that is inconsistent with a persistent vegetative state," said Dr. Stephen J. Nelson, a medical examiner who assisted in the autopsy.

Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin, who led the autopsy team, concluded that there was no evidence of strangulation or other trauma leading to her collapse. He also said she did not appear to have suffered a heart attack and there was no evidence that she was given harmful drugs or other substances prior to her death.

Thogmartin said that Schiavo's brain was about half of its expected size when she died March 31 in a Pinellas Park hospice, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed in a wrenching right-to-die dispute that engulfed the courts, Congress and the White House and divided the country.

He said she would not have been able to eat or drink if she had been given food by mouth as her parents' requested.

"Removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death whether she was fed or hydrated by mouth or not," Thogmartin told reporters.

[MannyIsGod]

The religous right can take that and shove it up their ass. Bastards.

[SWC Bonfire]

That doesn't justify having someone starve to death, but it verifies what a normal person could see - that she wasn't ever going to recover. Her husband was unfairly villified for seeing this, but rightfully villified for letting her slowly die. They wouldn't even let a dog die like that without someone being prosecuted and/or sued. Did she feel pain? Who knows. But please, put her out of her misery.

I guess a fair question to ask is: how large would her brain had been if she wasn't dehydrated? I don't think it would have mattered.

[MannyIsGod]

That doesn't justify having someone starve to death, but it verifies what a normal person could see - that she wasn't ever going to recover. Her husband was unfairly villified for seeing this, but rightfully villified for letting her slowly die. They wouldn't even let a dog die like that without someone being prosecuted and/or sued. Did she feel pain? Who knows. But please, put her out of her misery.

I guess a fair question to ask is: how large would her brain had been if she wasn't dehydrated? I don't think it would have mattered.
The courts are the ones that let her die slowly. Her husband took the case to a court and gave up all his authority when he did so, allowing the courts to decide what she wanted.

Why is it that even after this played out, people still can't grasp the way the legal system works in this case?

And if you want to point a finger at someone for letting her die as well, that finger can be squarly pointed at the religious right again. The same people who don't allow assisted suicide because they want the right to tell me when and how I can not only live my life, but end it.

Free indeed.

[SWC Bonfire]

The religious right doesn't want to tell everybody how to live their lives...

except you, Manny. You should do exactly as you are told.

[The Ressurrected One]

And Manny wonders what motivates the Christian Right's obsession over sanctity of life issues...

Abortionist accused of eating fetuses (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44779)

[MannyIsGod]

And Manny wonders what motivates the Christian Right's obsession over sanctity of life issues...

Abortionist accused of eating fetuses (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44779)
Please. I know what motivates the RR. That wonderful book of stories they have and read out of every Sunday.

[violentkitten]

for the 99% of the country that didnt give a fuck, we say "so what?"

[Useruser666]

She's still dead, right?

[Useruser666]

Manny, I don't honestly believe everyone that might include themselves as being in the "religious right" would agree that what happened was wrong.

[SWC Bonfire]

Manny, I don't honestly believe everyone that might include themselves as being in the "religious right" would agree that what happened was wrong.

No, the religious right is a cultural evil which must be combated at every turn. :rolleyes

[Nbadan]

No, the religious right is a cultural evil which must be combated at every turn

There are elements within the RR, like Randall Terry and this NY bozo who wants to put warning label on gays, which are pure evil, and unfortunately more moderate religious voices are being drowned out by these religous fanatics.

It's almost identical to the call here from right-wingers for moderate Arabs to denounce world-wide terrorism, and to a large degree they have, but the only thing you ever see on the corporate news is fundamentalist fanatics like Terry.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, I don't honestly believe everyone that might include themselves as being in the "religious right" would agree that what happened was wrong.
You rarely apply something 100% to a group of people, but that doesn't change the fact that the religous - christian actually - right is the force behind trying to legislate from the bible. There is no denying this when they don't deny it but are in fact proud of it.

Excuse me if I don't want my laws coming from one of the many man made books of god.

[MannyIsGod]

No, the religious right is a cultural evil which must be combated at every turn. :rolleyes
No, the religous right is a segment which wants it's way enforced on everyone in the name of rightousness. What's that saying about the road to hell being paved in what?

[Useruser666]

You rarely apply something 100% to a group of people, but that doesn't change the fact that the religous - christian actually - right is the force behind trying to legislate from the bible. There is no denying this when they don't deny it but are in fact proud of it.

Excuse me if I don't want my laws coming from one of the many man made books of god.

See there's the problem Manny, you are stereotyping. The few make the group look bad.

[Spurminator]

Well, I hate to say it, but as someone who has grown up in the Church ... while most of the moderate Christians I have known do not actively fight for "religious" legislation, I would bet a great majority of them wouldn't mind seeing a lot of it come to pass.

[Useruser666]

But there in lies the difference. Those are the people that wouldn't mind a society that reflects their values, but aren't the type of people to push their values on society.

[The Ressurrected One]

An autopsy performed on the Brain Damaged Florida Woman, or "Terri Schiavo" as her ignorant parents call her, confirms that she is in fact brain dead, and chances of a full recovery are slim at best. This must be tragic news for the right-wing cons who have maintained all along that she was a living human being, and thus deserving of the same rights to life and liberty typically reserved for cop killers (http://www.mumia2000.org/) and terrorists (http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3478577). Science trumps superstition once again.

Progressives: 9,974, Religious Zealots: 0.

