TimeChaser

Currently tuned to the only music station I listen to anymore, Progulus Radio (online). Listening to the first of two requests this afternoon, [B]The Grimalkin[/B] by [B]Noekk[/B], a mix of quiet piano passages and heavy doom-rock. Second request is [B]A Fair Trade[/B] by [B]Sun Caged[/B].

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Despite the individual disagreements people have with one candidate or another, it must be said that both McCain and Obama are incredibly talented and I think both make strong candidates.[/font][/QUOTE] You know, I used to think that I would be OK with another Republican president if it was John McCain, because he was a moderate. But I have completely lost faith in him for several reasons: - He tied himself too closely to George "Stay The Course" Bush. - He has had to pander to the ultra-right-wing constituency (something the entire Republican party has done for too long). - He has a massive handicap named Sarah Palin, someone who is horribly unqualified to be VP, let alone president if McCain should die in office.

I heard about this on NPR today. The story was rather interesting; they said Obama's run for president has split, rather than cemented, the white supremacist movement. People might find this odd, but some racists will actually vote for Obama, because they think that if he fails as president it will incite the "race war" they keep hoping for. But hey, the votes of nutjobs are as good an anyone's. ;) I have no doubt, though, that this isn't the last we've heard of assassination attempts. :animesigh

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The point? Personally I say it is false cause. Though I have read of studies that have shown that there is no difference between a parent who divorces and then lives/marries a heterosexual partner, and a parent who does this and lives with a homosexual partner. A lack of fidelity is a lack of fidelity. The homosexual puts their child in a very bad situation when they divorce their spouse for sexual desires. It is the same as when a man divorces his wife because he is sexually attracted to a woman 15 years younger. Sexuality and gender in this issue really do not matter, so it would be better for the legislation to just reduce divorce rate than to grant homosexuals marriage rights (which are characterized with an increased divorce rate).[/QUOTE] Would you stop with the psychoanalyzing for once, please? My point is that those families do exist, which you seem to just disregard. They're here, they've been around for a long time, and they aren't going away, despite whatever else you dig up in your argument. It is doing a disservice to the children of these families by making laws that say "Sorry kids, but because you don't have a mommy and a daddy, we can't respect your family. Tough break." And I am sick of and will never accept the flimsy "it's just lust" defense.

[quote name='Sangome'][SIZE="1"]TC, on the other hand, is the wild, nutty child that goes into his room whenever he's scolded and blasts Linkin Park, etc so loud that the neighbors complain. He's snuck out a couple of times, too. HE HAS NO RESPECT FOR HIS MOTHER. *CRIES*[/SIZE][/QUOTE] I OBJECT! I don't listen to Linkin Park. :p The rest of it... yeah, all that stuff is true. :animeswea *hugs mah mommeh*

[quote name='Crimson Spider']I really do wish I knew what "these amendments" were. I was also operating under the assumption that homosexual couples in that state couldn't adopt. Anyway, I would much rather prefer that the adoption system be reformed to include more government-sponsored bonuses to adopters rather than to fix marriage. It is a case of deterring the point by saying that some tertiary system would be better if you reformed the whole system. There will, obviously, always be someone who benefits from any change, but is this benefit really the issue of marriage, though? Wouldn't children benefits be just children benefits? It makes more sense to pass legislation to help all children directly then to change the institution of marriage.[/QUOTE] You are ignoring the point that these families - gay parents with children - do exist, that they are a fact. Yes, the adoption system is horribly messed up and needs fixing. If there are loving people who want to adopt a child, their sexual orientation should not be the deciding factor as to whether or not they would make good parents. There are so many more caring homes that could take children in that aren't able to because of this attitude. If it's proven that kids are better served in an environment where their parents are married, the same should hold true for gay parents as it does for straight parents.

