PDA

View Full Version : Government Healthcare? Consider this!



pooltchr
07-21-2008, 07:36 PM
US Pediatric Nursing Journal Toys with Condoning Infanticide
Writes countries must continue to examine the moral, medical, ethical and legal aspects of direct killing of disabled infants

By Hilary White

July 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A professional journal for pediatric nurses has produced an article examining the ethics of infanticide according to the Dutch Groningen Protocol. The Protocol permits the killing of babies in the Netherlands on the judgement of a physician based on "quality of life" criteria. The article, appearing in the May-June 2008 edition of the Journal of Pediatric Nursing, and jointly authored by J. Catlin and Renee Novakovich, talks about the effects of the Protocol on medical ethics in the US.

The piece, "The Groningen Protocol: What Is It, How Do the Dutch Use It, and Do We Use It Here?" calls the issue "complex." The authors describe work undertaken by the American Nurses' Association (ANA) to help nurses define "the differences between euthanasia, assistance in dying and palliative care." The authors also write that although there are wide divisions in opinion on the direct killing of disabled infants, countries must continue to examine the moral, medical, ethical and legal aspects.

However, bioethics writer and critic Wesley J. Smith is sounding a warning, saying that as soon as academics start approaching an issue of life and death with terms like "complex" and "gray areas" and "difficult," the ground is already laid for acceptance.

Wesley J. Smith commended the article's dispassionate approach to the issue, but said that this is really the crux of the problem, for, "The authors' rigorous objectivity about a matter that should be ipso facto condemned, is, to me, very worrying."

"Beware! What we don't condemn, what we claim to be mere 'dilemmas,' we eventually are urged to allow. Infanticide is moving into the mainstream of bioethics and the medical intelligentsia."

The article also contained a few linguistic cracks in its shell of "objectivity." In particular it hinted that American hospitals, which spend millions caring for premature infants, do so at the expense of "social justice," the principle of "non-malficence" or "allowing no harm."

On the other hand, the article implies, countries with government-supported medical systems, such as Canada, Britain and the Netherlands, will be more likely to weigh the scales in favour of infanticide as a form of "social justice" in order to make more of the public medical system available for more worthy patients.

"In countries with socialized medicine, the principles of social justice and non-maleficence (avoiding doing 'good' which causes suffering) have been seen as more important," they say.

The Groningen Protocol was developed by Dutch paediatrician Eduard Verhagen and a group of doctors at the Groningen University Medical Centre in 2004. It allows doctors to make a judgement on the level of suffering of an infant and whether it should be killed by lethal injection. Verhagen summed up the Bioethics principle of "beneficence," saying in an interview, "Death can be more humane than continued life if (life) involves extreme suffering."

Smith has argued that the purpose of the Groningen Protocol is not so much to help legalise infanticide of disabled babies in the Netherlands, but to create a template by which legalised infanticide may spread outward to the rest of the world.

In the Netherlands the Groningen Protocol was not the first indicator that Dutch doctors had been killing disabled babies. In 1992, the Dutch Royal Society of Medicine published guidelines to be used in deciding whether to kill a baby. One of the criteria was to consider whether the child would ever be able to live independently, experience "self realization" (being able to hear, read, write, labor) and have meaningful interpersonal relations. By 1993 it was revealed that three out of eight neonatal intensive care units in the Netherlands had specific policies allowing infanticide by lethal injection and this was endorsed by the Dutch Pediatric Society.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Editorial: Infanticide Goes Mainstream and Why Prolife Arguments Need an Update
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022203.html

SHOCK: Newborns Who Suffer are "Better off Dead" - "World's Most Prestigious" Bioethics Journal
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022201.html

Dutch Euthanasia Doctor Admits to Killing 4 Newborns With Lethal Injections
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/apr/05042706.html

Do we really want the government deciding which babies are worthy of living and which ones should just be killed off?????

Think your vote doesn't count for anything. Government healthcare just puts the government in charge of the decisions over your (and your childrens') life.

Go ahead and vote for Obama, if you believe this is the direction you want to see our country move.

Steve

nAz
07-21-2008, 07:52 PM
Im all in for Euthanasia works for China... oh and Abortions up to the first trimester that way we do not need to be taxed up the arse just to support those unwanted kids!

