This was in today's paper...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2008/05/oleszek_may_run_again_for_sena.html

Ken Cuccinelli is a POS, but I have to believe that Fairfax Democrats will find someone, anyone more capable than Janet Oleszek to run in the next three years. This has to be some sort of face-saving move to keep her political career alive, but who is going to take her seriously now? I really wish that she had stayed on the FCPS school board where she might have actually done some good. Now we are stuck with Liz Bradsher whose sole purpose on the SB appears to be to coerce FXCO taxpayers to fund an unneeded middle school at South County. Meanwhile, schools like West Springfield HS are practically falling down around the students.

Oleszek's campaign was awful... extremely negative.

You are 100% correct in your opinioins about Ken Cuccinelli and West Springfield HS. They are both an embarrassment to Spingfield and the state of VA. He is obviously positioning himself to be the poster boy for the religous right in this state supporting such causes as allowing professionals such as pharmicists to withhold services that they feel conflicts with their religous beliefs (birth control)...hides behind his cause to make abortion clinics as safe as hospitals to try and close down Planned Parenthood offices (if he is so worried about women's safety why doesnt he propose to provide them funding to improve their "safety"?)....home schooling (perhaps his lack of support for the public schools explains some of the condition of WSHS. The list goes on..if the religous right support it...Ken is their mouthpiece.

As far as Janet goes...she needs to develop a killer instinct. During last year's election she fell for each one of Ken's loaded questions..which were subsequently used against her in TV commercials making her look foolish.

Bottom line..ken Cuccinellli is a Springfield District problem...and we need to take care of our own.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oleszek's campaign was awful... extremely
> negative.


Not negative enough in my opinion. I cant believe that a majority from the Springfield District would vote for the man if they took the time to learn of his record and what he stands for.

Oleszek is unelectable and the Dems better figure that out.

She was ineffective on the SB and she comes accross as a complete ninconpoop in person. Ken is a kook but Janet is not the answer.

Cuccenelli is cleaning up this spiraling downward county.

COOCH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cuccenelli is cleaning up this spiraling downward
> county.


In no sense is he doing that...3 terms as state senator...he owns every problem we might have. And now he is going to run for state attorney general...so, in no sense is he cleaning up anything.

Cuccinelli is for lower taxes and individual rights. What is Oleszek for? All I got from her is a bunch of hit pieces.

im voting for vince.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

>> individual rights

He opposes the individual right for a woman to have an abortion, and advocates school prayer.

That really strikes you as someone who supports limited govt. powers and individual freedom??

ha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cuccinelli is for lower taxes and individual
> rights. What is Oleszek for? All I got from her is
> a bunch of hit pieces.

Another individual "right" he supports would allow a licensed pharmacist to deny filling a prescription ordered by a doctor because it was against the pharmacists beliefs without fear of being fired.

What other individual rights of yours do you believe Ken is protecting?

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> individual rights
>
> He opposes the individual right for a woman to
> have an abortion

Perhaps he's advocating the unborn's individual rights.

3455 Wrote:
>> Perhaps he's advocating the unborn's individual rights.


While at the same time ignoring, and impeding, the rights of a female U.S. citizen.

If this religious kook came out and said he wanted to legislate family values and dictate his personal "moral compass" to his constituents, more power to him. For him to pawn himself off as some kind of beacon of individual rights is completely absurd. Just because he fights for gun rights, he thinks he's some kind of protector of liberty??

Some folks might buy it. I ain't.

eastern euro or russian

vs

italian

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are 100% correct in your opinioins about Ken
> Cuccinelli and West Springfield HS. They are both
> an embarrassment to Spingfield and the state of
> VA. He is obviously positioning himself to be the
> poster boy for the religous right in this state
> supporting such causes as allowing professionals
> such as pharmicists to withhold services that they
> feel conflicts with their religous beliefs (birth
> control)...hides behind his cause to make abortion
> clinics as safe as hospitals to try and close down
> Planned Parenthood offices (if he is so worried
> about women's safety why doesnt he propose to
> provide them funding to improve their
> "safety"?)....home schooling (perhaps his lack of
> support for the public schools explains some of
> the condition of WSHS. The list goes on..if the
> religous right support it...Ken is their
> mouthpiece.
>
> As far as Janet goes...she needs to develop a
> killer instinct. During last year's election she
> fell for each one of Ken's loaded questions..which
> were subsequently used against her in TV
> commercials making her look foolish.
>
> Bottom line..ken Cuccinellli is a Springfield
> District problem...and we need to take care of our
> own.