[quote name='The13thMan'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]The speculation that because their is homosexuality in the animal world it is natural for their to be homosexuality in the human world, and because it is natural it is therefore alright, is only speculation, and not any sort of solid evidence. What i would consider to be solid evidence that homosexuality is caused by our biology is if we actually found some reason that it would be... a gene or something. Nobody should say that it's ok to be homosexual because there are gay animals, and neither should anybody say the opposite. So, i suppose on that part we agree (not to say we even really disagreed on anything in the first place, hah). [/FONT][/QUOTE] That's the point. We haven't yet found the genetic cause, but because it occurs elsewhere in the animal kingdom, that is strong support for the idea that it is genetic. In time, we may indeed find the DNA changes, but we shouldn't dimiss other evidence that is already pointing to this outcome.

[quote name='The13thMan'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Just because homosexuality or hermaphrodites exist in the animal world doesn't mean it should be accepted in the human world. Some animals sometimes eat their young to survive, should this then too be considered alright in our society? This is often called the naturalistic fallacy, unless i'm misunderstanding it. Just because something exists in nature does not mean it's any better or worse than what is produced "artificially" by man.[/FONT][/QUOTE] I'm going to put my two cent s in on this as well. The point is that, because it occurs in other animals, that is a strong support for the genetic argument, that people are born homosexual; animals obviously don't choose to be that way. And a hermaphrodite is entirely a biological situation, no one can just choose to be one and grow a second pair of genitals just by wishing for them.