Serious Steve I think your being a bit Paranoid. This country is not the Netherlands were to diverse in this country too let that evil "Government health care" do this.

mike60
07-21-2008, 08:51 PM
nAz, Steve has to keep his wingbat credentials up to date to qualify for some imagined pie in the sky. At least he can read and spell.


miguel60

wolfdancer
07-21-2008, 09:28 PM
I'd say that Steve made the usual right wing leap of faith claiming that the election of Obama would lead to infanticide.

pooltchr
07-22-2008, 04:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd say that Steve made the usual right wing leap of faith claiming that the election of Obama would lead to infanticide.
</div></div>

Yes, I made the same right wing leap of faith a few years ago when all the discussion started about smoking bans, and look where we are today. Government takes our freedoms away from us one small step at a time. They have also figured out the monitary value of a human life (just over $6M in the US). Now it will be easier for them to do a cost/benefit analysis when determining if the cost of healthcare is worth it for an individual.

No, Obama alone won't make it all happen...but he has certainly indicated that is the road he would be leading us down.

Steve&lt;---not paranoid, just realistic!

LWW
07-22-2008, 06:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd say that Steve made the usual right wing leap of faith claiming that the election of Obama would lead to infanticide.
</div></div>
Obama has already shown he supports infanticide.

LWW

Qtec
07-22-2008, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Paediatricians call for nationwide protocol for the ending of life of unbearably and incureably suffering newborns
10 december 2004 Paediatricians at academic hospitals in the Netherlands have called for the formation of a national committee to draw up a nationwide protocol for life ending treatment for newborns who are so ill and suffering so severely that they have no prospect of a future. The issue expressly relates to exceptional cases, around 600 newborns a year worldwide.

According to A.A.E. Verhagen, who launched the initiative: “It’s time to be honest about the unbearable suffering endured by newborns with no hope of a future. All over the world doctors end lives discretely out of compassion, without any kind of regulation. Worldwide, the US included, many deaths among newborns are based on end of life decisions, after physicians reached the conclusion that there was no quality of life. This is happening more and more frequently.”

The call to set up a national committee has been prompted by the discussions that erupted worldwide after paediatricians from Groningen University Hospital announced that they had drawn up a protocol for such cases in association with the Dutch public prosecutors, called Board of Procurators General.

Verhagen: “A lot of disquiet has arisen around this issue, especially when the Vatican expressed concern. But these children face a life of agonizing pain. For example, we’re talking about newborns with hydrocephalus and no brain. Another example may be a child with spina bifida with a sack of brain fluid attached where all the nerves are floating around. This child is barely able to breathe, and would have to undergo at least sixty operations in the course of a year to temporarily alleviate its problems. These operations would not ease the pain. Moreover, the child would suffer such unbearable pain that it has to be constantly anaesthetised. The parents watch this in tears and beg the doctor to bring an end to such suffering.”

Studies have shown that paediatricians worldwide are, in exceptional cases like this, in favour of deliberate ending of life. In France 74% believe that it should be acceptable in certain circumstances. The figure for the Netherlands is 72%.

The Groningen Protocol has five criteria: the suffering must be so severe that the newborn has no prospects of a future; there is no possibility of a cure or alleviation with medication or surgery; the parents must always give their consent; a second opinion must be provided by an independent doctor who has not been involved with the child’s treatment; and the deliberate ending of life must be meticulously carried out with the emphasis on aftercare.

Verhagen: “This is a subject that nobody likes to acknowledge, let alone discuss. But it is in the interest of newborns who have to endure unbearable suffering that we draw up a nationwide protocol that allows each paediatrician to treat this delicate question with due care, knowing that he followed the criteria.” </div></div>

link (http://www.azg.nl/azg/nl/english/nieuws/45613)


Q

pooltchr
07-22-2008, 06:26 PM
Q,
I have friends who have given birth to children who would fall into this catagory. Mentally and physically handicapped, these children could have been "put out of their misery" according to this proticol. Many of these kids have grown up to be very loving and giving kids. If you don't believe it, volunteer some time to work with the Special Olympics, then tell me those kids would be better off dead!