But I'm afraid it's too soon to celebrate. The struggle to preserve the fundamental right of all Americans to Die with Dignity is far from over. Republicans claim to be against government interference in our lives, but even as we spike Terri Schiavo's frito-sized brain into the endzone and form a conga line around her grave, heartless repugs are working diligently to undermine all of our deaths. Malicious rhetoric from right-wing polemicists like the Pope has done serious damage to the Right to Die crusade, but there's still a glimmer of hope for those longing for death - either their own, or of a loved-one whose continuing existence has become an inconvenience to everyone. Courageous Democrats in congress have taken up the battle flag of our forefathers, who valiantly gave their lives so that future generations could die in peace, free from the prying hands of unscrupulous doctors who seek only to prolong life. But they cannot win the war against the coming Bush Theocracy alone.

The question our generation faces will decide the future of America: Do we want to live in a Republican dystopia of moral absolutes, where men are men, women are women, and our children curse us for forcing them to be born? Or a Progressive Utopia where they thank us for allowing them to die?

The choice is yours.

[mookie2001]

i just heard the shindler family, terry's parents are disputing the autopsey
??
i feel bad for these people, but they are insane

[MannyIsGod]

See there's the problem Manny, you are stereotyping. The few make the group look bad.
Dude, thats like saying I would be stereotyping the Nazi's by saying they wanted to kill Jews.

The Religous Right I refer to is a political sect. It's not everyperson who finds themselves in a christian church on Sunday. It is the people who use the bible in a political arena with one goal; legislation of the bible.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, I hate to say it, but as someone who has grown up in the Church ... while most of the moderate Christians I have known do not actively fight for "religious" legislation, I would bet a great majority of them wouldn't mind seeing a lot of it come to pass.
Most moderate Christians would not be considered part of the religous right. Also, I would argue that complacency when it comes to moral legislation simply because it fits your morality is still just as shitty in my book. But hey, who reads my book?

[MannyIsGod]

But there in lies the difference. Those are the people that wouldn't mind a society that reflects their values, but aren't the type of people to push their values on society.
It's one thing when a society comes to reflect their values on their own, it's quite another they have no choice due to laws.

[mookie2001]

The Religous Right I refer to is a political sect. It's not everyperson who finds themselves in a christian church on Sunday. It is the people who use the bible in a political arena with one goal; legislation of the bible.

manny comes correct again
although my support probably hurts manny because i'm an off the deep end liberal, sorry dude

[desflood]

So then, when the fifteen-year-old daughter of conservative parents has an abortion without their knowledge and dies, wouldn't there be liberal morals and values forced upon somebody without their consent, in the form of law?

[MannyIsGod]

So then, when the fifteen-year-old daughter of conservative parents has an abortion without their knowledge and dies, wouldn't there be liberal morals and values forced upon somebody without their consent, in the form of law?
Wait, didn't the girl choose to get an abortion? Isn't that her choosing what to do? I don't know any liberal - or conservatives to be fair - who want to force a girl to have an abortion.

[mookie2001]

i'm surprised thats never happened
fox news would climax on themselves
sean hannity would become so popular he'd have the retire, thus ensuring his deity status

[MannyIsGod]

So then, when the fifteen-year-old daughter of conservative parents has an abortion without their knowledge and dies, wouldn't there be liberal morals and values forced upon somebody without their consent, in the form of law?
And better yet, what of parents who don't allow - because of notification/consent laws - their child to have an abortion and and the baby die during birth or pregnancy complications? Who just forced their morality on another?

[desflood]

Wait, didn't the girl choose to get an abortion? Isn't that her choosing what to do? I don't know any liberal - or conservatives to be fair - who want to force a girl to have an abortion.
The conservative parents would be forced to bear the death of their child because of liberal values being law. Of course, not having kids, we can't expect you to imagine how you would feel if something happened to one of them, so I don't know if you'll fully realize the heaviness of this argument or not.

[desflood]

And better yet, what of parents who don't allow - because of notification/consent laws - their child to have an abortion and and the baby die during birth or pregnancy complications? Who just forced their morality on another?
As an abortion supporter, you don't believe the baby has rights anyway, and so it doesn't matter whose morality is enforced.

[MannyIsGod]

The conservative parents would be forced to bear the death of their child because of liberal values being law. Of course, not having kids, we can't expect you to imagine how you would feel if something happened to one of them, so I don't know if you'll fully realize the heaviness of this argument or not.
Yes, all because of liberal values. Not because of any decisions their child made and any parenting mistakes they may have made. Because you know, every 15 year old child that that gets knocked up and has an abortion must have the best parents out there.

Being a parent and all, I'm sure you'd understand that better than I would.

[MannyIsGod]

As an abortion supporter, you don't believe the baby has rights anyway, and so it doesn't matter whose morality is enforced.
Damn, can you remove the girl any further from the equation when it suits you? When she dies because of an abortion, it's all about the parents suffering. When she dies because of a pregnancy, whoooooooooooo cares?

BTW, I'm a rights supporter, not an abortion supporter.

[desflood]

Yes, I understand it well. Liberal thinking is that children are small adults and can make adult decisions wisely, including decisions about sex and abortion. Conservative (most, anyway) know better, and that's partly why so many oppose that thing that schools call "sex education" and abortions on demand for teenagers.

[desflood]

Damn, can you remove the girl any further from the equation when it suits you? When she dies because of an abortion, it's all about the parents suffering. When she dies because of a pregnancy, whoooooooooooo cares?

BTW, I'm a rights supporter, not an abortion supporter.
Well, you did say "the baby", not "the girl", so that's what I responded to.