With such diversity in the world, I've always though the word "normal" is rather pathetic. One person's normal can be another person's bizarre, it's such a subjective term. I certainly don't begrudge people for the way they are born, especially if it's a biological situation they had no control over (hermaphrodite, transgendered, etc.) When I was a kid, my sister and one of her friends decided to dress me up as a girl for a while. I went along with it and thought it was fun, I was just a kid playing around and didn't have any notion that what I was doing wasn't "normal". People just have this fanatical desire to compartmentalize and categorize everything is "this" or "that" with no in-between because it eases this rather silly fear they have for what they perceive is different.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Now, I look back and realize that I never actually answered your question on children. I will look back on that now. Homosexual do not have themselves a unique factor. You see, they are not actually between the homosexuals in this couple. A homosexual will have a relationship with a member of the opposite gender, and after the child has been conceived, the homosexual partner will then leave their spouse for a more sexually appealing person (another homosexual). The child is carried over from this relationship, and thus has all of the identical effects that divorced and out-of-wedlock children have. I really do not know what "amendment 2" has to deal with in Florida, but provisions to lower divorce rates would benefit children greatly. This would be done in a manner that keeps the heterosexual marriage intact. Homosexuals do not have children with homosexuals. They have children with heterosexuals, and then carry that child with them.[/QUOTE] The matter of where the children came from in the first place has no bearing on it. The point is, there are gay parents with children, whether they are they are biological to one parent who had been in a heterosexual relationship before admitting their their true sexuality, but there are also some gay couples who adopt. Do you disregard those children simply because neither parent is biological kin to the child? If so, you'd have to count all adopted children that way, whether they are adopted by gay or straight parents. The fact is that these families do exist, and claiming these amendments protect children is to disregard these families. Your entire argument is also based on the claim that homosexuality is a choice, which can be quite well disputed. For one thing, since it is so demonized by many people, why would anyone choose to be homosexual? Ask some gays people, and they'll tell you because of the prejudice they have faced, if they could they would choose to be straight. Science has yet to discover the exact genetic switches that flip in our development to cause homosexuality, but I feel confident that one day the discovery will be made. Until then we have ample evidence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, which supports the biological argument. [CENTER][SIZE="1"]Homosexual sexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented. This discovery constitutes a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision.[/SIZE][/CENTER] Yes, the quote is from Wiki, but until I find an actual paper on the subject, this works to illustrate my point.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']The reason TimeChaser’s analogy works here is because it reveals that the same inconsistencies that would support a ban of interracial marriage are used in opposition to homosexual marriage. When we define marriage as a State, it no longer becomes an issue of biblical or “traditional” definitions.[/QUOTE] Yes, my point was to show that the 'granting rights to a minority is a special exception' argument is weak, because then to be wholly fair the argument must then be applied to situations where most people are in no doubt of the guaranteed rights of minorities. Several states had laws (and some laws are still on the books, even though they are archaic and no longer enforced) that forbade two people of different ethnicity from marrying each other. (I say ethnicity because the way the word "race" has been so often used is a misnomer). I do not understand why "will of the majority" is even an acceptable argument for gay rights, when womens' and minority rights were upheld by the Constitution and finally passed without putting it to a vote of the populace. If it wasn't done then, the exception should not be made now. I feel confident that if the American people of the time has been able to vote on womens' and minority rights, they either wouldn't have passed or we'd still be battling over them today. I think the main reason why this is even being argued is the irrational fear people hold for what they see as different, and that difference frightens them. I am an average American citizen, and I don't feel threatened in any way by what two consenting adults of the same gender do privately, nor do I feel threatened by allowing them to get married. As stated in the Election thread when I talked about Amendment 2 here in Florida, I detest when amendment supporters use phrases like, "This will protect children." Who's children? There are gay parents/couples out there with families and children of their own, and these amendments do not protect them. It's sending a message to these kids that their families aren't deserving of the same respect and rights as the families of their friends who have a mom and dad. It is doing a disservice to them and also to gay kids themselves. We are a country based on rights and freedoms, and as we have seen in history, second-class citizenry and 'Separate But Equal' do not measure up to the ideals we profess to believe in.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]Okay in that case I say Obama will definately win for sure. I mean the man took time from his campaign to visit his grandma that has to count for something[/color][/QUOTE] As someone who loves his own grandma, I say it certainly does count for something. ^^ Ironically I'm going to dip back into the Marriage Amendment issue, because I just brought in the mail and we had a "Yes on 2" ad in there (Amendment 2 is the Florida equivalent of Prop 8). I tore the darn thing up and tossed it in the trash. I detest this continued use of the "It will protect children" line. Well, what about the kids of gay parents? It's not going to do anything to protect them. I just hope my sanity can survive the next week and a half.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]However, the concept of "saving the child at the cost of the mother" is still a risky subject, and is really a decision [I]no one else[/I] can ethically make?not even the father. Basically, the mother then says "I want to live" or "I want my child to live", and that decision is final and binding on the doctor unless they can find a way to save both.[/FONT][/QUOTE] What about cases in which the mother is incapacitated and cannot make the decision? It will pretty much go to the father in those cases. If my wife/girlfriend were in such a situation, and the decision was up to me, I would certainly feel anguish over having to choose, but I would still choose to save my partner.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']No, allowing homosexuals to have same-sex marriage won't abolish marriage. I was referring to civil unions. Changing marriage is a means to change the institution to suit a minority because they are unhappy that they cannot practice the romantic connotation in the matter that they want to. Much different from "abolishing".[/QUOTE] First off, if you're going to argue about "changing an institution to suit a minority", then we might as well be fair and bring state laws on interracial marriage back up for a vote. Using the minority argument won't fly, because everyone has the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution, whether some people feel comfortable with that or not. As was proved with womens' and black civil rights, the rights of people are a Constitutional given, and a human given, they are not up for a vote. [QUOTE]Marriage that we know would be gone in a few generations, forever replaced by the new standards passed on from prior decisions. Who knows where it would go from there. Heck, for all we know, it could be re-illegalized in the future.