USVI-On-Line

I'd really like to know how to get a job like you all have so I could hang out here all morning long, too.

soxfan22 wrote:What does it mean when he says he "doesn't want her punished with a baby"? Does it mean that if that was the case, he would support his daughter having an abortion after all of his education went for naught?

Regardless of what he meant, I could never call a baby in any circumstances, a punishment.

Babies grow up to be teenagers, of which we now have four. We are being punished on a daily basis.

soxfan22 wrote:
Regardless of what he meant, I could never call a baby in any circumstances, a punishment.

This is why people without uteruses shouldn't get to make the decision.

I just want to state that I believe babies are blessings, and if I found myself pregnant I would feel blessed. However, I can easily see how a victim of rape or an unwed mother who feels like she has no options, especially a teenage one, could feel like a baby was a punishment. In fact, I know someone who was raped as a teenager. While she has a wonderful daughter now, I'm pretty sure she still thinks that in some ways getting pregnant at 16 was punishment for putting herself in that situation, and no one -- especially the victim of a crime -- should have to feel that way.

I'm pretty sure Casey Anthony thought her baby was a punishment, and I'm pretty sure we know how that turned out.

Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote:Soxfan...try this little experiment in your workplace. Walk up to a black man and say, "hey my boy!" (Then duck). Then, walk up to a different black man and say, "hey my man!"

Report back with your findings.

Pete,

I live in Hampton VA. 50% black population. I can't tell you how many times I have heard young men (of all races) walk up to a buddy and say essentially exactly what you challenged Sox to do. It IS a common expression down here.

I been to Madison....I think perhaps that the racial density may have something to do with whether one would consider that a racist remark.

Clearly, using the term "Boy" can be racist. No doubt. But I didn't think Sox's use was.....nor did any of his further comments indicate so. Perhaps the hyper-sensitivity displayed by some of the posters here regarding the use of this innocuous phrase could be a case of over-compensation for centuries long abuses demanded by some parts of the country…..particularly the most crowded urban areas.

soxfan22 wrote:And before it gets lost in the shuffle...

Pia, this is maybe more directed at you, since you forced me to answer a very personal hypothetical:

I'm just getting caught up on the thread this morning and I saw this (quoted above)...

Did I miss something??? Sox, your statement of "you forced me to answer a very personal hypothetical" is curious. Please direct me to the post where you answered that "very personal hypothetical". I seem to have missed it.

David- n Hampton, VA wrote:

Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote:Soxfan...try this little experiment in your workplace. Walk up to a black man and say, "hey my boy!" (Then duck). Then, walk up to a different black man and say, "hey my man!"

Report back with your findings.

Pete,

I live in Hampton VA. 50% black population. I can't tell you how many times I have heard young men (of all races) walk up to a buddy and say essentially exactly what you challenged Sox to do. It IS a common expression down here.

I been to Madison....I think perhaps that the racial density may have something to do with whether one would consider that a racist remark.

Clearly, using the term "Boy" can be racist. No doubt. But I didn't think Sox's use was.....nor did any of his further comments indicate so. Perhaps the hyper-sensitivity displayed by some of the posters here regarding the use of this innocuous phrase could be a case of over-compensation for centuries long abuses demanded by some parts of the country…..particularly the most crowded urban areas.

I currently live in Madison. I grew up in Chicago and worked there for 9 years after law school. I think I get it.

Lulu76 wrote:

soxfan22 wrote:
Regardless of what he meant, I could never call a baby in any circumstances, a punishment.

This is why people without uteruses shouldn't get to make the decision.

I just want to state that I believe babies are blessings, and if I found myself pregnant I would feel blessed. However, I can easily see how a victim of rape or an unwed mother who feels like she has no options, especially a teenage one, could feel like a baby was a punishment. In fact, I know someone who was raped as a teenager. While she has a wonderful daughter now, I'm pretty sure she still thinks that in some ways getting pregnant at 16 was punishment for putting herself in that situation, and no one -- especially the victim of a crime -- should have to feel that way.

I'm pretty sure Casey Anthony thought her baby was a punishment, and I'm pretty sure we know how that turned out.

Again, you keep reaching for the needle in the haystack of abortions..."Rape, Incest, Illness, Casey Anthony...". They all account for less than 3% of abortions. The majority of abortions take place due exactly to what Obama was talking about...Somebody made a mistake.

Why can you not admit that those are very, very rare instances. Very rare. Look at the statistics.

[quote="Pete (Mr. Marcia]

Babies grow up to be teenagers, of which we now have four. We are being punished on a daily basis.[/quote]

Peter - four teenagers and a puppy - you're a very brave man

loria wrote:soxfan,
if i read correctly, you are in the pharma industry? is that correct?
and as such, you probably have more than a passing knowledge of scientific research--right?
i would be interested in hearing your take on Governor Palin's recent dismissal of the importance of funding scientific research using drosophilla/fruit flies.

Hey loria,

I don't know anything about this case. I will read about it and get back to you. Please remind me again if you don't hear back from me soon.

As a general rule, I feel like the private sector always does a better job with research, at least in today's environment. They also do a great job of raising funds through charity to carry out such research.

People always bash Bush for his refusal to allow federal support (money) of embryonic stem cell research. They twist that to imply that Bush doesn't support that research. He doesn't support federal funding, but of course there is no law disallowing the provate sector from carrying out their research.