[desflood]

But, I like how we got here from Terri Schiavo's autopsy report! :lol What a stretch. We should get back to the topic at hand.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, I understand it well. Liberal thinking is that children are small adults and can make adult decisions wisely, including decisions about sex and abortion. Conservative (most, anyway) know better, and that's partly why so many oppose that thing that schools call "sex education" and abortions on demand for teenagers.
Thsoe smart conservatives are great! Opposing sex ed is genius, and it doesn't promote STD's at all. We all know how great pregnancy pledges are at keeping the penis out of the girls ass!

Liberal thinking has nothing to do with thinking children are small adults. But it also doesn't choose to bury it's head in the sand that when a child is pregnant, neither choice is very palatable. Don't make it seem as though conservative parents who end up with a pregnant daughter know the right answer to everything because their child having sex has nothing to do with liberal ideology and everything to do with something they missed along the way.

Yet, you're still looking for a way to blame people who want rights. You say nothing about how forcing a pregnancy on a child isn't a good situation but instead paint abortions as a procedure that would kill the child every single time when at the most it happens very rarely. (I realize someone is going to turn that statement around, feel free. )

Children while not adults, are not property either. Parents can't arbitraily decide what happens to their childs body because it is not something they own.

[desflood]

Thsoe smart conservatives are great! Opposing sex ed is genius, and it doesn't promote STD's at all. We all know how great pregnancy pledges are at keeping the penis out of the girls ass!

Liberal thinking has nothing to do with thinking children are small adults. But it also doesn't choose to bury it's head in the sand that when a child is pregnant, neither choice is very palatable. Don't make it seem as though conservative parents who end up with a pregnant daughter know the right answer to everything because their child having sex has nothing to do with liberal ideology and everything to do with something they missed along the way.

Yet, you're still looking for a way to blame people who want rights. You say nothing about how forcing a pregnancy on a child isn't a good situation but instead paint abortions as a procedure that would kill the child every single time when at the most it happens very rarely. (I realize someone is going to turn that statement around, feel free. )

Children while not adults, are not property either. Parents can't arbitraily decide what happens to their childs body because it is not something they own.
1. Teaching abstinence has been proven in numerous studies to effectively bring down rates of pregnancy and STDs.
2. Does that mean you think I don't want rights?
3. Wasn't that pregnancy "the child's choice", in your own words?
4. Abortions kills at least as often as childbirth does.

Seems to me I read once that children, technically, are property until they turn 18. I'm gonna have to look that one up :nerd :p

[Useruser666]

manny comes correct again
although my support probably hurts manny because i'm an off the deep end liberal, sorry dude

I believe Manny was saying pretty much what I had just stated. I'm just see as labeling the off the deep end conservatives as the "religous right" as stereotyping and bundling too broad a group of people together. Think of the label, "atheist left". You lump almost everyone with traditional religous based values into one group with the few astronauts that are causing all of the headaches.

Manny, the Nazi anology doesn't stand. The Nazi party was a select group of people that shared the same ideals and goals. "Religious right" is way to general in terminology. "Rreligious fascist" would be a little closer.

[Jekka]

Preaching abstinence vs Sex education
Idealism vs Realism

[Guru of Nothing]

Preaching abstinence vs Sex education
Idealism vs Realism

Left vs Right = Insanity.

[Jekka]

Left vs Right = Insanity.

Yeah, anyone on the extreme side of either is going to be too closeminded to help anybody.

[MannyIsGod]

1. Teaching abstinence has been proven in numerous studies to effectively bring down rates of pregnancy and STDs.

Post a study that says that and I'll post 2 that contradict that.


2. Does that mean you think I don't want rights?
Of course thats what it means. You can't have it both ways Des. You either support the right to an abortion or you don't.


3. Wasn't that pregnancy "the child's choice", in your own words?
Yes, but forcing a child through 9 months of pregnancy when they don't want it isn't their choice isn't it? The parents should be showing their children how to make proper choices. But instead, when they fail you want to point the finger at liberal ideology. Sorry, doesn't fly.



4. Abortions kills at least as often as childbirth does.

I don't know the figures - and I'm not assuming you're correct - but I do know that abortion deaths will only go up when they become illegal because the vast majority of abortion deaths come from illegal abortions.



Seems to me I read once that children, technically, are property until they turn 18. I'm gonna have to look that one up :nerd
Humans aren't allowed to be property. I'm suprised you'd even take that thinking this far. Child abuse, anyone?

[MannyIsGod]

I believe Manny was saying pretty much what I had just stated. I'm just see as labeling the off the deep end conservatives as the "religous right" as stereotyping and bundling too broad a group of people together. Think of the label, "atheist left". You lump almost everyone with traditional religous based values into one group with the few astronauts that are causing all of the headaches.

Manny, the Nazi anology doesn't stand. The Nazi party was a select group of people that shared the same ideals and goals. "Religious right" is way to general in terminology. "Rreligious fascist" would be a little closer.
Religous Right refers to a specific group of people. They are a select group of people who share the same ideals and goals. I don't know what you're arguing about but if you disagree with that, feel free. There's a reason they have their own term.

[desflood]

Post a study that says that and I'll post 2 that contradict that.
Of course thats what it means. You can't have it both ways Des. You either support the right to an abortion or you don't. Yes, but forcing a child through 9 months of pregnancy when they don't want it isn't their choice isn't it? The parents should be showing their children how to make proper choices. But instead, when they fail you want to point the finger at liberal ideology. Sorry, doesn't fly.


I don't know the figures - and I'm not assuming you're correct - but I do know that abortion deaths will only go up when they become illegal because the vast majority of abortion deaths come from illegal abortions.