You're stupid.

I rarely cross party lines and frankly I abhor what Kooky Ken stands for, but Oleszek is not the answer to our prayers.

She is a follower, a wall flower, someone who lacks initiative.

I have more respect for someone who at least thinks for themselves even if I disagree with their message.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3455 Wrote:
> >> Perhaps he's advocating the unborn's individual
> rights.
>
>
> While at the same time ignoring, and impeding, the
> rights of a female U.S. citizen.

Hence the reason for the debate in the first place. Cuccinelli's position in this instance, is completely consistent with individual rights. I'm not familiar enough with his other positions to know how he balances out.

You don't have to be religious to be pro-life (even though by their numbers and vocal volume you might think so). I'm not. This issue divides libertarians as well, who are known for their individual-rights nutty-ness. The crux of the debate comes down to this point: When does that fetus get individual rights?. If it's at the moment it comes completely, not partially, out of a vaginal canal, you are in one camp. If it's at the moment when some arbitrarily defined percentage of the fetus's body is outside the vaginal canal, another. At conception, another. And then there's the in-between, spawning all sorts hybrid positions.

All of these positions are held by people who feel that they are protecting the most important individual right.

To say that Cuccinelli's position on the right of an adult female in consutation with her Doctor, to control her reproductive processes is "consistent with individual rights" is ludicrous. There is no greater individual right then reproductive freedom. It isnt right for a government to limit a couple to one child as they do in China then it is to limit...stop a women from having an abortion in this country. Sugar coat him all you want...but he is nothing more then a tool of the religous right and those of us oppoed to the religous right agenda need to do whatever it takes to stop him...even if it means voting for a flawed candidate as Janet Oleszek.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2008 11:07PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To say that Cuccinelli's position on the right of
> an adult female in consutation with her Doctor, to
> control her reproductive processes is "consistent
> with individual rights" is ludicrous. There is no
> greater individual right then reproductive
> freedom. It isnt right for a government to limit
> a couple to one child as they do in China then it
> is to limit...stop a women from having an abortion
> in this country. Sugar coat him all you
> want...but he is nothing more then a tool of the
> religous right and those of us oppoed to the
> religous right agenda need to do whatever it takes
> to stop him...even if it means voting for a flawed
> candidate as Janet Oleszek.


You're stupid.

Vince(1) Wrote:
There is no
> greater individual right then reproductive
> freedom.


I guess the right to have a life in the first place is worth less than reproductive rights? Explain how that works. If you don't have the right to live, how do you ever expect to exercise your reproductive rights?

It's simple...not pleasant...but simple. Every right is in a hierarchy to other rights. The last thing we want the government invoved in is the right to the privacy associated with our healthcare. We dont want to evolve into a state where the government will decide who is born...who isnt born...who gets to have their health care provided and who has it withheld. These decisions are best left to individuals and their families in the case of terminally ill patients. To protect this right to health care privacy...reproductive freedom of an adult female is a trip wire issue. We cant have it both ways...if we criticise China for limiting familes to 1 child as an afront to freedom...we cant turn around and make a women's control of her reproductive body a crime...or even make more difficult.

I shouldnt tell this but my brother Vince has the hots for Cuccinelli. He
hides pictures of him under his matress and makes noises when the lights
are out.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's simple...not pleasant...but simple. Every
> right is in a hierarchy to other rights. The last
> thing we want the government invoved in is the
> right to the privacy associated with our
> healthcare. We dont want to evolve into a state
> where the government will decide who is born...who
> isnt born...who gets to have their health care
> provided and who has it withheld. These decisions
> are best left to individuals and their families in
> the case of terminally ill patients. To protect
> this right to health care privacy...reproductive
> freedom of an adult female is a trip wire issue.
> We cant have it both ways...if we criticise China
> for limiting familes to 1 child as an afront to
> freedom...we cant turn around and make a women's
> control of her reproductive body a crime...or even
> make more difficult.

