Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

I've never seen Juno

LIAR!

And a 2002 study I read last month as part of a seperate presentation cites all abortions (In US) due to rape and incest at less than 2%.

I don't know who or what that was directed at, but if it was my comments, I want to be clear that I wasn't suggesting incest and rape made up a large percentage of abortions.

I was just trying to say that you can never outlaw it altogether for those reasons.

FD- I wasnt directing it at you, I also am not the party who said "WRONG" to ya, just wanted to clear that up.

I just placed it in there as it was quasi topical.
Not implying you feel an overwhelming # of the abortions are due to those cases.

"i mean, i'm sure it's true, but so would razing the projects with everyone in them, and that might be taking crime prevention a tad too far."



In Homer Simpson voice...."MMMMMMMMMM, razing the projects with everyone in them....MMMMMMM......"

I honestly have never seen the film. Does it have a scene like that?

I've been doing this since 2002 or so

as pertinant as rape or incest would probably be instances where a mother's health and/or life are at risk because of the pregnancy.

though i would guess those are not a huge percentage of cases either.

There is a scene where Juno goes for an abortion and a friend of hers from school is out there trying to convince people otherwise. Not in quite the same manner you state that you do, though, which we all know is patently false.



Myself, I just stand outside Woody's with a blow torch and ask everyone that enters or exits if they wanna try out their future living quarters.

Flesh:

Adult stem cells have been exposed to a variety of pathogens (viruses mainly) and have had certain surface protein mutations as a consequence. They still are pluripotential cells (can form any type of cell), however, their responsiveness to certain growth stimuli (for example heart muscle) is not the same as for embryonic stem cells.

I still think I'd focus on autologous stem cells (from the individual) or adult stem cells for the time being.

Cutting edge stuff, Flesh. The Thai, Vietnamese, Koreans, Chinese are ahead of us for sure on this.

though i would guess those are not a huge percentage of cases either.

You're right...the vast majority of abortions are "oops" babies.

I just stand outside Woody's with a blow torch

In order to fit in with the other flamers?

dumb it down for me, doc:

embryotic v. adult stem cells: which is right now more promising for research?

In order to fit in with the other flamers?

boo

Supreme Court sides with Guantanamo detainees

Long overdue.

Great. Maybe they can put the OJ jury back together and help those poor, poor men. Clearly they were just out for a stroll when we picked them up.


They are military prisoners of war. Let the military courts handle them.

Actually, they are not military prisoners of war, nor can they be classified as such, or they would have "rights."

Yeah, wrong again IMS. Bush classifies them as "iilegal combatants". If they were POWs, they would have rights according to the Geneva Conventions.

6 years and no trial. Seems fair.

Who cares?

Well, the SCOTUS for one, I guess, and most other people who like the Constitution.

6 years and no trial. Seems fair.

That's not accurate.

They've have legal reviews of their status and the US extended many of the Geneva provisions for them.

This is different. This is letting them have access to our mainland civilian courts.

This is not a good decision. They had access to military courts and defense representation prior. Some were released when insufficient evidence was found to keep them. Some were retained.

The US hasn't been holding these guys without legal review.

Well, the SCOTUS for one, I guess, and most other people who like the Constitution.


Foreigners committing crimes on foreign soil and being held on foreign soil are to be provided the same rights and the same courts as you are.

Can't find that in the Constitution.

Great. Maybe they can put the OJ jury back together and help those poor, poor men. Clearly they were just out for a stroll when we picked them up.

ha! by posting a sarcastic comment, you flipped the issue around and made it look the US is being soft on terrorists!

but i get your point, IMS. they seem guilty of something, right? so what's the big deal about actually determining if they actually are? so what if we trample on their rights? so what if our actions undermine our standing in the world? that we are helping to breed the next generation of terrorists with our actions? that US prisons around the world (many secret) are just part of the way that our government has been slowly chipping away at the constitution and due process in the last six years?

At issue were the “combatant status review tribunals,” made up of military officers, that the administration set up to validate the initial determination that a detainee deserved to be labeled an “enemy combatant.”

The military assigns a “personal representative” to each detainee, but defense lawyers may not take part. Nor are the tribunals required to disclose to the detainee details of the evidence or witnesses against him

Seriously, how could anyone have a problem with that?

Dino,
We are fighting a war right now. Is it the best course of action to open every aspect of intelligence collection and analysis, Rules of Engagement, etc. to an enemy combatant? Or should reasonable safeguards be in place?

NC Saints, the fact is that we are "at war" but they are not "prisoners of war."

Bush was trying to have his cake and eat it too. They should either be afforded ALL Geneva convention rights or US court rights - you can't choose "none of the above."

Dino,
There are guidelines for uniformed combatants. The Geneva Conventions were designed to safeguard rights of uniformed militaries so another country could not put a soldier on trial for murder when he was acting in a lawful (but warlike) manner.

They don't get the status because they didn't fit the qualifications and, more importantly, refused to abude by standard rules, such as the Law of Armed Conflict.

They forfeited any protection by entering a war zone and committing crimes, such as attempted murder.

The US extended certain Geneva rights, without salling them such, as a gesture of due process and fairness.

In the end, I still can't find a compelling reason to grant non-citizens, accused of crimes in foreign lands, and being held in a foreign land, the same rights lawful combatants receive because they adide by certain standards.

To borrow a line from a song, "My give a damn's busted."

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207