...and when someone attempts to represent himself as something he is not, I don't think there is anything wrong with calling him on it. I didn't and I don't.

How did he misrepresent himself? Huh?

Well, it looks like I have gotten my money's worth

Are you saying you think everyone else should pay your way here? Sounds pretty communistic to me.

Are you saying you think everyone else should pay your way here? Sounds pretty communistic to me.

Jack, what has that got to do with the topic, or have you totally lost tack of the topic?

Jack, what has that got to do with the topic, or have you totally lost tack of the topic?

Shoot, we lost track of the topic several pages back. I think you're just to afraid to answer the questions I've put before you.

Shoot, we lost track of the topic several pages back. I think you're just to afraid to answer the questions I've put before you.

You have put NO WORTHY QUESTIONS before me, only that you feel that I should pay some kind of membership fee to be able to post here, which is obsurd...

You have put NO WORTHY QUESTIONS before me, only that you feel that I should pay some kind of membership fee to be able to post here, which is obsurd...

Dude, that isn't what was said at all. This site is free, last I checked. I'm just saying if you really cared that much about the debate here, you'd help Todd and Patrick with the expenses like many others have.

By the way, I asked you another question above. You said Patrick misrepresented himself. How?

Dude, that isn't what was said at all. This site is free, last I checked. I'm just saying if you really cared that much about the debate here, you'd help Todd and Patrick with the expenses like many others have.

By the way, I asked you another question above. You said Patrick misrepresented himself. How?

Firstly and lastly, I am not a dude, I have told you that already..secondly and lastly, reread the posts that are on the board and if you don't understand, I can do nothing more to make you understand. I am tired, I am going to bed and maybe, just maybe tomorrow we may have something to talk about.

Misrepresented himself in which way? Being a med student? Touring an abortion clinic? Knowing information about Hippocratic Oath? I've read all of the posts. What is your statement specifically referring to?

Both of you have completely allowed this to get out of hand. GrandMaMa, I'll allow you to respond to the last questions asked of you, but after that, both of you, please refrain from the insults and attacks.

Failure to comply with this will lead to a temporary suspension of your accounts.

An uneducated opinion after having read the posts is that Grandmama and Patrick were having a discussion, and when Grandmama was head and shoulders above Patrick in knowledge and expertise in researching the issue, Jack jumped in, and when he was overwhelmed by Grandmama's ability to stick with the issue, he began attacking based on Grandmama's not having paid dues.

I say that in prelude to my asking: "Does it take the paying of dues here to be considered a reputable member of the discussion team?"

No, Grandmama, I do not want to debate you on this or any other issue at least right now.

I appreciate your unbiased opinion and your willingness to share it.

And by the way, changing opinions over time is what did change the Hippocratic Oath:


:backtotop And by the way, that is why the decision was handed down regarding Roe Vs Wade..I think it's called, enlightenment.

So if this SCOTUS hands down the decision overturning Roe you will agree with that, right?

I don't care who started the insults and attacks, they went both ways, and continued throughout the night and early morning. Either of you could've easily stopped this, instead of turning it into a flame war. It's called self control. GrandMaMa, if you felt Jack was attacking you, you should've let things lie, and contacted a moderator. Instead you chose to continue in the dispute. I fault both of you.

On the other issue, I admit that I had incorrect information on the issue. But who doesn't have incorrect information every once in awhile. GrandMaMa, you're not right on everything either.

Misrepresenting myself? I don't think so. Everything said about my status as a medical student and the abortion clinic was true. I also would like to know how I was misrepresenting myself.

And we do use the Hippocratic Oath at OU.

So if this SCOTUS hands down the decision overturning Roe you will agree with that, right?

I'm not sure who you're directing this question at, but I'd agree with it.
The majority of the country would oppose this, but it's completely up to the Supreme Court. They answer only to the constitution, not public opinion polls.

And one more thing, Patrick, I am well aware of the actions of some doctors, but they are the exception. You see, all of them, as well as the nurse's and scrub techs have had a LOT of ethics teaching, and you, on the other hand, obviously have not yet had the pleasure. And no, one hour or one day shadowing anyone, anywhere, not havng to make decisions or not having to participate, cannot possibly provide you with the experience that it takes to afford you the background with which you are making such blatantly false and empty statements. If I appear disrespectful in this post, it's because I am not having much success with subtlety at this point.




Talk about not knowing the facts. GrandMaMa, you just did the same thing I did.....made a statement without knowing all of the facts.

We've had numerous Ethics classes in medical school where we've spent several hours discussing issues like this. My personal opinion is that I don't agree with abortion. Plain and simple. It violates my own ethical standards of preserving human life.

Even if my statements are false, I'm entitled to say whatever I want. This is a public forum.

Other than for the issue with the Hippocratic Oath, when have I made an incorrect statement?

So far, the way I see it, we've both made 1 incorrect statement: mine about Roe V Wade changing the Hippocratic Oath, and you stating that I'd never had any ethics classes.
So I guess we're even Steven!

I'll add one more to that list. Have you ever been in real surgery room before? Most surgeons aren't as respectful as you lead on. In fact, I'd say most general surgeons are jerks. I know, I've worked around them. The body may be draped nicely during the procedure, but before the procedure the body is pretty exposed. Surgeons don't always treat the body with the utmost respect.