Dude, you are a moron. You say that if we criticize a country for forcing women to kill their children, we can't turn around and pass laws to prevent women (and men abortionists too) from killing their children. Seems like a damn consistent position to me!

By you (lack of) logic, if we criticized Pol Pot for mass murder, we couldn't turn around and criticize Charles Manson for mass murder.

As for hierarchy of rights, take a look at the Declaration of Independence, which states it pretty well: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Seems like a pretty good hierarchy to me!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's simple...not pleasant...but simple. Every
> right is in a hierarchy to other rights. The last
> thing we want the government invoved in is the
> right to the privacy associated with our
> healthcare. We dont want to evolve into a state
> where the government will decide who is born...who
> isnt born...who gets to have their health care
> provided and who has it withheld. These decisions
> are best left to individuals and their families in
> the case of terminally ill patients. To protect
> this right to health care privacy...reproductive
> freedom of an adult female is a trip wire issue.
> We cant have it both ways...if we criticise China
> for limiting familes to 1 child as an afront to
> freedom...we cant turn around and make a women's
> control of her reproductive body a crime...or even
> make more difficult.


Actually the policy is 100% consisent. We criticize China because they essentially require forced abortions. The conservatives critize legal abortion in the U.S. because its abortion. What is NOT consistent about that?

As to the pharmacy issue, there is a conflict. A pharmacist could assert hypocratic oath and claim that he/she believes that prescribing the Morning After pill constitutes murder of life. That same argument is made by physicians who refuse to participate in executions of condemned prisoners. If you allow physicians to opt out of executions, you'd have to allow pharmacists to opt out of prescribing medications that they believe are incongruous with life.

If the religious right had their way...women would be forced to bare children they do not want. I see no difference between such a policy and forced abortions in China. Both are a case of the state taking away a women's right to privacy and reproductive freedom.

As far as your doctor/pharmacist comparison...I believe it is a false comparison. There is debate based more on religious beliefs then on the science on when life begins and can survive outside the womb. And when it can survive outside the womb there is legal precedent on the state having the right to limit a women's right to privacy and reproductive freedom (no right is absolute). The morning after pill does not pass this test. There is no such debate on the extinguishing of a life associated with a state approved execution. Plus...to my knowledge, a pharmacist takes no oath similar to the Hippocratic oath...and contriving one based on "conscious" does not trump the requirement of a pharmacist to serve the public without prejudice that a is required when a license is granted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2008 10:03AM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the religous right had their way...women would
> be forced to bare children they do not want. I
> see no difference between such a policy and forced
> abortions in China.


I realize you see no difference between killing and preserving life, but that's nothing that can be explained to someone without a moral compass.

Except in cases of rape and incest (a more complicated situation for certain), women always have the "choice" not to bare children... it's called abstinence and contraception.

Choose Life Wrote:
>> "choice" not to bear children... it's called abstinence and contraception


Giving someone a "choice" of options based on your personal morals IS NOT advocating personal freedom. In fact, it is the opposite.

Choose Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If the religous right had their way...women
> would
> > be forced to bare children they do not want. I
> > see no difference between such a policy and
> forced
> > abortions in China.
>
>
> I realize you see no difference between killing
> and preserving life, but that's nothing that can
> be explained to someone without a moral compass.
>
>
> Except in cases of rape and incest (a more
> complicated situation for certain), women always
> have the "choice" not to bare children... it's
> called abstinence and contraception.

Do not tell me what it is I can tell the difference between. I can tell perfectly well the difference between killing and preserving life. I can also tell the difference between what is my business and what isn't...you dont seem to be able to do that. The fact that you can make the case for "complications" associated with rape and incest shows that the concept of a moral compass is subjective. After all there are plenty of people who would not grant a women an abortion to victims in either case. So...how about you live according to your moral compass and allow others to do the same?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2008 10:10AM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Choose Life Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If the religous right had their way...women
> > would
> > > be forced to bare children they do not want.
> I
> > > see no difference between such a policy and
> > forced
> > > abortions in China.
> >
> >
> > I realize you see no difference between killing
> > and preserving life, but that's nothing that
> can
> > be explained to someone without a moral compass.
>
> >
> >
> > Except in cases of rape and incest (a more
> > complicated situation for certain), women
> always
> > have the "choice" not to bare children... it's
> > called abstinence and contraception.
>
> Do not tell me what it is I can tell the
> difference between. I can tell perfectly well the
> difference between killing and preserving life. I
> can also tell the difference between what is my
> business and what isn't...you dont seem to be able
> to do that. The fact that you can make the case
> for "complications" associated with rape and
> incest shows that the concept of a moral compass
> is subjective. After all there are plenty of
> people who would not grant a women an abortion to
> victims in either case. So...how about you live
> according to your moral compass and allow others
> to do the same?