Humans aren't allowed to be property. I'm suprised you'd even take that thinking this far. Child abuse, anyone?
1. I support the rights of the baby, who has nobody else to speak for it.
2. Thanks to sex ed in schools, the girl is informed about the risks of pregnancy, and makes the choice to become pregnant. They're called "consequences".
3. Here's an interesting link. http://www.afterabortion.info/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html

[Useruser666]

Religous Right refers to a specific group of people. They are a select group of people who share the same ideals and goals. I don't know what you're arguing about but if you disagree with that, feel free. There's a reason they have their own term.

There's a reason why they have their own term? Gee, I wonder how many racists could follow that line of thinking?

[MannyIsGod]

We're talking about a political group, not a race. They woudln't be indetified together if they didn't believe and try to do the same things, Chris. Why you're arguing this, I have no clue.

[MannyIsGod]

1. I support the rights of the baby, who has nobody else to speak for it.
2. Thanks to sex ed in schools, the girl is informed about the risks of pregnancy, and makes the choice to become pregnant. They're called "consequences".
3. Here's an interesting link. http://www.afterabortion.info/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html
:lol, I see, the girl gets pregnant because of Sex Ed.

right.

You win Des, I can't combat that kind of logic.

[Useruser666]

We're talking about a political group, not a race. They woudln't be indetified together if they didn't believe and try to do the same things, Chris. Why you're arguing this, I have no clue.

So what about a derogatory name for a religous group? You applying the logic to the Nazi's was not a valid comparrison. When you say "religous right", people get the idea that you are lumping people of faith with the actual nut jobs that you protest.

[desflood]

:lol, I see, the girl gets pregnant because of Sex Ed.

right.

You win Des, I can't combat that kind of logic.
Don't be deliberately obtuse. You know damned well what I mean.

[MannyIsGod]

Dude, are you thinking I'm comparing them to Nazis? Cause I didn't, I made an analogy based on belief systems and assigning them to certain groups. If you misunderstood what was meant by religous right, then I'm sorry? But the term is used everyday, and it stands for a certain group of people. There's a common understanding that the term religous right is not meant for every Christian out there but for the Pat Robertsons of the world.

It's not like I invented the term in this thread.

[MannyIsGod]

Don't be deliberately obtuse. You know damned well what I mean.
Des, you keep trying to pin the things that teenagers are doing on Sex Ed, Liberals, and generaly anyone but the parents and child. Who's next, Maryalin Manson?

If you suppor the rights of an unborn child as an equal, that I can buy. But don't try to sit here and tell me that liberal america is the reason kids are becoming pregnant - as if that were a new thing - today. Don't tell me that allowing women - including those under the age of 18 - the right to choose whether they want to have an abortion or not is a liberal way of forcing their way of life on anyone.

No one forces people to have abortions, but some people do want the option there.

[Jekka]

2. Thanks to sex ed in schools, the girl is informed about the risks of pregnancy, and makes the choice to become pregnant. They're called "consequences".[/url]

I think the fact that you're referring to pregnancy as a negative "consequence" is pretty awful.

[desflood]

Des, you keep trying to pin the things that teenagers are doing on Sex Ed, Liberals, and generaly anyone but the parents and child. Who's next, Maryalin Manson?

If you suppor the rights of an unborn child as an equal, that I can buy. But don't try to sit here and tell me that liberal america is the reason kids are becoming pregnant - as if that were a new thing - today. Don't tell me that allowing women - including those under the age of 18 - the right to choose whether they want to have an abortion or not is a liberal way of forcing their way of life on anyone.

No one forces people to have abortions, but some people do want the option there.
I'm not saying it's the reason, but it's definitely a part of it. And yes, I think that giving my daughter an abortion without my knowledge is an affront to my rights as a parent concerning my child. You've said before everyone has their own definition of freedom. I believe that part of my freedom should include the right to know what is happening in my kids' life. If your daughter was raped, would you want to know? You can't, because of Patient Privacy Acts hospitals have. That wouldn't bother you?

[desflood]

I think the fact that you're referring to pregnancy as a negative "consequence" is pretty awful.
Well, Manny says she shouldn't be "forced" through pregnancy. Doesn't that put a negative spin on it?

[jalbre6]

Yes, I understand it well. Liberal thinking is that children are small adults and can make adult decisions wisely, including decisions about sex and abortion. Conservative (most, anyway) know better, and that's partly why so many oppose that thing that schools call "sex education" and abortions on demand for teenagers.


This is one of the most ignorant, misguided statements I've ever had the lack of fortune to read here.

Conservatives are the most fortunate that schools teach sex education. Because their kids aren't learning about bumpin' uglies at home except on the OC or whatever. Same with drug and alcohol awareness. Telling a high school sophomore, "Don't do _______ because the Bible thinks it is a sin, your parents don't approve, and you're not enough of an adult to comprehend what you are doing" is a surefire way to get the opposite result.

LIberal thinking isn't "that children are small adults and can make adult decisions wisely, including decisions about sex and abortion". It is that if they are going to know about sex including the consequences, they should learn in a proper, regulated, state-sanctioned classroom fashion rather than from TV and the magic book your older brother hid in the school library.

I'm not telling you that you're completely wrong, because I should have no say in what you teach your kids about the birds and the bees. But I will tell you that they'll learn one way or another, eventually, and quite possibly in a different manner than you want them to. They always do.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not saying it's the reason, but it's definitely a part of it. And yes, I think that giving my daughter an abortion without my knowledge is an affront to my rights as a parent concerning my child. You've said before everyone has their own definition of freedom. I believe that part of my freedom should include the right to know what is happening in my kids' life. If your daughter was raped, would you want to know? You can't, because of Patient Privacy Acts hospitals have. That wouldn't bother you?
If my daughter was raped I would hope she wouldn't be forced to do anything else beyond her will, including telling me.

