Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on July 25, 2010 at 9:04pm

Yeah, it would be harder to avoid anyone considering an abortion, but if someone has their own private practice they can specialize. It's true that the whole point is her trying to proclaim her beliefs and she would probably jump at the chance, instead of the scenario of someone backing her into a corner about what she believes.

I think it's comparable to creationists wanting to teach creationism even if it's scientifically untrue, because of their religious beliefs. She wants to go against the psychological community standards b/c of her beliefs.

Permalink Reply by Daniel on July 25, 2010 at 4:53pm

The headline is misleading, many Christians support gay rights etc...

Anyway, I hope this goes to court and sets precedent. The science is pretty conclusive on this topic and could be grounds to progress equal rights.

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on July 25, 2010 at 5:00pm

Remember the source.

Permalink Reply by Daniel on July 25, 2010 at 5:17pm

You mean world net daily?

... WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American web site that publishes news and associated content from a U.S. conservative perspective

>> Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

OH, it's a birther news source...

Good point.

Permalink Reply by Pat on July 25, 2010 at 7:29pm

Фелч Гроган writes, The actual real story is impossible to deduce, but it has to be an attention whoring stunt. It certainly has that phony stench of "Oh, oh, oh, oh! Look at us devout, God fearing, persecuted believers, with yet another poor, poor persecuted Christian being martyred by the evil secularist lions."

But, there's another factor which shouldn't be discounted. Daniel says he hopes it goes to Court. Don't necessarily hold your breath. ASU is part of the State of Georgia's University System. And, with all state university systems, the legislature and governor hold the purse strings. Can you say conservative, christian, red neck, bible belt? After all, Georgia's university system is not the plaintiff. They're defending. And, there is a nuisance value to this suit, which if actually phony to begin with, would seem to go along with the attention whoring. (Nuisance value = I slip on my ass at Wal-Mart without suffering harm, but nevertheless sue. And, they pay me off because it's cheaper than going to trial and winning). ASU could quietly settle for her going somewhere else, and paying her an "undisclosed" amount of $$$. They "martyrs" have their publicity, and a healthy check at taxpayers expense to boot. I don't want to sound like some sort of whack job conspiracy theorist, but I've actually sat in legal meetings where more devious shit than this has been discussed.

Permalink Reply by Daniel on July 25, 2010 at 8:33pm

So are you saying you think the case would not go well because it is in the south and/or are you just saying that it won't get to court because of pr/special interests?

Permalink Reply by Pat on July 25, 2010 at 8:58pm

As to being in the south, the elected representatives have one primary interest. Getting re-elected. Applies to the north equally. However if, as I strongly suspect, the majority of Georgia voters side or identify with the "the poor, poor, christian victim" those who will ultimately make the decision of going to trial, and their bosses in the state capitol, will want to distance themselves from this and/or want to make it disappear.

Then, there's the public relations aspect. The plaintiff may very well be a whore for the attention grabbing, emotional headlines, this type of case engenders among the true believers in the hinterland. Knowing the PR damage this can do, they're (more than just her, I strongly suspect) strategy has worked. And will work for a while to come. But, in the modern world of "That's so yesterday's news. What's Paris Hilton doing today?" they can milk this for only so long. My guess is sometime prior to the mid-term election in November. If they milk it till then, the conservative christian agenda has the very real probability of scoring another victory. But then, the plaintiff and her side run the risk of taking they're chances in front of a federal judge (it's a federal lawsuit). A state judge is susceptible to political pressure, whereas a federal judge can the tell plaintiff, the State of Georgia, or the US Congress to go to hell, and be in no danger of losing his/her job due to those same political pressures. Ergo, the desire to settle is probably good on both sides, but only after the plaintiff gets her 15 minutes of fame at the pulpit and the polling booth.

Mind you, this is speculation. However, if the original supposition of this being a way to grab headlines is correct, it's speculation based upon experience.

Permalink Reply by Daniel on July 26, 2010 at 12:14am

I think as partisan as politics are right now Republicans in general would be more likely to come out in support of Jen to show their super conservatism rather than try to sweep this under the floor. I'm surprised Fox hasn't run with this story already.

It also has been mentioned the supreme court is very conservative, if Christian fundamentalists were planning to make a run on issues then now is the time.

Permalink Reply by Lyllogism on July 26, 2010 at 4:31am

Should an academic program dispel someone because their personal beliefs differ from the accepted? Indoctrination or education, what is the goal of academic institutions.

Yes she is wrong. Yes she is vacuous. Yes she is Coulter-esque.

So, what. Indoctrination leads to poor progress compared to education. The evangelicals surely need counseling maybe they need baby steps to join the modern world and since when did a counselor really make a difference any way.

--My indoctrination is better than yours. -> random little picture responder from this discussion.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on July 26, 2010 at 5:42am

Yeah, when she flies in the face of accepted counseling procedure, she's likely to cause far more harm than good. It's responsible of the university not to cut a monster like that loose on the community of emotionally unstable people who need help.

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on July 26, 2010 at 2:24pm

People are attacking him for a flippant comment. It is only natural to defend himself. It is not being overly sensitive. Other people are making a big deal out of this issue not him.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on July 26, 2010 at 3:36pm

Yes I am the judge and jury. If it is funny then it is excused. if it is not funny then it is mean and degrading.... starting now......

So, my argument is grandfathered in. Myeh. :-P

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page