You're stupid.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Choose Life Wrote:
> >> "choice" not to bear children... it's called
> abstinence and contraception
>
>
> Giving someone a "choice" of options based on your
> personal morals IS NOT advocating personal
> freedom. In fact, it is the opposite.


Except in cases where they are forced against their will to engage in sexual activity, there are but three choices to be made if one wants to avoid bearing children: not engaging in sexual intercourse, engaging in some form of birth control (including the rhythm method and coitus interruptus), or ending the pregnancy after a life has been created.

If a woman wants to avoid pregancy, but believes there is some value to a new human life, regardless of how small it is, then they have only two choices. If however, they give no value to the newly created human life, than they can provide themselves with the third option.

So, yes there is the third option of killing the human life for those who assign it no value, and who have no values.

Personal freedom and all freedoms are essential to human existence. But no freedom is an unfettered right without limits. In this case, that freedom is limited by the right to life, which is the first among all rights.

Not a convenient truth for many in our society who prefer to avoid personal responsibility and blame someone or something else for the consequences of their choices. But truth it is.

GMU2002 - you said it very well

GMU2002 Wrote:
>> and who have no values


Who suddenly made you the judge and jury on who "has values" and "who doesn't have values"? Jesus?? Muhammad?? Buddha?? You can pray to whoever you want, but that does not make you the final arbitrator. We're not the Taliban, we don't need the govt. to tell us what our "values" should be.

Again, you are affixing your moral beliefs onto others. It's really that simple.


(i probably should add that I think abortion is pretty heinous and I would never want a girlfriend or daughter to go thru something like that.)

GMU2002 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Choose Life Wrote:
> > >> "choice" not to bear children... it's called
> > abstinence and contraception
> >
> >
> > Giving someone a "choice" of options based on
> your
> > personal morals IS NOT advocating personal
> > freedom. In fact, it is the opposite.
>
>
> Except in cases where they are forced against
> their will to engage in sexual activity, there are
> but three choices to be made if one wants to avoid
> bearing children: not engaging in sexual
> intercourse, engaging in some form of birth
> control (including the rhythm method and coitus
> interruptus), or ending the pregnancy after a life
> has been created.
>
> If a woman wants to avoid pregancy, but believes
> there is some value to a new human life,
> regardless of how small it is, then they have
> only two choices. If however, they give no value
> to the newly created human life, than they can
> provide themselves with the third option.
>
> So, yes there is the third option of killing the
> human life for those who assign it no value, and
> who have no values.
>
> Personal freedom and all freedoms are essential to
> human existence. But no freedom is an unfettered
> right without limits. In this case, that freedom
> is limited by the right to life, which is the
> first among all rights.
>
> Not a convenient truth for many in our society who
> prefer to avoid personal responsibility and blame
> someone or something else for the consequences of
> their choices. But truth it is.

Hardly the truth...just more Republican and relgious right propaganda.

When life starts is an opinion...not a fact. You have no right to impose your religious based beleifs on anyone.

There is no hierarchy of rights...they are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life does not trump...liberty and happiness. All rights are fettered even liberty! They are fettered by laws...the perfect example being you are not free to shout "fire" in a movie theater. The government controlling your reproductive rights as they do in China or here is neither a pursuit of liberty nor happiness.


Your descriptions of people who disagree with your belief structure is typical of all "religious" people. At least 2 of our founding fathers..Jefferson and Adams... had hoped we would be beyond blind religious intolerance and beliefs by now. They were wrong...what a shame.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, you are affixing your moral beliefs onto
> others. It's really that simple.
>
>
> (i probably should add that I think abortion is
> pretty heinous and I would never want a girlfriend
> or daughter to go thru something like that.)