You're free to define you're freedom however you would like, including forcing another person into telling or doing something against their will, but thats not much of freedom.

Also, sex ed has nothing to do with rising teen pregnancy rates. Nothing.

[Jekka]

Well, Manny says she shouldn't be "forced" through pregnancy. Doesn't that put a negative spin on it?

The way I read your statement was that you were using the term "consequence" synonymously with "punishment" - which, in effect, you did, because you're saying it's the girl's fault she got pregnant (despite the fact that there's also a guy in this picture that apparently is getting off scott-free because he doesn't have to carry the child) and therefore she should go through with the pregnancy and not have the abortion option. THAT is using pregnancy as a punishment.

[desflood]

This is one of the most ignorant, misguided statements I've ever had the lack of fortune to read here.

Conservatives are the most fortunate that schools teach sex education. Because their kids aren't learning about bumpin' uglies at home except on the OC or whatever. Same with drug and alcohol awareness. Telling a high school sophomore, "Don't do _______ because the Bible thinks it is a sin, your parents don't approve, and you're not enough of an adult to comprehend what you are doing" is a surefire way to get the opposite result.

LIberal thinking isn't "that children are small adults and can make adult decisions wisely, including decisions about sex and abortion". It is that if they are going to know about sex including the consequences, they should learn in a proper, regulated, state-sanctioned classroom fashion rather than from TV and the magic book your older brother hid in the school library.

I'm not telling you that you're completely wrong, because I should have no say in what you teach your kids about the birds and the bees. But I will tell you that they'll learn one way or another, eventually, and quite possibly in a different manner than you want them to. They always do.
Conservatives are the most fortunate that schools teach sex education. Because their kids aren't learning about bumpin' uglies at home except on the OC or whatever. Same with drug and alcohol awareness. Telling a high school sophomore, "Don't do _______ because the Bible thinks it is a sin, your parents don't approve, and you're not enough of an adult to comprehend what you are doing" is a surefire way to get the opposite result

That is an ignorant generalization. Conservatives would rather teach their children about sex ed at home, not have it done in the schools. That does not mean they don't talk about it. Not all conservatives are Christian and follow the Bible, either. Open your mind...

[Jekka]

That is an ignorant generalization. Conservatives would rather teach their children about sex ed at home, not have it done in the schools. That does not mean they don't talk about it. Not all conservatives are Christian and follow the Bible, either. Open your mind...

Okay, realistically, how many conservatives who are taking responsibility for teaching their children about sex are going to discuss safe sex and your options? And how many children of these conservative parents are going to go out and have sex anyways? Just because a parent is conservative doesn't mean the child is going to be. Are you saying that if a parent at home doesn't teach a child about safe sex that they don't deserve to know about it?

[desflood]

The way I read your statement was that you were using the term "consequence" synonymously with "punishment" - which, in effect, you did, because you're saying it's the girl's fault she got pregnant (despite the fact that there's also a guy in this picture that apparently is getting off scott-free because he doesn't have to carry the child) and therefore she should go through with the pregnancy and not have the abortion option. THAT is using pregnancy as a punishment.
Well, except for cases of rape, isn't it the girl's fault? She knows she can get pregnant and takes the chance of doing so. Besides, considering the physical, mental and emotional effects of abortion, wouldn't that also be considered more as a punishment that an option?

[jalbre6]

That is an ignorant generalization. Conservatives would rather teach their children about sex ed at home, not have it done in the schools. That does not mean they don't talk about it. Not all conservatives are Christian and follow the Bible, either. Open your mind...

Why shouldn't kids learn about sex in school? I guess I didn't realize that there was that big of a problem with it, especially since Sex Ed has been being taught in many public schools one way or another since the 60's. They're sent there to learn about everything else.

Anyway, here is a good article from NPR containing info on this subject.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1622610

I particularly enjoyed the paragraph that compares evangelical Christians to the rest of the population near the midsection of the page.

[desflood]

Okay, realistically, how many conservatives who are taking responsibility for teaching their children about sex are going to discuss safe sex and your options? And how many children of these conservative parents are going to go out and have sex anyways? Just because a parent is conservative doesn't mean the child is going to be. Are you saying that if a parent at home doesn't teach a child about safe sex that they don't deserve to know about it?
Well, based upon what I've seen, teenagers from conservative homes have (generally speaking) lower teenage pregnancy rates than teens from liberal homes. So, either conservatives are giving their kids instructions on birth control, or abstinence teaching really does work. As for parents not talking to their kids about sex, they should be shot :lol I remember my sex talk with my parents.

Mom: You know about all that stuff, right?
Me: Yes

End of discussion.

[samikeyp]

I never got the whole thing about Sex Ed making it ok to have sex. I took it and, I guess I was out that day, but I was not once told "Here's your condom bro...now go get it!" It was alot about consequences of your actions and how no form of birth control is 100% safe and that abstinence was still the safest road to take to prevent pregnancy and contracting STD's. Hell, it frightened us more than anything...of course being teenagers, that fear didn't last long. Kids are going to want to have sex whether there is sex ed or not. If your child gets pregnant or gets someone pregnant it is because of their actions and those of who they were with, no one elses. Kids today know the risks and choose to avoid them. If they don't know the risks, then, IMO, the parents are to blame.

