Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 2:13 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Hewlett-Packard Company Message Board

  • lucky7charm lucky7charm Jul 6, 2004 4:39 PM Flag

    Edwards the Trial Lawyer

    From a NYTimes article at:

    Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: "She said at 3, `I'm fine.' She said at 4, `I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, `I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, `I need out.' "

    But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of science and passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90 more minutes to perform a breech delivery, rather than immediately performing a Caesarean section, Mr. Edwards said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl's brain.

    "She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now � I didn't plan to talk about this � right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

    The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict in the cerebral palsy case, and Mr. Edwards established his reputation as the state's most feared plaintiff's lawyer.

    What I want to know is, Edwards states that he is pro-abortion and hasn't fought partial birth abortion, so how can he stand there and say that this child (who hasn't been born yet) speaks through him, makes him feel her presence and basically acknowledges that this is a person with feelings, a heartbeat and a chance for life, and that this cruel doctor who didn't act fast enough to give her a "normal" rest of her life, is responsible to pay 6.5 million dollars? What if that same doctor had performed a partial birth abortion on this child? What if this same doctor had performed an abortion on this child when she was, say, a month or two earlier than the birth date? Am I to understand that Edwards stands for murder or brain damage as long as the mother consents, but will sue a doctor if the mother doesn't consent?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • ""And I have to tell you right now � I didn't plan to talk about this � right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you.""

      Shades of "The Exorcist". I'd much rather have God talking to me through Bush than a pre-birth child talking to me through Edwards, but I'm weird like that.


      • 1 Reply to inkjetboy2004
      • ooooo. I hadn't thought of it like that. You may have given us a whole new line to run with Stillcenter. He keeps pounding that we think that God is talking through Bush so we must assume that he believes that babies can talk through that called "channeling"?'s dead people. But then, the pro-abortion crowd says that these aren't live human beings and if a human being isn't alive, then it is dead...yeah, Edwards believes in "channeling". Oh my gosh! He is part of the occult! :-)

    • I hesitate to get into the abortion debate because it so often becomes sloganeering, but your discussion with Hippo has been thoughtful so here's my two cents worth.

      The Supreme Court has basically got it right, in my opinion. The more advanced the pregnancy, the more interest the state has in the fetus, the more regulation the state can impose.

      It's important to recognize how much this debate is influenced by advances in technology. For eons, personhood began at birth and for the most part it still does. Your birthday isn't the day you were conceived, it's the day you were born. Virtually every legal right you have is driven by counting your age from that date: the right to vote, to marry, to drive, to drink, to serve in the armed forces, to draw social security or qualify for medicare, etc etc.

      Only very recently have we been able to "see" the developing fetus in utero and only those visions have led us to confer on it a kind of personhood before birth. When you add great advances in saving the lives of premature infants, you increase our sense of queasiness at terminating a pregnancy when the fetus might have been saved, albeit with heroic and hideously expensive interventions.

      So when does a fetus become a person? In my view, the answer is when it has a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb. That's not the same as saying it should have ALL the rights of a living and breathing human infant, but that it is entitled to some protection.

      Back to the Supreme Court and its trimester distinctions. Trimesters are arbitrary but the underlying logic is sound, in my view. In the earliest stages of pregnancy, when the vast majority of abortions occur, the aborted material is a ball of cells about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. I don't find that abortion morally troubling, though I realize that others do. By the third trimester, we are dealing with a fetus that is potentially viable as a live birth, even though it may require a lot of post-birth medical intervention to keep it alive until it can live on its own. At that point, the state has the right to put pretty significant restrictions on what can be done to that fetus.

      That's the way it looks to me. Hope this was a useful comment.


    • Poor John. He's now Kerrys choice for VP so now you can start the attack wagon on him :)

    • Yup yup yup -- just like Dr. Strangeglove said:

      "That's the whole point" when queried about the public knowledge of the doomsday weapon.

    • Pirate,

      I would never question your right to an opinion on a matter of taste or judgement. But in the realm of facts and logic, opinion must give way to evidence and reason. The existence of WMD in Iraq is not a matter of "opinion." A huge amount of money and expertise was devoted to an exhaustive search. No reasonable person can conclude, at this late date, that there were significant quantities of field-deployed WMD in Iraq. End of discussion.

      Now on a topic like abortion, with infinite shades of gray, there is plenty of room for opinion. I cannot use facts and evidence to challenge right to life people. My opinion is different from theirs because this is a matter of moral judgement, not factual determination.

      The fallacy that conservatives circulate here is that EVERY ISSUE is a matter of opinion, and that facts are irrelevant. In their strange mental universe, every fact and argument liberals use has a natural countervailing fact and argument that nullifies it. Surely you can grasp how absurd this position is.

      Take missile defense. It is a stone cold fact that the system being deployed has never been tested against a realistic threat scenario. Yet defenders of this system say that "something is better than nothing." When the "something" costs $10 billion, it had better be a LOT BETTER than nothing, especially if millions of lives depend upon it. "Ooops" doesn't cut it for missile defense. Our current missile defense capabilities are thus not a matter of opinion. Bush is deploying, at enormous expense, a system with no proven intercept capabiilty of realistic threats. That is NOT an opinion. That is a fact.

      If you truly cannot grasp the distinction I am making here, then any further dialog between us is pointless.

    • Re" Isn't it odd that the Patriot, a system that did go through rigorous testing, wasn't able to effectively destroy most of the SCUD warheads it was aimed at in Desert Storm? Isn't it stranger still that the public didn't learn about this failure until months after the end of the war? ------------

      That last statement is exactly what I have been telling you. You will not find out until they want you to know. I knew while it was happening, but you don't understand the nature of national security, which is why you are a liberal extremist. And your full statement is only partially true. Most scuds were intercepted. Only a few got through. They fired 2 to 3 patriots at each scud to achieve a higher success rate. Before the war was over new development had already begun on an improved patriot. But you couldn't know that, could you. You're really not very bright.

    • I think the misconception about global warming is that everything just get warmer.

      We all know th weather moves in cyclical patterns, but as some experts have noticed, they are increasingly viceous and the cycles are getting shorter.

      So out of the norm weather is generally a sign of abnormal weather patters. Global warming 'messes' with the normal cycle of weather. Which means more rain more often, spreading desert in zones where that kind of weather is normal. Colder then normal weather and hotter then normal.

      It's the out of the norm stuff that scares me.

      I could be wrong, but global warming as a word is pretty bad - it should be 'global weather chaos' or GWC, but that doesn't sound as good.

    • Thanks, Hippo, but I went back and read the thread that led up to your post and I THINK that Hippo was referring to Stillcenter. We have all been surprised to find that he is a she. It explains alot. Have you ever seen the Seinfeld episode where all of the guys get totally turned on at the word, "Catfight"? I think that pretty well sums up Still's total dislike of me personally.

    • There is a God, even in Okhlahoma.

    • Well, it's your pool, put whatever you want on there. Looking Glass and Kneecap flights will probably delay dumping their waste holding tanks until final, once they see it. Wouldn't that be a hoot! ;-)


    • View More Messages
33.97+0.12(+0.35%)Jul 11 4:01 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.