Why do you think it is "heinous"? Is it something that is wrong in your judgement? Do your "values" about taking a life make it seem "wrong. Actually, you used "heinous", so you actually sense there is something very, very wrong, which clearly is something you believe is morally wrong.

If true, than the only difference is that I am willing to stand up and say it that if it is morally wrong, than society has an obligation to responsibly try to stop it. That does not mean women should be forced into procreation centers, nor should they be sent to jail. Nor does it mean that rape and incest are not more complicated because of the fact that it was not their choice to become (or risk becoming) pregnant.

But it does mean that since there are "responsible choices" to be made that would prevent them from getting pregnant, than when they fail to be responsible, they cannot now claim the "right" to do something "pretty heinous" and take an innocent life. Not in a civilized society.

And govenment is here exactly for the purpose of promoting the values of a civilized society. That's why we outlaw bigamy, and dangerous drugs, and dangerous weapons, and why we restrict who can drive, and who can marry, and mandate who must go to school, and who must be vaccinated, and make choices about how to spend our money on bridges, or homelessness, or agriculture. It also decides how much we can drink and drive, and what is insider trading, and when the death penalty can be imposed. These are all done because our society, acting through a representative government, has decided that we want to have common values as the fabric of our society.

Now, there are some don't want a government to make such choices, depending on the degree they are either libertarians or anarchists. But for those who recognize the benefit to a civil society that a government can make, they implicitly give to government the power to make moral choices based upon common values.

The only difference is how one defines those values. And once again, this comes down to a question of whether human life, no matter small, has intrinsic value worth preserving whenever possible.

Some of us say it does and we try our best to live that value (though we may fail sometimes). Others say that the new human life has no intrinsic value, which they either believe or pretend to believe so as to avoid having to make moral judgements about themselves or others, which would require them to judge themselves and others.

It's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of government and civil society. Civil society requires common values based upon common moral beliefs. Without them, there can be no civil society and only chaos will ensue.

Again, this is simply true.

Yes, I believe it is vile.

I just do not believe that my morals are more important than those of other people- people who may disagree with me.

Apparently you think that your beliefs should be foisted upon others, whether they agree with you or not.

I also think that is vile.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> When life starts is an opinion...not a fact.

Really? How about when life ends? Is that an opinion?

Sorry, but the question of when "life" starts is an objective scientific fact. Whether you assign it value is another question.

There is no doubt that mosquitos are alive, nor is there any question about when they acquire the quality of "life". In this case, however, I do not assign them any value and will kill them at will, and would eradicate them completely if possible. I would not do the same with other forms of life, such as animals, each of whom has greater value, subjective though that is.

However, I and most people firmly believe that human life is the highest form and deserves the greatest value. We choose to live in a society that shares this belief and we expect our represenative government to protect, preserve and promote this value.


>
> There is no hierarchy of rights...they are life,
> liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life does
> not trump...liberty and happiness.

Sorry, but in the civil society that I choose to live in -- the United States of America -- life does triumph the pursuit of happiness. Your pursuit of being happy should never be able to interfer my right to life. I'll leave the question of life versus liberty to a more complicated discussion. However, the assertion that the pursuit of happiness is equal to the right to life is a sad commentary on the decline of morals and values in our civil society.


> Your descriptions of people who disagree with your
> belief structure is typical of all "religious"
> people. At least 2 of our founding
> fathers..Jefferson and Adams... had hoped we would
> be beyond blind religious intolerance and beliefs
> by now. They were wrong...what a shame.

First, why do you assume that I am "religious"? Seems that you assume anyone who believes in the right to life must be religious.

Second, it is a shame that seem to have such antipathy towards religous people. I guess we can assume that you won't be voting for Barack Obama, a man who claims that his life is defined by his religious faith. Perhaps you'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr. But, that's your choice.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I believe it is vile.
>
> I just do not believe that my morals are more
> important than those of other people- people who
> may disagree with me.
>
> Apparently you think that your beliefs should be
> foisted upon others, whether they agree with you
> or not.
>
> I also think that is vile.

What a lack of logic. Do you believe that exploding a bomb in a crowded theatre is vile? Do you think that if others disagree, you shouldn't try to have our government impose your beliefs on those who disagree? Isn't that an example of why we form civil societies and give government the power to protect abnd preserve our civil societies?