[Jekka]

Well, except for cases of rape, isn't it the girl's fault? She knows she can get pregnant and takes the chance of doing so. Besides, considering the physical, mental and emotional effects of abortion, wouldn't that also be considered more as a punishment that an option?

You act like there's not two people involved while having sex. That's like only arresting the hit man and not the person who hired him - the girl is not the only consenting partner in this equation - it upsets me that girls are getting all the flack for this.

[Jekka]

Well, based upon what I've seen, teenagers from conservative homes have (generally speaking) lower teenage pregnancy rates than teens from liberal homes. So, either conservatives are giving their kids instructions on birth control, or abstinence teaching really does work. As for parents not talking to their kids about sex, they should be shot :lol I remember my sex talk with my parents.

Mom: You know about all that stuff, right?
Me: Yes

End of discussion.

I came from a conservative household - I grew up in a house with a clergymember - and know many other people that did - the discussion you had with your mom is about the only thing we got from our parents, too - oh, except for "DON'T DO IT TIL YOU'RE MARRIED because God says no" - so had we not had sex education, how would we be expected to know things? Not to mention, "God says no" is no argument for a teenager who isn't a Jesus Freak - or at least it wasn't for me and most of the people I grew up with. The difference there is being educated as a whole and knowing that there are choices and reprocussions, and here's how you prevent the reprocussions from happening.

[desflood]

You act like there's not two people involved while having sex. That's like only arresting the hit man and not the person who hired him - the girl is not the only consenting partner in this equation - it upsets me that girls are getting all the flack for this.
I know what you mean, but the girl is the one who gets pregnant, not him, which is what makes it her responsibility. About your other post - I daresay conservative parents (even the religious ones) are a bit more realistic nowadays then they were when we were kids. I expect to talk to my kids about sex (my four-year-old is already asking questions). Granted, I'm actually a lot less conservative than my parents are. :lol

[Jekka]

So what about a derogatory name for a religous group? You applying the logic to the Nazi's was not a valid comparrison. When you say "religous right", people get the idea that you are lumping people of faith with the actual nut jobs that you protest.

Chris, the Religious Right is a group of conservatives that choose to vote out of the pulpit and actively encourage others to do so - they know they have this name and agree to it, because that's their name. It's not derogatory, it's just their name. Anything you read about Fundamentalism will bring it up - try reading The Book of Jerry Falwell by Susan Harding - it was really great for background information written from a scholarly perspective.

[Jekka]

I know what you mean, but the girl is the one who gets pregnant, not him, which is what makes it her responsibility. About your other post - I daresay conservative parents (even the religious ones) are a bit more realistic nowadays then they were when we were kids. I expect to talk to my kids about sex (my four-year-old is already asking questions). Granted, I'm actually a lot less conservative than my parents are. :lol

The only reason more conservative parents are talking about it is because of AIDS - in which case, they still say, "don't do it - you could die,"which means very little to a teenager, because they are all immortal, duh.

Anyways, most kids are not going to get a comprehensive sex education at home - and if they aren't given it at school, then all they are hearing is, "don't do it, wait until marriage" - which is dumb, really. Giving a kid all the information and a CHOICE is what makes the biggest difference - and with all the information, they probably either will want to wait or have safe sex - I know women that are waiting, and it's not because their parents told them to, it's because they are informed. Bottom line: don't withhold information. Telling a kid what to do is the first way to ensure that they won't want to do it.

[Guru of Nothing]

- it upsets me that girls are getting all the flack for this.

Are you suggesting that the girl should receive no flack, or that the guy gets some flack too?

[Jekka]

Are you suggesting that the girl should receive no flack, or that the guy gets some flack too?

Oh I'm no femi-nazi - I don't think it's entirely the guy's fault by any means if it was consensual sex - guys can share half the blame.

[Guru of Nothing]

Oh I'm no femi-nazi - I don't think it's entirely the guy's fault by any means if it was consensual sex - guys can share half the blame.

How's this?

http://www.boomspeed.com/mateo/BadDog.jpg

[Useruser666]

I was disapointed when they told me there wasn't going to be any lab time in my sex ed class.

[B.AlMighty]

Please. I know what motivates the RR. That wonderful book of stories they have and read out of every Sunday.

A wonderful and beautiful book it is! Is it on your nightstand?

[Jekka]

How's this?

http://www.boomspeed.com/mateo/BadDog.jpg

:lol

I just have to question a society that says it's the sole responsibility of the girl to say no.

[Useruser666]

:lol

I just have to question a society that says it's the sole responsibility of the girl to say no.

So what if it's the girl that's asking to have sex?

[MannyIsGod]

So what if it's the girl that's asking to have sex?
Oh, in that situation it would be all on her.

WTF?


It still takes 2 to tango, dude. Did you not get enough sleep last night?

[SWC Bonfire]

A guy generally has to approach a woman, make her laugh, get her interested, say all the right things, generally take her out to dinner, pay for everything, and establish trust, all so that he can get laid. Unless she likes him a lot more than he likes her! :lol

The girl only has to say no somewhere along the line. Also, girls are usually a lot more mature at that age, at least emotionally. So I'd say at least 60/40.

[bigzak25]

You act like there's not two people involved while having sex.


so do abortion laws...

[SWC Bonfire]

so do abortion laws...


Sad story...I had a buddy on the team back in my rugby days who got his G/F pregnant. They were pretty serious. Serious enough that she moved from VA to move in w/ him. He was like 22 at the time, and the "rookie" on the team, so he caught a lot of shit, but he was a good guy. Sort of like a little brother to us. He was ready to buckle down and do the right thing, but his girlie went back to Virginia and got an abortion. He was devastated.