Steve

mike60
07-22-2008, 06:40 PM
Steve, I'm with you here. People may be idiots or worse but they should be the only ones making that call. If you are the parents you
get the choice to to whatever you want. I'm ambivalent about killing anyone. I will not kill anyone that doesn't need it. Children are special.

Steven Hawking comes to mind. Very special. Very messed up body, very special brain.


mike60

wolfdancer
07-22-2008, 09:41 PM
It's pretty GD simple to me...smoking is a proven health hazard, and smoking in a public place endangers everybody nearby. Sure I can get up and leave my happy meal when you walk in and lite up, or I can avoid every place that you are known to frequent.....but doesn't that infringe on my rights...or is it just the smokers that have constitutional rights?
Please don't respond...one more thread on smoker's rights ain't going to solve anything ...but while I'm a fair guy, this heat is making me absolutely crazy

pooltchr
07-23-2008, 04:24 AM
Wolf,
Smoking itself was never the issue. The issue was always the government's ability to dictate what people can and can not do. Just this week, I read about a city in CA where they have banned any new fast food restaurants because they contribute to obesity!
So if you live there, you don't need to worry about a smoker interrupting you as you enjoy your happy meal...there won't be any happy meals!
Baby steps. Always baby steps! That's how they do it, and the sheep just follow along, because it's usually "for the children".

Now they are considering taking away your right to keep your own children. First they said it was ok to terminate an unborn childs life, then kept pushing the limits to the so called partial birth abortions. The next step is to kill the unworthy ones after they are born...only the parents aren't the ones making the decision.
Baby steps. Always baby steps!

Steve

LWW
07-23-2008, 04:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wolf,
Smoking itself was never the issue. The issue was always the government's ability to dictate what people can and can not do. Just this week, I read about a city in CA where they have banned any new fast food restaurants because they contribute to obesity!
So if you live there, you don't need to worry about a smoker interrupting you as you enjoy your happy meal...there won't be any happy meals!
Baby steps. Always baby steps! That's how they do it, and the sheep just follow along, because it's usually "for the children".

Now they are considering taking away your right to keep your own children. First they said it was ok to terminate an unborn childs life, then kept pushing the limits to the so called partial birth abortions. The next step is to kill the unworthy ones after they are born...only the parents aren't the ones making the decision.
Baby steps. Always baby steps!

Steve </div></div>
And the sheeple will always swallow whatever is pout on the spoon and swear that it's good.

LWW

Qtec
07-23-2008, 06:24 AM
Did you even read my post? Read it again.

Steve, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The next step is to kill the unworthy ones after they are born...only the parents aren't the ones making the decision. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Groningen Protocol has five criteria: the suffering must be so severe that the newborn has no prospects of a future; there is no possibility of a cure or alleviation with medication or surgery; the parents must always give their consent; a second opinion must be provided by an independent doctor who has not been involved with the child’s treatment; and the deliberate ending of life must be meticulously carried out with the emphasis on aftercare. </div></div>

Q

sack316
07-23-2008, 07:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...and the deliberate ending of life must be meticulously carried out with the emphasis on aftercare.

Q </div></div>

Well that part should be easy /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

eg8r
07-23-2008, 07:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please don't respond...one more thread on smoker's rights ain't going to solve anything ...</div></div>So you can run your mouth about someone's rights, but you don't want to hear anyone who disagrees with you. A bit hypocritical when you tell someone not to respond.

eg8r

eg8r
07-23-2008, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Smoking itself was never the issue. The issue was always the government's ability to dictate what people can and can not do.</div></div>Don't expect a rational response to the actual subject from wolfie. His responses are emotional strawmen.