No, I don't believe in imposing my personal beliefs, values, or morals on anyone else. I do believe that a civil society's shared common values however, are the essential fabric that holds that society together. If you or I or anyone disagrees with one of those moral values, they have options to try persuade others to their beliefs. They can also choose to leave that society and find one that is closer to theirs. Or they can "drop out" of society, to the degree allowed by the society's laws.

But, if you think that a diverse society of 300 million people need not share any common values to survive as a society, than you have no understanding of human beings or history.

>>> What a lack of logic.


Look, when you compare an abortion to setting a bomb off in a theater, you have absolutely no business citing someone for a lack of logic. You have left the path of reason.

The rest of your argument is too tiresome and fraught with logical fallacy and special pleading for me to even respond.

> Meeper - Apparently you think that your beliefs should be foisted upon others, whether they agree with you or not.

Apparently you think yours should be foisted on the unborn. And yes they are alive whether the governemnt recognizes them or not.

hop Wrote:
>> Apparently you think yours should be foisted on
> the unborn.

No, it should be 100% up to the mother. It is her body. My opinion should have nothing to do with it, and I never said anything like that.

You totally misrepresented my point, how typical.

hop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Meeper - Apparently you think that your beliefs
> should be foisted upon others, whether they agree
> with you or not.
>
> Apparently you think yours should be foisted on
> the unborn. And yes they are alive whether the
> governemnt recognizes them or not.


Not the government...science doesnt recognize them as being alive from the moment of conception. Only religious zealots do that.

I am of the mind that the baby becomes alive when it can remember permanently past events. Do you remember anything before age 4? Do you remember saying your first word (not someone telling you what it was?) I believe abortion should be legal until the child reaches age 1, and then after than until age 5 if the child has problems which are not apparent for some time (mental disabilities)

Notice I am not forcing my beliefs on you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2008 08:39PM by KeepOnTruckin.

Decent comments....PLEASE remember...the task at hand is to send Cuccinelli packing. We can't let this religious zealot represent us any longer then possible.

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am of the mind that the baby becomes alive when
> it can remember permanently past events. Do you
> remember anything before age 4? Do you remember
> saying your first word (not someone telling you
> what it was?) I believe abortion should be legal
> until the child reaches age 1, and then after than
> until age 5 if the child has problems which are
> not apparent for some time (mental disabilities)
>
> Notice I am not forcing my beliefs on you.


Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Decent comments....PLEASE remember...the task at
> hand is to send Cuccinelli packing. We can't let
> this religious zealot represent us any longer then
> possible.

So, you both want to give women the right to kill their child up to the age of 5...

I'll assume you are both just trying to get a rise out of pro-life people, because otherwise you both represent the seeds of our society's self-destruction.

Either way, no point wasting more time here.

(Say hi to Pol Pot when you eventually meet him.)

Vince(1) Wrote:

"science doesnt recognize them as being alive from the moment of conception.
Only religious zealots do that."


What a ridiculous statement. As if "science" is some autonomous being. I think you mean to say "some scientists" perhaps?

If you do in fact mean "science" as a field of study believes that life begins at some other time than conception, perhaps you can back that statement up by citing your source. Otherwise, it's just your opinion masquerading as 'fact'.

ha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cuccinelli is for lower taxes and individual
> rights. What is Oleszek for? All I got from her is
> a bunch of hit pieces.

She's for the Chill-ren. She said so.

Democrats would be nuts to run her again. She was clearly reached her level of incompetence. Signs won her the school board election, just as they did Tina Hone, but they won't win her any other position.

I thought Kathy Smith was going to run for Ken's state senate seat. Or is that just a rumor?

If Gerry Connelly goes to Congress, Sharon Bulova hopes to take his seat as Chairman of the BOS. Ilrong Moon would then run for Bulova's seat, leaving an at large opening on the School Board. Perhaps Janet would run to get her old job back, although she wasn't very popular on the board. She probably didn't notice, or care. She can ALWAYS be counted on to support whatever far left position comes down the pike. She can also be counted on to give vacuous speeches delivered very slowly. It always seemed like she assumed her audience was slightly slow 6 year olds.

A couple of things...