Addendum: I've never hit a woman, and never will, but I'm glad I'll probably never run into that bitch again...I don't need any sort of incitement to do something stupid.

[SpursWoman]

.

[MannyIsGod]

Sad story...I had a buddy on the team back in my rugby days who got his G/F pregnant. They were pretty serious. Serious enough that she moved from VA to move in w/ him. He was like 22 at the time, and the "rookie" on the team, so he caught a lot of shit, but he was a good guy. Sort of like a little brother to us. He was ready to buckle down and do the right thing, but his girlie went back to Virginia and got an abortion. He was devastated.

Addendum: I've never hit a woman, and never will, but I'm glad I'll probably never run into that bitch again...I don't need any sort of incitement to do something stupid.
Yeah, thats pretty fucked up.

[Useruser666]

Oh, in that situation it would be all on her.

WTF?


It still takes 2 to tango, dude. Did you not get enough sleep last night?

Dude, that was tongue in cheek.


I think this whole thing has to do with anatomy. Since the woman is the one that carries the child, it has always been considered her responsiblity for getting pregnant. Also, woman accept the sperm into their bodies, and men donate it from themselves. So in following logic, the person receiving would be the one to refuse, not the one offering.

[SpursWoman]

Dude, that was tongue in cheek.


I think this whole thing has to do with anatomy. Since the woman is the one that carries the child, it has always been considered her responsiblity for getting pregnant. Also, woman accept the sperm into their bodies, and men donate it from themselves. So in following logic, the person receiving would be the one to refuse, not the one offering.



That's some fucked up logic, dear. :lol

[Useruser666]

That's some fucked up logic, dear. :lol

It is? :lol It's just basic biology and how it's been percieved. I'm not saying that's right. Just look back to the time when people thought a woman was responsible for weather a couple had a boy or a girl. I think with time, and progress in contraception, thinking will evolve on this matter.

[2centsworth]

Manny shows his true colors, he could give a crap about the shiavo case it was agenda driven the whole time. Your replies in the thread proves that point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[MannyIsGod]

Did I care about some woman I've never met? No dude, I didn't have any faux sleepless nights like some people. I care about the way law is carried out in this country and thats what I cared about in this case.

[BadlyDrawnBoy]

Desflood is one sad motherfucker.

[desflood]

:rolleyes Yes I am, but probably not for the reasons you are thinking.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll take Des over a guy who changes names and vists Nsync boards.

[Jekka]

Dude, that was tongue in cheek.


I think this whole thing has to do with anatomy. Since the woman is the one that carries the child, it has always been considered her responsiblity for getting pregnant. Also, woman accept the sperm into their bodies, and men donate it from themselves. So in following logic, the person receiving would be the one to refuse, not the one offering.

Oh how fucking benevolent that men would donate their sperm to us that we might have their child. :rolleyes

[Useruser666]

Oh how fucking benevolent that men would donate their sperm to us that we might have their child. :rolleyes

Jekka, calm down. I wasn't talking like a macho pig. Sorry if the verbage I used made it sound that way, but I stated the process in logical terms. Logic sounds cold because it's cut to the chase and raw.

[MannyIsGod]

Jekka, calm down. I wasn't talking like a macho pig. Sorry if the verbage I used made it sound that way, but I stated the process in logical terms. Logic sounds cold because it's cut to the chase and raw.
How about the logic that the man knows the ramifications of sex just as much as the female and that makes him just as liable for the results?

[desflood]

If you're going to equally assign responsibility between the two, then the man should also get equal say as to the pregnancy. He should be able to demand an abortion just like she can. Yes I know it's not his body, but the thing growing within her is half his. Why should her "rights" always trump his?

[Useruser666]

How about the logic that the man knows the ramifications of sex just as much as the female and that makes him just as liable for the results?

Yes, but in the animal kingdom, the male doesn't always give a flying shit about the ramifications. Since we have a much more evolved social society and structure it's different. But underneath all of that is still the primal instincts that drive us all.

Let me make it clear that I of course believe men are as responsible for a pregneancy as the women they have sex with. That's a duh statement. I wasa just stating what I believe are some of the basic reasons where the attitude of some men stems from.

[Jekka]

Yes, but in the animal kingdom, the male doesn't always give a flying shit about the ramifications. Since we have a much more evolved social society and structure it's different. But underneath all of that is still the primal instincts that drive us all.

Let me make it clear that I of course believe men are as responsible for a pregneancy as the women they have sex with. That's a duh statement. I wasa just stating what I believe are some of the basic reasons where the attitude of some men stems from.

While we are part of the animal kingdom, there is a HUGE difference between a fuck-and-run with a lesser intelligent animal and a human. If the less-intelligent animal gets knocked up, she has a low-risk birth in most cases followed by having to look for more food - and most mothers in the "animal kingdom" live together and help each other out. With humans, it's a little more complicated than that, with everything from a higher risk birth and longer recovery time due to the larger brain and head circumference of the baby to paying bills and watching the child.

You want everything to be black and white, and it's not. "Logic sounds cold" because this is not a situation where you can use that logic because there are three people involved, and you're saying that with logic that means that one of them gets out scott-free and two of them get hurt - that's not good logic.

[SWC Bonfire]

...this is not a situation where you can use that logic because there are three people involved, and you're saying that with logic that means that one of them gets out scott-free and two of them get hurt - that's not good logic.

I know this quote is somewhat out of context, but this is the reason people are against abortion.