Give the Government an inch and they will take a mile.

eg8r

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 08:23 AM
Once again, you sink to the level of lww with your personally insulting reply.
Smoking has been "debated" here ad nauseam and people are pretty passionate about their stand on the issue. There isn't much else to say. It was and is a national health crisis, and it was never going to have enough voluntary bans to save the lives of non-smokers, from the "typhoid Mary" smokers.
I think I have as much right to breathe clean air as you have to pollute my surrounding air...maybe I have the right to shoot your ignorant ass in self defense since you are trying to give me a disease.
You wouldn't smoke in the same room as your 2 month old infant, but think you have the "right" to do that on a crowded elevator,that holds others young ones
But, you are right...I am emotional on that subject after losing so many family members and friends to smoking related deaths, after having so many meals in restaurant ruined, after having to give up my seat at sporting events, etc
So.............
F**K your emotional strawman reply. Your "side" has been arguing about your right to smoke, anywhere, anytime, since day one.....and the only thing you have proved is that you are selfish, and non caring about the health issues of others....(I'm going to die of lung cancer, might as well take a few with me)
(Gee, that felt good, mabye there's something to this lww style posting))
As for giving the Government an inch...they still allow "shooting galleries", cigar clubs, etc, where you can share you addiction, and get your nicotine fix....and the cost???
only 7 minutes off your life with each cigarette....probably less time then you are taking off your trapped victim, by blowing the smoke into his or hers,or their children's faces

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 08:35 AM
F88K you, you ignorant twit, with your idiotic replies...and just sh*t to back them up.
You screw up every board that you get on, post after post of nothing but trivial hs insults, add in trying pass yourself off as something special, to pump up your fragile ego...(when you know in reality you are just a pathetic a'hole)
Now jerkoff boy...instead of you sheeple nonsense...why don't you f**kin prove to me that I'm wrong, ....or slink off in some corner and suck your thumb as you used to do when your classmates picked on you

Qtec
07-23-2008, 09:56 AM
[quote=eg8r]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Give the Government an inch and they will take a mile.

eg8r </div></div>

You mean------"Give the RW Govt an inch..........


Q

eg8r
07-23-2008, 10:46 AM
Nope, I meant what I said. Go back to your hole.

eg8r

eg8r
07-23-2008, 10:48 AM
I am not interested in reading your strawman "arguments". I don't care about your intrepretation of someone's rights because they always only pertain to yourself and you don't care about anyone else's rights.

eg8r

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 11:40 AM
What an ignorant response.....you have to be some kind of real jerk to claim someone has an equal right to pollute the air that I breathe as I do to breathe clean air.
And another a'hole strawman bs....you need a new script...maybe lww can write it for you.
Your wasting your time trying to put me down though....I am "truth, justice and the American way"....you are just only concerned about your bottom line, and could give a s**t less about the problems of others.

Bobbyrx
07-23-2008, 12:09 PM
Believe it or not, I'm with you all the way on this one. You should have the right to breath clean air in a public place.

eg8r
07-23-2008, 12:31 PM
Again, I am not interested in your version of a person's rights.

I am not trying to put you down, I also am not sugar coating anything either.

eg8r

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 12:37 PM
Here's a hypothetical.....I take my kid to the circus that he's dying to see....you take yours, but being the inconsiderate a'hole that you are ( we're speaking hypothetically, or course) you pull out your cancer stick and begin polluting the air.
Neither kid has a real choice, but I do....I'd have to get him out of there.
That scenario played out many times while I was growing up, and people were to ignorant of the health problems that smoking causes to remove their kids...hell, they were stinking up the joint themselves.
It's changed now, somewhat....but I can assure you it weren't voluntary....we had to "hold a shotgun to their heads" to get them to sign.
Thank God though people that think like you do are becoming the minority now, as they read the lung cancer statistics.
Sure the framers were tobacco farmers, but they didn't write in any smoker's rights despite your beliefs...
Now I know that you don't smoke yourself, but you see this as another left v right issue....yet you would be the first to concede your constitutional rights under the guise of homeland security, but only if the right were in power.
Do you realize that the government also tells you when you can drive your suv through an intersection, despite your "rights" to just plow through whenever....ok so you have a family car...but YOU having to WAIT at a light for a Democrat to drive through..
(lww writ that last scenario for me)

eg8r
07-23-2008, 12:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a hypothetical.....I take my kid to the circus that he's dying to see....you take yours, but being the inconsiderate a'hole that you are ( we're speaking hypothetically, or course) you pull out your cancer stick and begin polluting the air.
Neither kid has a real choice, but I do....I'd have to get him out of there.
That scenario played out many times while I was growing up, and people were to ignorant of the health problems that smoking causes to remove their kids...hell, they were stinking up the joint themselves.</div></div>Your hypothetical happens all the time, I am inconsiderate, just kidding. I completely understand your side of the argument you are having with yourself. I also would leave if my kids were subject to the smoke.

