Soxbadger

Strangesox, Right or wrong, an abortion can be a life changing decision. People should be informed about their decision and they should then be free to make the choice they want after being informed. I can see some negatives of allowing someone a same day abortion, so I could be convinced that having a 24 hour wait before appointment could be beneficial for everyone. To be completely non-hypocritical, it would be similar to waiting to buy a gun, etc. Its not so far fetched to say there should be some waiting, I just think that in general most people cant get abortions the day they set the appointment, so its really a non-issue.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 7, 2012 -> 11:22 AM) Ignoring the pill version, I'm guessing most women who get physical abortions don't know exactly what will happen or what the effects will be. They set up an appointment with a doctor but they're given the explanation right there. That's not enough time to consider the ramifications of the decision IMO, and adding a 24 hour wait isn't some huge barrier.. I still think this is such a weak standard to go by. Go look at the development of babies around that time period. They're 100% human at that point, with distinct human features. It's not just a bundle of microscopic cells. Part 1, I dont think 24 hours is a huge barrier either, which is why Id have to see the proposal. As I said, it generally goes, first to gyno, then a separate visit days/weeks later for the actual abortion. In that case they usually have spent days/weeks after the gyno visit thinking about their choice. There absolutely should not be any requirement to then wait again at the next appoint. Part 2, it may be a weak standard, but I dont have a better one. Human features does not make something alive, if I create a robot that looks and operates exactly like a human, it would have no rights, why? Because being alive goes beyond mimicking humanity, it goes beyond having human features, it means that it actually has to be a living/breathing human, so while the cells may imitate life, they are definitely not alive. I just do not see any compelling reason to give govt the power to protect that which is not alive. I already think its troubling how much power the govt has over our personal life, so when in doubt, I side against govt. QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 7, 2012 -> 11:22 AM) Great! If you're willing to give rights as early as 19 weeks, then you've lost endorsement money from NARAL, NOW, or any other left-wing organization, because none of them would ever consider restricting abortion that early. I would venture to say that less than 1% of people who call themselves pro-life would disagree with that. I think I've met one person in my life who would not allow an exception to save the life of the mother. Part 1, I dont care what they think or what they would do. My opinion is based on my beliefs. Part 2, I dont know, sometimes it seems that people who are pro-life are saying that the fetus rights are equal to the mothers rights, so I can never be sure where they draw the line for what is "okay" and what is "not okay". Im a big fan of consistency, so my position hopefully is consistent regardless.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ May 7, 2012 -> 10:51 AM) Usually it means you have to see the doctor and wait 24 hours from that point. Then I would disagree with that. I can see a legitimate argument about a "cool down", but if you make an appointment go to the dr, you should be able to do whatever you want as you had to wait a few days already. QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 7, 2012 -> 10:58 AM) What do you mean exactly by "depending entirely on its mother?" Any baby that would need any kind of medical attention after being born has no rights? My son was born 4 weeks early and required one week in the NICU? Does that mean he shouldn't have had any rights before being born? Nope, and Im starting to wonder if your purposefully trying to argue and not recognize what I am saying. Your son survived in the NICU, without his mother, that means by my definition he had rights. Now I am referring to a fetus that under no circumstances (ie NICU, all the money in the world) would survive outside of the mother. Ive already said that I would be willing to consider giving rights as early as 19 weeks, which would have been considerably earlier than your son was born. So once again let me explain; If a fetus can not survive in a NICU or with any other medical/science currently known to man, it is not alive and therefore can not be protected. If a fetus can survive outside of the mother, the scales then have tipped to where it does deserve some protection. Now the reason I say "some" is that the fetus is still attached to the mother and therefore if there is a medical emergency etc, the fetus could still be destroyed to save the mother. Ultimately that would be up to the family to decide.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 7, 2012 -> 06:52 AM) That is the current definition, yes, but it's very outdated given what we now know about fetal development. Also, I'll ask you the same question I ask everybody who claims that human rights begin with birth: If a woman who is a week from her due date, having no compelling financial or medical reason for doing so, simply decided on a whim to have an abortion, should that be her right? You're saying that the baby has no rights until birth, so what other reason is there to stop a woman from doing this? I clearly covered this in my original post. A fetus 1 week from its due date would absolutely be able to survive on its own if removed from the mother. Therefore it has rights. I never said that a fetus has no rights until birth, I said a fetus has no rights until it can survive on its own with current medical technology. And when I say survival, I mean depending entirely on its mother, not that even after the baby is born it still has needs and still technically couldnt survive on its own. As for the 24 hour waiting period, generally you have to go to an gyno, then you have to have an appointment set, so to me that would cover 24 hour waiting period. I would have to see exactly what is proposed, IE if they mean you have to wait overnight at the facility to have the procedure as a "cool down" time, that would be a no go, but if they simply are saying you cant have an abortion on the same day as you call, I could potentially be convinced that isnt the worst thing.