[MannyIsGod]

If you're going to equally assign responsibility between the two, then the man should also get equal say as to the pregnancy. He should be able to demand an abortion just like she can. Yes I know it's not his body, but the thing growing within her is half his. Why should her "rights" always trump his?
He can give up his parental rights. I agree that he should have a say in the abortion process - or to stop it - but the problem is how do you force a woman to carry a baby when she doesn't want to when that baby argueably isn't a full fledge human?

I don't have an answer, because it's not cut and dry.

[Jekka]

I know this quote is somewhat out of context, but this is the reason people are against abortion.

Allow me to preface this with stating that while I hate the idea of abortion, I respect a woman's right to have one. I personally view abortion as more of stopping a life before consciousness, which is different than abandoning a child who will likely be disadvantaged and might have psychological reprocussions - these are also things that get passed down in many cases through subsequent generations. Not to mention, I do not see the mother as getting out of the situation without getting hurt if she chooses to have an abortion. Except for the minority of women who use it as birth control, abortion is a horrible, horrible decision to have to make - it's not easy, it's painful, it's psychologically detrimental in a huge way. To insinuate the mother gets out scott-free is completely untrue.

[Useruser666]

While we are part of the animal kingdom, there is a HUGE difference between a fuck-and-run with a lesser intelligent animal and a human. If the less-intelligent animal gets knocked up, she has a low-risk birth in most cases followed by having to look for more food - and most mothers in the "animal kingdom" live together and help each other out. With humans, it's a little more complicated than that, with everything from a higher risk birth and longer recovery time due to the larger brain and head circumference of the baby to paying bills and watching the child.

You want everything to be black and white, and it's not. "Logic sounds cold" because this is not a situation where you can use that logic because there are three people involved, and you're saying that with logic that means that one of them gets out scott-free and two of them get hurt - that's not good logic.

Ok, this is getting really dumb. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE MAN GETS OFF THE HOOK! OK?!!!

I was saying it is not a basic instinct in many animal species for the male to care for the young, or even acknoledge thir existence. I had already said like 3 times that men should be held responsible, just as much as the woman.

The logical process has nothing to do with what's right, fair, or any responsibilities. The males of many species sole responsibility is to fertilize as many females as possible. The females responisbility is to give birth to as many offspring as possible. Sometimes those roles are slightly different, or more complicated. Because human's are so intelligent, they need more care and for a longer period of time during their early years. Because of that, human females have spent more and more time raising and nuturing their offspring than other animals typically do. Now it is common for the male of the couple to also take a large part of the development of their own offspring. But for some, they still have the instincts of procreation wired into their brain. In today's society, this behavior is frown upon, and considered leacherous.

So I will state again, I'm not condoning, excusing, or promoting man sluts!!!

[Jekka]

I was saying it is not a basic instinct in [b]many animal species/b] for the male to care for the young, or even acknoledge thir existence. I had already said like 3 times that men should be held responsible, just as much as the woman.

Who's to say that humans fall into that category then if you're willing to admit that not every species does? If that's the case then your whole argument is moot.


Ok, this is getting really dumb. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE MAN GETS OFF THE HOOK! OK?!!!

Then the point of stating the logic was .... playing dumb-devil's advocate?

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, this is getting really dumb. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE MAN GETS OFF THE HOOK! OK?!!!

I was saying it is not a basic instinct in many animal species for the male to care for the young, or even acknoledge thir existence. I had already said like 3 times that men should be held responsible, just as much as the woman.

The logical process has nothing to do with what's right, fair, or any responsibilities. The males of many species sole responsibility is to fertilize as many females as possible. The females responisbility is to give birth to as many offspring as possible. Sometimes those roles are slightly different, or more complicated. Because human's are so intelligent, they need more care and for a longer period of time during their early years. Because of that, human females have spent more and more time raising and nuturing their offspring than other animals typically do. Now it is common for the male of the couple to also take a large part of the development of their own offspring. But for some, they still have the instincts of procreation wired into their brain. In today's society, this behavior is frown upon, and considered leacherous.

So I will state again, I'm not condoning, excusing, or promoting man sluts!!!
I suggest you either take a class in primate biology or a class in physical anthropology before you decide to start making this arguement. Humans are far removed from animals without a social structure built into their species and in addition that has nothing to do with logic.

Biological behavior patterns are what you are reffering to, but even then you are incorrect.

[SWC Bonfire]

I'm sorry, but this popped into my head:

"You & me baby ain't nothing but mammals
So let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel...."

Damn you people for causing that to resurface in my brain.

:lol

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sorry, but this popped into my head:

"You & me baby ain't nothing but mammals
So let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel...."

Damn you people for causing that to resurface in my brain.

:lol
http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Nice.

[Useruser666]

I suggest you either take a class in primate biology or a class in physical anthropology before you decide to start making this arguement. Humans are far removed from animals without a social structure built into their species and in addition that has nothing to do with logic.

Biological behavior patterns are what you are reffering to, but even then you are incorrect.

Yeah, whatever. I said in the begining it was a stretch and then get attacked for it. I never said any of the comparrisons were absolute or weren't related from a distance.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

This thread is only funny if Zombie Terri Schiavo posts

[Swishy McJackass]

Zombies kick ASS!

I once knew a zombie named Lothar who would attack people that mispronounced "pecan."

Peee-can.

[SWC Bonfire]

Zombies kick ASS!

I once knew a zombie named Lothar who would attack people that mispronounced "pecan."

Peee-can.

F/O, Swishy...:lol

Very appropriate screen name, t.c.