[/QUOTE] You just backtracked on your first statement! You disagreed with the whole "abolishing marriage" idea I challenged, and yet now you're saying it will happen. You are so entrenched in your narrow viewpoint that you refuse to accept that allowing people to have the rights that they should have as human beings won't mean that that same right, marriage in this case, goes down the tubes. Allowing people of the same gender to marry does not in any way affect the marriages of heterosexuals. [QUOTE]This is a bit of a circle, admitting that a standard ought to be what you want it to be (hence, what spawned the entire debate over same-sex marriages over the first place). Though same-sex marriages promoting security and all that other good stuff, that is something that is up for debate.[/QUOTE] You totally misunderstand what Corvino said, that he appreciates how his parents' and grandparent's marriages are loving, strong commitments. He is moved by that, and wants his marriage to be as close to that as possible, the only thing technically different about it would be the gender of his partner. What he's saying is that marriage itself promotes that security and human well-being, so it has the same emotional benefits whether married partners are straight or gay. Why should he and other gays give up that dream based on a biological technicality? And what about gay couples with kids? The stability of a recognized marriage would be beneficial to those kids, no matter who their parents are. [QUOTE]This is where the doctor has misunderstood the position. Something that commonly circulates around the Christian community in regards to this issue is a verse in the old testament. This is itself a very good point about the problems about having moral relativity, and usually needs to be expanded in order to make any statements. Here is the Verse (Judges 17:6) "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in their own eyes." The meaning in relation to this context? The marriage standard is, indeed, a standard that was passed down, though altering and changing, to become what it is today. The case that Corvino makes here is that he should effectively ignore what his parents did, and go off of what he thinks he should do.[/QUOTE] First off, this is not a religious issue, so quoting the Bible won't help. Religion is not the first/last/only word on morality, and it isn't even really a good one, because religion is hampered by absolutist dogma that does not recognize human rights. The Bible also tells us to keep slaves, and never once says that we can relax capital punishment for even the slightest crime. No, I don't accept the Bible as any kind of impartial moral authority, especially when that authority has been used to justify numerous atrocities throughout history. Human beings are capable of having a moral/ethical framework to govern ourselves without having to appeal to ancient scriptures, that's why the law of this country was set up as secular; the Founding Fathers were of that Humanist school, and they knew we could govern ourselves much better without having a theocratically motivated government. The issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with moral relativism; you are still talking about two people, a monogamous couple, having the right to marry each other. That does not mean allowing polygamy, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, or anything else that we already understand is wrong. To quote Sam Harris from his book [I]Letter to a Christian Nation[/I]: "You believe that unless the Bible is accepted as the word of God, there can be no universal standard of morality. But we can easily think of objective sources of moral order that do not require the existence of a law-giving God. For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality. While we do not have anything like a final, scientific understanding of human morality, it seems safe to say that raping and killing our neighbors is not one of it's primary constituents. Everything about human experience suggests love is more conducive to happiness than hate is; this is an objective claim about the human mind, about the dynamics of social relations, and about the moral order of our world." [QUOTE]Ah, but it does, though. It removes the straight couples right to the claim of marriage :P I hate "what makes people happy" arguments. Regardless, I think that the doctor is ignorant of what homosexuals want. To quote Lynn Wardle, the author of the book [u]Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: a Debate[/u]: [indent]“Civil unions are a tremendous step forward, but they are not good enough. They do not provide equal benefits and they leave couples and those who deal with them exposed to legal uncertainty. What we want is not separate and unequal “gay marriage’’ but marriage itself, the full range of choices and protections available to our nongay sisters and brothers. We do ourselves no favor when we enter this civil rights discussion bargaining against ourselves.” [/indent] So yes, homosexuals really do want to re-define marriage. They want to remove the procreative aspect from marriage completely, and apt for the emotionally attached notion. It is really more of an effect of the population that would go so far as to allow this connotation to go so far that redefinition is worth being considered. Also why it is the problem needs to be fixed on a cultural level, because mandating a law will only get it repealed in ten years.[/QUOTE] You are conveniently forgetting that "marriage" has been re-defined and modified throughout history, that it is not a static absolute, and you are also invoking Heterosexual Privilege, suggesting that straight people are superior to gay people in a similar way a racist suggests whites are superior to blacks and all other minorities. Attitudes that reduce people to second-class citizens have fail to accept that human rights transcend any flimsy argument to the contrary. And there you go harping on the procreative aspect again. What about couples who are infertile and can't have kids? Should we take away their right to marry because they cannot fulfill that procreative aspect that seems the all-important final moderator of the issue to you? What about elderly couples who marry? They are too old to have or care for children anymore. What about people who identify themselves as asexual? They are capable of forming a mutual bond with another person, but they have no interest in sex. As it has been pointed out numerous times already, humans have so much else going on emotionally, psychologically, and socially that sticking to a simplistic procreative argument is beyond silly. The fact that you have yet to influence any really open-minded people here with your arguments should tell you something.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']"Oh, normally murder isn't lawful, but since my nephew was robbed and he REALLY liked his videogames, he has a right to kill that other individual. How dare you try to tell him what solution is best! You can never understand what it is like to have your favorite possession taken away from you!"[/QUOTE] You've said many times that what other people are arguing is a fallacy, but this statement is also one. You are mirroring what Mother Teresa said in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace... Because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me; there is nothing in between." This is an extreme view that does not accept that there IS an in-between, that abortion does not have to be be made entirely illegal, and that allowing it would not mean the total breakdown of law and order in society. And I don't think looking at rape on a case by case basis is appealing only to emotion, there are also medical and psychological factors to be taken into account. As many people have already stated, not every rape is the same, so treating them all as such is doing a disservice to the unique needs of each victim.