I think we get into a real mess when we start thinking government spending is the answer to our problems (look at our schools).

I will say that, to date, there have been no approved treatments derived from ESCR. That's not to say that there won't be down the road. But cuurently, all of the developments in this area of research have been yielded through Adult Stem Cell Research.

Bush once again gets irrationally blasted with this issue.

I will look into the Palin/Fruit Fly issue.

[quote="Pete (Mr. Marcia)"}
Babies grow up to be teenagers, of which we now have four. We are being punished on a daily basis.[/quote]

LOL...Pete, if you think it punishment now, wait until your teens grow to full fledged adults and then you have to be extremely kind to them, mainly because they are going to be the ones who choose what old folks home you go to....to qualify that staement, I have two in that category now.


-Bert

ps....they turned out to be great adults, in spite of my parenting skills.....

soxfan22 wrote: Again, you keep reaching for the needle in the haystack of abortions..."Rape, Incest, Illness, Casey Anthony...". They all account for less than 3% of abortions. The majority of abortions take place due exactly to what Obama was talking about...Somebody made a mistake.

Why can you not admit that those are very, very rare instances. Very rare. Look at the statistics.

Not all mothers kill their children because they feel overwhelmed. But it does happen. Children are abused, mistreated and abandoned every day. And that's just from the parents who chose "life."

As much as I think abortion is abominable, I shudder to think what kind of quality of life all these unwanted children would have if they are forced to be born. Especially if we eliminate some of the social safety nets that we have.

I know it's not a very Catholic opinion for me to have, and I pray for the unborn babies everyday. However, this is one place where I am pragmatic and not an idealist. Just because someone has ovaries does not mean they will be a good mother or have any inclination to be one.

soxfan22 wrote:

loria wrote:soxfan,
if i read correctly, you are in the pharma industry? is that correct?
and as such, you probably have more than a passing knowledge of scientific research--right?
i would be interested in hearing your take on Governor Palin's recent dismissal of the importance of funding scientific research using drosophilla/fruit flies.

Hey loria,

I don't know anything about this case. I will read about it and get back to you. Please remind me again if you don't hear back from me soon.

As a general rule, I feel like the private sector always does a better job with research, at least in today's environment. They also do a great job of raising funds through charity to carry out such research.

People always bash Bush for his refusal to allow federal support (money) of embryonic stem cell research. They twist that to imply that Bush doesn't support that research. He doesn't support federal funding, but of course there is no law disallowing the provate sector from carrying out their research.

I think we get into a real mess when we start thinking government spending is the answer to our problems (look at our schools).

I will say that, to date, there have been no approved treatments derived from ESCR. That's not to say that there won't be down the road. But cuurently, all of the developments in this area of research have been yielded through Adult Stem Cell Research.

Bush once again gets irrationally blasted with this issue.

I will look into the Palin/Fruit Fly issue.

I wlll respectfully disagree with some of your stance--I don't think that the private sector necessarily does a better job at basic research--product research /illness specific pharma, maybe--but i do still have issues with that--too too many drugs that have been rolled out and then didn' deliver (or worse, delivered badly). however, i do believe that Pharma has learned a LOT from basic researchers and much of what big pharma can do is because of basic research-

we've heard these arguments before''why fund research in earthworms?????' why fund fly's????
because that fly might provide the genetic clue to why your 7 yr old has diabetes. This is what basic research does. However, i will agree that how we get from there to a cure is often the purview of pharma and basic research.

Loria and Sox,

I have to tell you both...I think the present administration is dead wrong about spending in science research. I hope that whoever wins moves the spending higher on both basic and applied research. Up until two years ago I was a Managing and/or Principal Scientist for Battelle Memorial Institute. The worlds biggest Not-for-profit research and development firm. In addition to a lot of other stuff, they run five of America’s nuclear research labs….(BrookHaven, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest…etc)

My point is that the work that goes on in these facilities is generally funded by government because industry can’t get their management chains to give up the profit margin that is required to fund Basic research. Applied Research does get more funding…but still the injection of start-up dollars by the government is needed. Bush almost stopped all science research (okay I am over stating the point….a little)

dave,
here is a place you and i agree!--funding levels for basic research are at all time lows--new scientist/researchers starting labs (and persons with a lot of promise)-are not able to find funding as the levels for grant funding are well into the single digits...
the private sector, which requires a pay off in terms of profit is not set up to do much of this basic research (and wouldn't do it and shouldn't--it's not good business!)
unfortunately this is the harsh reality across all fields of scientific research.

Lulu76 wrote:Just because someone has ovaries does not mean they will be a good mother or have any inclination to be one.

I completely agree but that doesn’t mean that abortion is the answer. There are thousands of couples on adoption waiting lists in this country…for the 97+ percent of abortions that are simply birth control, why can’t those women give their babies up for adoption instead?

I know several couples with fertility problems who desperately want children...they’d gladly adopt the children who are being aborted every day in this country. Adoption is a very difficult and lengthy process and couples can wait for years on waiting lists. If less babies were being aborted, more deserving couples would be able to adopt.

Often times adoption programs pay for all of the mother’s medical care...she’s potentially uncomfortable for up to 9 months, but that’s a small price to pay when it means saving a child that could grow up in a loving and deserving family.

I also know women who aborted babies and have spent the rest of their lives regretting it. Just a couple weeks ago I talked to a woman who aborted her child over 30 years ago...she said that she murdered her own child and will never stop mouring the loss.