|
Grex > Agora47 > #52: House passes ban on "partial birth" abortions | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 142 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 106 of 142:
| 
Oct 9 19:45 UTC 2003 |
Jim (jdeigert) is the 6th surviving child of 7. The 6th child was born
severely defective but survived a few months - long enough for his mother to
have a nervous breakdown and be hospitalized for it.
|
klg
|
|
response 107 of 142:
|
Oct 10 13:24 UTC 2003 |
Ms. lynne,
We are not being "whiny." Perhaps you are out of touch with reality.
It actually is a catch-22 situation for employers:
"But protecting a fetus from occupational hazards isn't as easy as
removing pregnant women from specific jobs. Companies that have taken
that approach have been hit with discrimination lawsuits and lost.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that battery maker Johnson
Controls' practice of restricting women from certain jobs on the basis
that lead exposure could harm the fetus amounted to sex discrimination."
. . .
"'If the employer warns the mother, and if she goes in and says she has
a right to do this job, and the fetus is exposed, is the employer
responsible?' asks Eugene Brodsky, a San Francisco lawyer who
represented a child who sued over birth defects. 'The fetus didn't
agree to be at risk. These are questions that will have to be
addressed.'"
For the complete article . . .
http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/26/usatcov-birth-
defects.htm
|
scott
|
|
response 108 of 142:
|
Oct 10 13:53 UTC 2003 |
Ah, so klg is in favor of children suing their parents?
|
klg
|
|
response 109 of 142:
|
Oct 10 14:10 UTC 2003 |
(How one could draw that conclusion is truly remarkable - but hardly
beyond Mr. scott's abilities.)
|
lynne
|
|
response 110 of 142:
|
Oct 10 14:49 UTC 2003 |
heh heh. The fetus by definition has no rights as yet, and the mother has
already signed an agreement that the employer is not responsible. Since
parents have the right to make decisions for the child until it is 18,
the agreement the mother signed is binding. Indeed, scott is right: the
only logical approach for this maligned child is to sue its mother.
|
klg
|
|
response 111 of 142:
|
Oct 10 15:06 UTC 2003 |
(Are you truly prepared to bet that the government will take a logical
approach? Based upon past performance, one ought to expect otherwise.
In this particular instance, please note that attorney Brodsky is from
the loony left coast.)
|
lynne
|
|
response 112 of 142:
|
Oct 10 21:48 UTC 2003 |
We are not discussing the government, but rather the legal system. Please
be more precise. Unless and until the agreement between employer and
mother is ruled illegal or immaterial, the employer is not to blame.
Judges are required to adhere to the letter of the law; in the case that
they do not do so, any decision is subject to appeal.
|
slynne
|
|
response 113 of 142:
|
Oct 11 03:29 UTC 2003 |
Maybe the answer for those companies would be to give pregnant women
the option of being reassigned to a less hazardous job but at their
same pay rate. Of course, then some man will probably sue the company
claiming that women are getting better treatment. Ok. Maybe the real
answer is for these companies to clean up their act and create safer
workplaces.
|
tsty
|
|
response 114 of 142:
|
Oct 11 04:07 UTC 2003 |
all the responoses to #95 - sorry, but they don't pass teh smell test.
what they do, however , is promote teh 1:1000 probability upto
sometihg like 10:1 probability. hope against hope. *P L E A S E*
get real!
with 6 billion humns on the face of the earth at the moment,
.. adn growing .. what is the probability that sex does NOT result
in pregnacy?
throw every 1:1,000,000 probability into the wind and *pray?*
gimme a fscking break! check your damn file system!
<prayer might be worthwile .. although futile ..errr, fertile>
|
happyboy
|
|
response 115 of 142:
|
Oct 11 08:40 UTC 2003 |
you are a drunkard.
|
lynne
|
|
response 116 of 142:
|
Oct 11 17:28 UTC 2003 |
re 113: "Maybe the answer for those companies would be to give pregnant
women the option of being reassigned to a less hazardous job but at their
same pay rate."
This is standard operating procedure for most companies--in fact, I think
it may be mandatory for pregnant women to be reassigned until after they
give birth.
re114: It's not a common occurrance by any means, but it does in fact
happen. <shrug>
|
klg
|
|
response 117 of 142:
|
Oct 11 22:05 UTC 2003 |
re: "This is standard operating procedure for most companies--in fact,
I think it may be mandatory for pregnant women to be reassigned until
after they give birth."
It is??? We have never seen it in a union agreement. (You may wish to
reread response #107 for what is actually happening in the workplace.)
Please provide some examples to support what you are saying. Thank you.
|
lynne
|
|
response 118 of 142:
|
Oct 12 14:28 UTC 2003 |
re 116, 117: I was referring specifically to chemical/pharmaceutical
companies, as they are the only ones of interest to me. I'm not sure that
there is a union for chemists. However, I am sure that this is company
policy at Merck. Be warned that I am now adding Mr klg to my twit filter,
since I find their writing style more irritating than their content justifies.
|
slynne
|
|
response 119 of 142:
|
Oct 12 14:53 UTC 2003 |
How come folks often seem unable to add anyone to their twit filter
without announcing it to everyone else.
|
remmers
|
|
response 120 of 142:
|
Oct 12 15:01 UTC 2003 |
There might be lots of folks who filter people but who never
announce it. Of course, by definition that's something that
we'll never get a handle on in a public forum.
|
slynne
|
|
response 121 of 142:
|
Oct 12 15:25 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, I know. My original comment was "how come folks always seem
to..." and then I thought about it. I mean, if someone adds someone to
their twit filter and doesnt announce it, I wouldnt notice.
|
other
|
|
response 122 of 142:
|
Oct 12 16:13 UTC 2003 |
It's fun to tweak the filteree by announcing that you're filtering them,
which makes their response to the announcement tantalizingly invisible.
|
slynne
|
|
response 123 of 142:
|
Oct 12 16:38 UTC 2003 |
That's it! I am putting *everyone* on my twit list. Now all responses
in grex will be tantalizingly invisible which means, of course, that
they will all be tantalizing. Whew. Is it getting HOT in here?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 124 of 142:
|
Oct 12 19:23 UTC 2003 |
that didn't tweak me, slynne. sorry...and i still
love you even though you're mean. oh wait, you can't
read this because you're filtering and stuff.
HA HA HA!
(p.s. we miss you, buy a plane ticket please...)
|
remmers
|
|
response 125 of 142:
|
Oct 12 19:24 UTC 2003 |
(I heard that slynne soaks her false teeth in beer overnight.)
|
happyboy
|
|
response 126 of 142:
|
Oct 12 19:31 UTC 2003 |
(only when she sleeps nekkid on the front porch)
|
slynne
|
|
response 127 of 142:
|
Oct 12 20:25 UTC 2003 |
Oooh Ooh. Grex is sooooo tantalizing and exciting all of a sudden.
|
lynne
|
|
response 128 of 142:
|
Oct 12 22:51 UTC 2003 |
Somehow, it seemed rude not to let klg know I was ignoring he/she/it/them. :)
(man, the things you miss not living in Ypsi...) :)
|
klg
|
|
response 129 of 142:
|
Oct 13 01:18 UTC 2003 |
We are crushed!
|
gull
|
|
response 130 of 142:
|
Oct 13 01:21 UTC 2003 |
If I were filtering I wouldn't tell the filteree, but that's because I'm
paranoid enough to worry about what they would say about me behind my
back.
|