A clip from Mystery Science Theater 3000 when they watched the horrible superhero movie [I]Puma Man[/I]. [CENTER] [YOUTUBE="Puma Man Flying"][/YOUTUBE][/CENTER]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Instead of re-defining an institution, it is an attempt to abolish it.[/QUOTE] This is a common misconception and one that need to be vigorously fought against. Allowing gays to marry will in no way abolish marriage for anyone else. How is letting two people of the same gender marry each other going to mean the end of marriage between two people of the opposite gender? It won't! I want to quote from an article I found today by John Corvino, PhD., who is a philosophy professor, author, columnist, and speaker (just to prove his credentials so people don't think I'm referencing a mere hack). He covers this point quite eloquently: "I’ve been doing a lot of same-sex marriage debates lately, and thus interacting with opponents—not just my debate partner, but also audience members, some of whom will soon be voting on marriage amendments. Recently one of them asked, “Where does your standard of marriage come from?” From her tone, I could tell she meant it more as a challenge—a purely rhetorical question—than as a genuine query. Still, I wanted to give her a good answer. But what is the answer? My own “standard” of marriage, if you can call it that, comes from my parents and grandparents, whose loving, lifelong commitments I strive to emulate. That doesn’t mean mine would resemble theirs in every detail—certainly not the male/female part—but I can’t help but learn from their example. That wasn’t the answer she was looking for, so she asked again. This time I tried challenging the question: talking about “THE” standard of marriage suggests that marriage is a static entity, rather than an institution that has evolved over time. Historically, marriage has been more commonly polygamous than monogamous; more commonly hierarchical than egalitarian. It changes. I pointed these facts out, adding that our standard for marriage—or any other social institution—ought to be human well-being. Since same-sex marriage promotes security for gay and lesbian persons and, consequently, social stability, it meets that standard. She wasn’t satisfied. “But if we don’t have a single fixed standard,” she continued, “then anything goes.” There’s something rhetorically satisfying when an opponent’s fallacies can be identified with neat names: in this case, “false dilemma.” Either marriage remains solely heterosexual, she was saying, or else society embraces a sexual free-for-all—as former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum put it, “man on man, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.” No, no, no. The fact that boundaries change and evolve does not entail that we should have no boundaries at all, or that where they’re drawn is entirely arbitrary. Again, the standard is societal well-being, and everyone agrees that “man on dog” marriage fails to meet that standard. Let’s not change the subject. Her challenge reminded me of those who cite the dictionary and then object that same-sex marriage is “impossible by definition,” since marriage by definition requires a husband and wife. Dictionaries reflect usage, and as usage evolves, so do dictionaries. (Ever try to read Beowulf in the original Old English?) More important, the dictionary objection founders on the simple fact that if something were truly “impossible by definition,” there would be no reason to worry about it, since it can’t ever happen. No one bothers amending constitutions to prohibit square circles or married bachelors. But my rhetorical satisfaction in explaining “false dilemma” and the evolution of language was tempered by the reality I was confronting. My questioner wasn’t simply grandstanding. She was expressing a genuine—and widely shared—fear: if we embrace same-sex marriage, than life as we know it will change dramatically for the worse. Standards will deteriorate. Our children will inherit a confused and morally impoverished world. Such fear is what’s driving many of the voters who support amendments in California, Florida, and Arizona to prohibit same-sex marriage, and we ignore or belittle it at our peril. And so I explained again—gently but firmly—how same-sex marriage is good for gay people and good for society. When there’s someone whose job it is to take care of you a vice-versa, everyone benefits—not just you, but those around you as well. That’s true whether you’re gay or straight. I also explained how giving marriage to gay people doesn’t mean taking it away from straight people, any more than giving the vote to women meant taking it away from men. No one is suggesting that we make same-sex marriage mandatory. Our opponents’ talk of “redefining” marriage—rather than, say, “expanding” it—tends to obscure this fact. Not all fears bend to rational persuasion, but some do. In any case, I don’t generally answer questions in these forums for the sole benefit of the questioner. Typically, I answer them for benefit of everyone in the room, including the genuine fence-sitters who are unsure about what position to take on marriage equality for gays and lesbians. To them, we need to make the case that same-sex marriage won’t cause the sky to fall." Sorry if that was long, I just felt it would be better to paste it than link it.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]Oh no you're right just look at what they did to the 2000 election. Your state does suck. BUt I don't think it's right to get an ammendment like that. Isn't it in violation of civil rights?[/color][/QUOTE] Yes, it is. ^^ This kind of discussion is getting off the topic of the election though. We're swerving into territory covered in the Sexuality thread.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]I'm torn between [B]Hand of Sorrow[/B] by [B]Within Temptation[/B] and [B]I'm a Blonde[/B] by someone I can't remember, but it's in my favorites on youtube. [/color][/QUOTE] Go with Hand of Sorrow... ;) Currently listening to [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwWDTAgoNXE"][U][B]Hard Life[/B][/U][/URL] by [B]Balance Of Power[/B]. Some nice melodic prog/AOR metal, with the always-good Lance King singing.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]Well I'd vote to keep it legal. I don't know which is which- I only heard Ellen talking about it a few weeks ago on Leno. I'm over in New York which is about as east coast as you can get without getting into the Maritime states/ provinces.[/color][/QUOTE] Prop 8 would amend the California constitution to make marriage only between a man and a woman. I'm rather afraid that the amendment here in Florida will pass. Once again proving I live in one of the lousiest states in the country. :animeangr I hope I'm wrong though...

