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

HP Inc. 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
    • Oh yes, I realize this. I don't think China will tolerate N. Korea rattling a nuclear sabre at a superpower for long, basically N. Korea is using their puny nuclear program to blackmail the rest of the world for free help. Something bad will come of it, in my opinion.
      The rest of your points are well taken, we haven't seen the impact of the misery that's about to become apparent. Interesting times are ahead.


    • IJB

      Japan didn't either, for over a thousand years, until 1937 or so when they invaded Manchuria (Korea) and then proceeded down the east coast of China.

      England, OTOH, has invaded countries on/near every continent in the world over the last few hundred years.... but, of course, their time is long past & now they're really just a minor player on the world stage.

      India, China, Pakistan, Iran, and the US are the long-term big players - Russia will eventually re-emerge when it gets through the mess left by the Bolsheviks devastating misrule for their 70-year hegemony.

      North Korea can only be a small wild-card, but any real nukular (bush's word) progress can threaten the entire Far East. (BTW, I'm not sure the Chinese will tolerate nukes on their border, especially controlled by a crackpot like Kim jong Il. We probably shouldn't worry too much; China should be far more concerned than us, although the Japanese are extremely concerned, too.)

      India has terrible problems with AIDS, and the Indo-Asian peninsula is being devasted. Cambodia & Thailand are facing possible policital collapse from the pandemic.

      The African population is dieing as we speak. Perhaps 30%+ will die in the next few years. The Sudanese genocide murderers have to work fast to accomplish its killings before AIDS does it.

    • China doesn't really have a history of launching attacks against other countries, too risky. If the U.S. weakened its military to the point they considered it, somebody else would probably have acted first. Times change, of course, so it's worth taking into consideration. China is headed for some bad times, however, as they have an AIDs epidemic that's spreading fast. It will cost them plenty to try and deal with that soon.


    • I would be more worried about them having such a large of our industry in their country if I were you then if they decide to go postal.

    • Re"The thing about a missile defense system is that by the time you NEED it, it's too late. Then who gets the blame? From what N. Korea and Iran are spouting, there may be a need for one soon."---------

      I'm more concerned about China, 10 to 20 years down the road. Especially since clinton gave them the missing technology. As they become a great economic power, they now have the capability to become a formidable offensive military & nuclear power.

    • "Is Japan building an ABM system, because they will likely need one, in my opinion. Maybe we could let them design it and then buy ourselves some. They have the capability, maybe they could pay for some of this crap for a change."

      As long it can play the latest DVD standard, show 24/7 Manga and have a built in robot that can conduct an orchestra, I'm all for it.

    • Yeah, I just hope Kerry wasn't too stupid to inhale. That was about the stupidist comment I ever heard, other than a BJ wasn't sex. That was quite a stretch, too.


    • We believe you, because you wouldn't have money in HPQ if you could get a better return farming. Right? ;-)


    • "some serious weeeeeeed there too"

      I didnt inhale!!! (much)

    • "North Korea and let alone Iran do not have the capacity to launch anything against us..."
      Yet. N. Korea has tested a tactical missile that can reach all of S. Korea and most (if not all) of Japan, however. They possibly could do it now.

      "and they don't have more then a few warheads among them..."
      No, but we don't know how many, either. Once a major metropolitan area of Japan was hit by 1, would we wait to see haw many more they had? Possibly, if the first one was intercepted.

      "What worries me is not their capability to launch anything, it's the fact that they can give those weapons to someone..."

      Yes, but that's a whole different story. ABM defense won't stop that kind of plot.

      "modern ground soldiers with superb communication is more needed then 300 tanks painting the landscapes with craters and muddy tracks."

      Well, heavy armor saves a lot of lives. I'm pretty sure an infantry guy would say he likes them. Tanks are actually pretty cheap for the advantage they give you. Is Japan building an ABM system, because they will likely need one, in my opinion. Maybe we could let them design it and then buy ourselves some. They have the capability, maybe they could pay for some of this crap for a change.


    • View More Messages
13.90-0.07(-0.50%)Oct 25 4:01 PMEDT