1. My comment "good comments"...was plural not singular. It was not referring to one particular comment but all of them.

2. Of course my comment about science not supporting life begins at conception is an opinion. That's been my entire point...all anyone has is an opinion. But there is only one opinion that threatens the beliefs and opinions of other people...that is of course that life begins at conception. If you feel that way fine...live your lifr in accordance with your concious and let me and others do the same. GET OUT OF MY BUSINESS. I wont force you to have an abortion...I wont force you to pull the plug on a critically ill relative....but dont think you have the right to stop me. If you are right and god does exist and god is of the opinion life begins at conception...I'll deal with her. OK?

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2. Of course my comment about science not
> supporting life begins at conception is an
> opinion.

scientifically, a fertilized egg is alive. hell, single celled organisms are alive.


> GET OUT OF MY BUSINESS.

LOL! you have got to be the biggest hypocrite on this board. prepare for people to get "all up in your grill." :)

btw, you cant spell worth shit.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis...despite your desire to always make things a black and white issue...it isnt always the case. Plus as usual you are off point...this is a privacy issue.

If people want the government telling them when and if they can have children...when and if they can pull the plug on critically ill family members...vote Republikan. If you dont, vote Democratic...that's the point.

For those interested in seeing the various positions...read this.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm

Bottom line is that Oleszek is a foul wretch. Anyone or anything is better.



I'm anti-infant, not pro-abortion

Even Kathy Smith?

Gravis...you dont even vote...so your comment is worthless.

A vote for Cuccinelli is nothing more then a vote for the likes of Revs Hagee, and Parsley...and all other "Religious" Right spokespersons.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis...you dont even vote...so your comment is
> worthless.
>
> A vote for Cuccinelli is nothing more then a vote
> for the likes of Revs Hagee, and Parsley...and all
> other "Religious" Right spokespersons.


You forgot Hitler, after all, anyone who thinks a baby in a mother's womb -- no matter how small -- deserves some special protection, must surely be an intolerant, bigoted, evil, and religious person. In other words, a card carrying member of the "religious right."

Isn't that a fair characterization of what you and other "tolerant" pro-choice people are saying?

Talk about intolerant... take a look in the mirror!

Dear Who...if the shoe fits wear it. Please go on to tell us your tolerant relgious and political philosophies. By the way...I wouldnt think of limiting or stopping anyone from following just about any religion they want...as long as they dont try to make those personal beleifs the law of the land. Can you say the same? Being tolerant doesnt mean not having an opinion...it means not stopping somene else from having and acting on their beleifs and opinions. Believing you have the right to stop someone from having an abortion or making critical life support decisions for a relative...is the definition of intolerant.

Vince(1),
   GET OUT OF MY BUSINESS!



stop the sensationalism.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wouldnt think of
> limiting or stopping anyone from following just
> about any religion they want...as long as they
> dont try to make those personal beleifs the law
> of the land.

Then why are you a supporter of Oleszek, who wants to ban guns despite the law of the land? Religious intolerance or secular intolerance... what is the difference? At least be consistent... you either are a supporter of not interfering with the law of the land or you aren't. Sounds like you just have a different brand of intolerance.

Olezsek is another brutal example of some irreligious left-wing zealot trying to impose her values on everyone else. She is despicable.

The Dems better think twice about parading another School Board member for a higher office. They suck. They are ineffective. They suck up to the unions and screw the parents and the kids. We don't like them and we won't vote for them.

Find someone else.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Who...if the shoe fits wear it. Please go on
> to tell us your tolerant relgious and political
> philosophies. By the way...I wouldnt think of
> limiting or stopping anyone from following just
> about any religion they want...as long as they
> dont try to make those personal beleifs the law
> of the land. Can you say the same? Being
> tolerant doesnt mean not having an opinion...it
> means not stopping somene else from having and
> acting on their beleifs and opinions. Believing
> you have the right to stop someone from having an
> abortion or making critical life support decisions
> for a relative...is the definition of intolerant.

Why is is that everyone who is pro-choice assumes that everyone who is pro-life must have a religious belief that forces them think that way? You act as if a pro-life belief is an intrinsically illogical and irrational position.

So, let's look at this logically through a series of hypothetical tests without implying that any person or mother would ever make these choices.