However, this does not have anything to do with what Steve posted, which is why I called it a strawman. Steve was talking about government and you are stuck on individual rights.

eg8r

sack316
07-23-2008, 12:47 PM
Not to take away from either point... which by the way I do understand both sides, and I am a smoker... but who actually believes any of us is breathing clean air anyway?

Sack

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 12:50 PM
Sack, i was just talking hypotheticals...cough, cough

sack316
07-23-2008, 12:57 PM
Oh, and by the way this smoking part of the discussion shows exactly what was eluded to earlier in the "leap of faith" arguments about what one step would lead to... which attempted to get shot down. I think it was Steve that used the comparison first.

But even at my young age, I recall people lighting up anywhere as they chose. Then it was not in government buildings, then only in restaurants or bars. The next step was a seperate smoking section and people would be happy. Then it led to no smoking indoors at public places (well here the business can choose to be either fully smoking or fully non... which in reality isn't a choice when put into action). Now I see places where you can't be within so many feet of a doorway, or a walkway. Or get put into a little bubble. Then I believe there are some places where you can't even smoke in public period (I may be wrong on that part, though).

Anyway, whether that is right or wrong as far as smoking goes... I really don't know and won't say, nor does it matter... but this evolution of change and what is acceptable changed drastically in just my mere 28 years here on Earth. Which in turn, kinda proves the point made in the first place that Steve was making. What's odd is that I almost agreed with that "great leap of faith" argument that was made... until reading through all of this. Suddenly it doesn't seem like such an impossibility the way things work here.

Sack

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 01:11 PM
Sorry, but I don't buy that. What government enforced smoking regulations are for...is to protect the health of non smokers.
We used to institutionalize TB patients to protect the "rights", read: health of others. In biblical days the lepers were forced to carry a sign "unclean, unclean" imagine how that interfered with their rights.
Say, maybe if smokers were forced to wear similar signs, then we would be forewarned and could avoid them.....
One can still smoke, just in some place where they and they alone get the full benefit of the cancerous fog that they exhale...I don't see the problem...

Deeman3
07-23-2008, 01:30 PM
From what I see, even down here in backward Alabama, a person has to pretty well be trying to stalk a smoker to get any second hand smoke. I don't know of anywhere it is o.k. in a public setting, with the exception of bars, to smoke. If the kids are getting the smoke from the bars I see, they may have more than smoke to worry about. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

sack316
07-23-2008, 02:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry, but I don't buy that. What government enforced smoking regulations are for...is to protect the health of non smokers.
We used to institutionalize TB patients to protect the "rights", read: health of others. In biblical days the lepers were forced to carry a sign "unclean, unclean" imagine how that interfered with their rights.
Say, maybe if smokers were forced to wear similar signs, then we would be forewarned and could avoid them.....
One can still smoke, just in some place where they and they alone get the full benefit of the cancerous fog that they exhale...I don't see the problem... </div></div>

Actually I agree with ya there Wolfie. Especially as far as protecting the "rights" i.e. health of others. And what's the one thing our government cares about more than health? I'd bet it's money. Perfect example using what we're talking about: If health was the big thing, cigarrette companies would not exist here anymore. But we make a lot of money off of them (me) in taxes. So, taking that back to the original thought in this thread, I can clearly see how one could deduce such a seemingly "out there" consequence being the outcome.

I wasn't jumping in the smoking argument, I was simply using the two topics going on in this thread as a correlation to what the original point was in the beginning. And like it or not, your stance tends to lend credibility to that. Though the two issues are very different things, the process and evolution are in theory, the same. And the same arguments you are using regarding smoking could be used much the same way one day in the original topic. ("the "health" of the economy and proposed healthcare system would be better off if...). You gotta be able to see that, yes?