The one thing I can think of off the top of my head was my uncle catching a couple of lizards and getting them to bite his ear lobes so he would have lizard earrings. :p

[quote name='Crimson Spider']When you take a stance on this issue, you have to do something uncomfortable. [B]You either have to tell a rape victim to their face that they do not have that right over their own body[/B], or you have to tell an individual conceived in rape to their face that their life is not worth living.[/QUOTE] I'd like to point out how slippery this statement is, because that can also be used to justify what the rapist did to the woman. Since she has no right to her own body, then it's free license for the rapist and he can get away without legal repercussions. I know that isn't what you are saying, but I think you should reconsider before you make that claim, because if you actually said that to a rape victim, you WOULD be compounding their emotional trauma.

[quote name='Nathan'][FONT="Arial"]I imagine he's referring to this kind of thing here: [URL="http://environmentalcommons.org/cetos/articles/MoDFinalReport.pdf"][U]Identifying Toxic Risks Before and During Pregnancy[/U][/URL] Since TC is referring to his grandmother's mother, you're looking at a time frame when identifying such risks wasn't as easy to do as it is today. So the diagnosis was most likely just that 'toxic pregnancy', even though that explains nothing. I'm guessing that this was back in the early 1900's if not late 1800's. (correct me if I'm wrong TC) Obviously when something goes wrong today, with the advances in medical technology, we have a clearer picture of what happened. The phrase 'toxic pregnancy' is a term that was often used when something had gone terribly wrong that they didn't fully understand. Today that would fall under the exception of allowing an abortion because of a serious health risk to the mother. So though that's a valid point TC, if I understand you correctly, that kind of thing already[I] is[/I] accepted. Abortions [I]are[/I] allowed if the pregnancy has become a serious health risk to the mother. Even bills that would criminalize all other forms of abortions, do include an exception for genuine health risks. [/FONT][/QUOTE] Thanks, Nathan. That helps clear some things up for me too. I realize diagnosis of such conditions are much better today than they were back then.

I think people will hear whatever they want to hear, I don't think it's some vast conspiracy or anything like that.

Welcome to the insanity, jomz. Glad to see decided to join in. :animesmil And also welcome to LoLoLaLoco... try saying that name three times fast. :animestun