I hope that you would agree that there would be something wrong -- morally wrong -- if a mother delivered a baby, and a day later decided to kill the baby. (Although some on this forum have expressed some truly disturbing views to the contrary.)

This is not a religious belief, any more than believing that it is wrong to kill an innocent person in any other circumstance. Is my, and I"ll assume your, belief that killing a one day or one month old baby is wrong just a religious belief?

I hope you will agree that infanticide is wrong, morally wrong, without regard to religion; mine, yours or anyones. Therefore, can we agree that our government should outlaw infanticide.

Next hypothetical: does the baby have a right to life that the government should protect after he/she is delivered from the mother's womb but before the umbillical cord is cut? That is, all the doctor has to do is cut the cord and the baby can survive on its own and there will be absolutely no further health consequence or responbility required of the mother? Seems like an easy call to me, I hope you would agree.

Does the baby have a right to life while it is being delivered? In this case, let's hypothetically assume the mother is in labor and the doctor can either deliver a live baby or a dead baby. In this hypothetical, I'm talking about a circumstance where the delivery will have absolutely no negative health consequence to the mother.

Again, I would hope that you will agree that the baby has a right to life in these circumstances, but maybe you have reached your limit of granting a right to life to the baby.

As you move backwards in time, you can come to the point of viability as another time when the baby acquires the right to live. That is, once the baby is capable of surviving without the mother's womb to sustain he/her, does the baby have a right to life. The vast majority of Americans agree that the baby does, not that being in the majority makes it morally correct.

Moving backwards between viability and conception is the main area of contention. Is there a point along this continuum of growth at which the baby acquires a right to life. For some people (quite a lot, actually) there is no moral (not religious, but moral) difference between the point of viability and conception, other than time and growth. They believe a baby has the right to life from the moment of conception.

As a general matter, the greatest area of disagreement among American's occurs in determining at what point the baby acquires a right to life: at conception, somewhere between conception and viability, upon birth, or never for some.

And the issues of rape and incest make these questions even further complicated because of the crime that has been commited against the woman

But given the complexity of this debate, why do you and others say it is only a religious belief that intolerant people are trying to force upon others.

Again, if you disagree with the basic premise that killing an innocent life is wrong, morally wrong, and the government should outlaw it, than there is nothing to discuss.

But if you do agree that killing an innocent life is wrong and government should protect innocent life, than when do you think it should protect a baby? And what does this mean for infanticide, partial-delivery abortion, late-term post-viability abortion, and all abortion?

Now, what part of the brief discussion of the moral complexity of this issue above is religious?

I would argue that this moral debate over killing innocent life, infanticide and abortion does not require that God, Jesus, Muhammed, or Buddha be involved?

I would argue that these moral issues are legitimate subjects that stand on their own, without regard to religion?

And those who invoke "religious intolerance" do so to avoid actually examine these issues in a logical manner.

Nothing you said was religiously based...but I bet you are a fundamental Christian or Catholic....the odds are with me.

As far as my own point of no return...assuming we arent talking about a baby that is causing physical harm to the mother...I beleive the current "understanding" that when the fetus is survivable without the mother...it is due protection. I personally would say...when it is survivable without artificial means/assistance.

This is basically the same crtiteria I would use for the elderly and terminally ill..though in either of those cases the willingness of the person would be critical and essential.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing you said was religiously based...but I bet
> you are a fundamental Christian or Catholic....the
> odds are with me.
>
> As far as my own point of no return...assuming we
> arent talking about a baby that is causing
> physical harm to the mother...I beleive the
> current "understanding" that when the fetus is
> survivable without the mother...it is due
> protection. I personally would say...when it is
> survivable without artificial means/assistance.
>
> This is basically the same crtiteria I would use
> for the elderly and terminally ill..though in
> either of those cases the willingness of the
> person would be critical and essential.

Vince, I appreciate your position... not quite in agreement, but certainly appreciate it as a very rational and consistent position.

And yes, I am Catholic, but I think that your reasoning gets a little close to profiling or stereotyping. For example, if I told you that I was robbed in DC last night, one might "guess" that my assailant was black, and the odds show that to be likely.

Just as being a criminal has nothing to do with race, my being pro-life has nothing to do with my religion. It may for others, but not for me.

oooops wrong janet... thank god for the edit button.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2008 01:10PM by RESton Peace.