The majority of the country would oppose this, but it's completely up to the Supreme Court. They answer only to the constitution, not public opinion polls.

The beauty of overturning Roe would be that it would then go back to the states, and the will of the people. If the majority of the country is in favor of abortion, then the people or the politicians they elect will make it the law of the land, instead of as few as 5 people in SCOTUS.

The beauty of overturning Roe would be that it would then go back to the states, and the will of the people. If the majority of the country is in favor of abortion, then the people or the politicians they elect will make it the law of the land, instead of as few as 5 people in SCOTUS.

How could it be made law if the Supreme Court would've ruled Roe v Wade unconstitutional?

I say that in prelude to my asking: "Does it take the paying of dues here to be considered a reputable member of the discussion team?"

In regards to this question, I will say that all comments are welcome. This is a free forum. But, donations are appreciated. We can't continue this site without them.

How could it be made law if the Supreme Court would've ruled Roe v Wade unconstitutional?

From what I understand, Roe essentially made abortion a constitutional right, taking away the ability of any government entity to ban it. Since then, until recently, the court basically ruled that almost any limit on abortion (parental notification, banning partial birth abortion, etc) was also unconstitutional. So overturning Roe would just throw it back to each individual state to decide.

From what I understand, Roe essentially made abortion a constitutional right, taking away the ability of any government entity to ban it. Since then, until recently, the court basically ruled that almost any limit on abortion (parental notification, banning partial birth abortion, etc) was also unconstitutional. So overturning Roe would just throw it back to each individual state to decide.

Oh, okay. I see where you're coming from.

That could create an even bigger chaos. Women wanting an abortion would storm to the states that allowed it. I'm sure the more liberal states like New York, California, etc. would probably make abortion legal.

By the way, OkieBear, thanks for getting us :backtotop

Oh, okay. I see where you're coming from.

That could create an even bigger chaos. Women wanting an abortion would storm to the states that allowed it. I'm sure the more liberal states like New York, California, etc. would probably make abortion legal.

I believe there are states who have laws or constitutional clauses on both sides, both allowing and disallowing abortions. SCOTUS took those laws off the table. If enough people in those states that ban it let their elected officials know they want it, then they will probably pass laws allowing it. If not, there will probably be people crossing state lines to obtain one. On the other hand, if abortions are not readily available women who otherwise might have had one in a state of panic may consider other options and save the baby. I guess you can tell where I stand on the issue. :)

So if this SCOTUS hands down the decision overturning Roe you will agree with that, right?

I very much respect the Judges on the Supreme Court and especially the ones sitting now.

I'll add one more to that list. Have you ever been in real surgery room before? Most surgeons aren't as respectful as you lead on. In fact, I'd say most general surgeons are jerks. I know, I've worked around them. The body may be draped nicely during the procedure, but before the procedure the body is pretty exposed. Surgeons don't always treat the body with the utmost respect.

Patrick, I'm not going to allow you to goad me into being suspended. Those were exactly the same types of questions that I was asking of you, and I got reprimanded. I will say this to that. If I didn't have considerable experience in what I was discussing, I wouldn't have recognized that you didn't. Now, I will try to follow the moderator's request and try to seperate the message from the messenger, although, the difficulty lies where the messenger is in question..I won't go there again.

Patrick, I'm not going to allow you to goad me into being suspended. Those were exactly the same types of questions that I was asking of you, and I got reprimanded. I will say this to that. If I didn't have considerable experience in what I was discussing, I wouldn't have recognized that you didn't. Now, I will try to follow the moderator's request and try to seperate the message from the messenger, although, the difficulty lies where the messenger is in question..I won't go there again.

I didn't reprimand because of your dealings with me. I just think you and Jack got into a flame war last night, and you both shouldn't have allowed it to escalate to that.

I'm a pretty laid back guy. If I don't agree with something I either present evidence (to the best of my knowledge at the time) or ignore it. Obviously, you had the facts in this situation. More power to you.

Hey GrandMaMa, I'll just send you a PM and we can talk about it.

I didn't reprimand because of your dealings with me. I just think you and Jack got into a flame war last night, and you both shouldn't have allowed it to escalate to that.

I'm a pretty laid back guy. If I don't agree with something I either present evidence or ignore it. Obviously, you had the facts in this situation. Do you feel better now?

Hey GrandMaMa, I'll just send you a PM and we can talk about it.

Not a bad idea

For those who are not so legally inclined, let me explain something very important to understanding this issue. The question before the Supreme Court will have very little to do with abortion itself (if anything at all). The question before the Court will be whether states can pass laws or state constitutional amendments contrary to binding rulings of the Supreme Court.

This isn't an attack on Roe v. Wade so much as an attack on Marbury v. Madison.

I'll give you a guess -- no way in Hades is a sitting supreme court going to essentially castrate itself. Consider the doors that such a ruling would open up. Let's say that Kansas no longer wants to have racially integrated schools.. well, the holding that y'all are routing for would essentially allow Kansas to pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn Brown v. Board of Education.

I'll repeat: no way in hades.

Thanks for the legal input Midtowner!

I'm going to close this thread, since it's gotten off topic so many times. I'll start a new topic on abortion, and we can go from there.

Thanks, Patrick, moderator.