Sack

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 02:41 PM
damn, I hate logical explanations...they ruin my posts....
But rightfully, or wrongfully, I think something had to be done to curtail smoking in public places...when you read the associated costs, tragic death's, incapacitating illnesses, etc caused by smoking.
My cousin's wife is now in the first stages of emphysema. she's younger then I am, but I may outlive her if I can remain out of some whacko's sniper scope....

sack316
07-23-2008, 02:49 PM
I understand ya wolfie. Just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't taking a stance, but rather showing how the two seemingly different topics and ideals could possibly relate to each other much easier than one would think... hell that didn't even hit me until about the third time going through this thread!

Anyway, as I said I understand why you feel the way you do. And I personally don't feel it is too much trouble for me to step outside and around a corner if I feel the need to puff one that bad. As long as it's legal and I'm still a smoker, there is a way to manage curbing my nic fit however is deemed acceptable to society. I enjoy my smoking (yeah, that's bad I know)... but am sensitive to others who don't smoke and don't want to be around it. Even when in a bar, if I happen to be with a group of non-smokers I'll kindly slip away for a few minutes to go visit at another table or something to at least save them from having it right in their faces.

Now, if I continue to smoke, the getting up and walking outside may become another issue a few years down the road. But I'll change my stance on that when it effects me personally /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 05:37 PM
My one other point was that without some regulations...I couldn't go to places that you could without suffering a runny nose and a coughing fit...bars, restaurants, pool halls, Bund meetings....
But you could go anywhere I did....just hope that your wife never found out....

pooltchr
07-23-2008, 06:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry, but I don't buy that. What government enforced smoking regulations are for...is to protect the health of non smokers.
...I don't see the problem... </div></div>

OK,
Whose rights are being protected by not allowing fast food restaurants in a city? Nobody has ever had to endure second-hand big mac!

Whose rights are being protected in the example I used at the beginning of the thread? Not the infant's!!!!!

If you look at the past, and connect the dots, you might understand what I am trying to say. The government doesn't give a rats behind about your right to not be around smokers. What the do care about is gaining more control over the activities of the general population. Look at every new law that gets signed into law, and see if it is written to protect someone's rights, or take some away.

I'm sorry if you can't see it. But then, most people don't even try. I thought you were a little above the average.

Steve

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 10:48 PM
Sorry again, but I can now go into places that I had to avoid in the past. And when California enacted a smoking ban, my constant allergy symptoms disappeared over nite. Before that I couldn't leave the house without a hankerchief.
They don't allow kids to sniff glue either, although it gives them a nice buzz, like smoking does
AND if you can't see there are health issues involved, non smokers health endangered by uncaring, smokers....
It's the reason I didn't want another ****'g smoking debate.
It becomes your rights to smoke Vs my rights to try to avoid lung cancer and emphysema.
We have another health crisis in this nation ...overweight, obese kids growing up on junk, fast food. It's both tragic and costly....but I'll leave that one to you experts to debate. You've had 8 years as a majority party...why couldn't you get together and overturn all the smoking regs...didn't your party promise less government control?
Just maybe they also saw the huge medical costs of respitorial diseases and the tragic early deaths.
I can't believe that anybody is still pushing an agenda for the right to smoke whenever/wherever.....I'm out of this thread....

sack316
07-23-2008, 10:56 PM
Actually Steve, in one of wolfie's responses to me he said:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">damn, I hate logical explanations...they ruin my posts....
</div></div>

So I think he actually did see it, or at least gained an idea of where you and I were somewhat coming from in this thread. So give him credit for that much. Now I don't think he still fully would be ready to agree with your original thought, but I think he did manage to move past writing it off completely as well. Let the man have his belief... but I as well would give him kudos for actually listening to a side he doesn't necessarily agree with.

That's more than some can seem to do on here. It seems we're having an epidemic of people more worried about their own words while not paying attention to the thoughts of others... except for finding something to disprove or shoot down of course.

Sack

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 11:22 PM
you can't beat a dead horse....it's been played out here several times before.....but like your deep concern over Clinton's marital infidelities....it keeps coming back up.
Since you are another self appointed authority here why don't you let us know why you should be allowed to exhale your cancerous fog in my face...but wouldn't do it to your own wife or kids.
It comes down to either you step outside the bar/restaurant to smoke, or non smokers have to step out until you are done and the air is clear. I'd rather you hike your ass out in the cold, or rain.