If Ive been annoying anyone, I apologize, Im just frustrated that the Bulls are on the brink of losing in the first round. Just really wanted them to get 1 of those games.

J4l, You must not read the college hoops thread a lot because of the 40 or so Wisconsin games, I probably point out reffing maybe 1-2 games. Even in this series games 1 and 2 no real comments, it was only in games 3-4 when the ft disparity went crazy that comments are going to be made. What else can you do? I wish the refs would call the games even, but sometimes they dont, but if I dont like the way is going, I think its up to the coach to change the direction. I doubt you can find even 3 times where I said "Bo Ryan should get a t", so I dont know how the comments are even comparable.

Asik is effective against certain teams. The 76ers arent one of them. They are small and athletic, which is why I couldnt believe Asik started today.

No Noah and Rose is probably a bottom 5 -10 team.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 6, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) That's a great question actually This team is pretty horrific, thats why its so annoying to lose to the 76ers who are equally crappy and actually healthy.

Phil Jackson would complain about refs in the media, I think thats what the comment was referring to.

And Philly was the more terrible team today, but they got 28 fts and still could only win by 6 points. Its a joke.

QUOTE (kev211 @ May 6, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) Giving free points in stupid at any stage in the game. You don't get T'ed up on purpose its stupid. Disagree, plenty of coaches will get a technical early in the game to send a message to the refs.

Not now, I suggested it in the first quarter. Have you been reading this thread? Im just saying this is what happens when you dont stand up for your players.

What are you talking about? You cant let the refs do this to your team. Thibs never gets Ted up, he never stands up for his players. Plenty of other coaches get t's.

Well unlike Thibs Id be thrown out of the game.

God damnit Thibs you gotta go after the refs if they just blatantly screw you there.

Well maybe the refs are going to give the Bulls a chance here, they have called some fouls away from the basket.

If the refs called it that way the entire game the Bulls would shoot 900 fts, 76ers basically foul so much you just cant call every one.

FT disparity- 21-7 in favor of Philly and the Bulls have been aggressive on offense.

Is thibs afraid of yelling at refs?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 6, 2012 -> 01:08 PM) The problem with Asik out there is that he's more a low post guy and its hard for him to be out on Hawes. Hawes is on fire though (and that 3 wasn't on Asik). Its why I thought Taj/Boozer would start. 76ers arent a big team with a lot of post guys who can beat you. You might as well put the most athletic team out there and see what happens. Asik is just not a great fit for this series.

I dont even care if the bulls are getting the foul calls, sometimes as a coach you need to get riled up and go after the refs. You need to show your team that you will get thrown out if necessary to protect them.

And thats 3 fouls on Taj. Will Thibs go insane and get a T as the refs just took out the Bulls best option? Or will he sit there and let the refs decimate the team?

Thibs just isnt seeing that with Asik on the floor the 76ers are able to double hard constantly, as soon as you have Taj/Boozer they have to play much more straight up giving everyone a chance. If they spread the defense out they may just have a chance.

76ers cant handle Taj.