zach61

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2006 -> 12:16 PM) And instead of taking him to the billion dollar hospital that he had built and named after himself, they took him to Rush. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...nationworld-hed Thanks. That was my first question this morning. He doesn't trust the place he put his name on?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 03:55 PM) No, its going to be a felony for a doctor to treat the patient. Which is a violation of the oath they take. The law is pretty extreme IMO. Most of these people make your daily life the way it is. The place you eat for lunch, the bathroom you use during the day, even the sidewalks you walk on. Everyone here should go and watch "A Day Without a Mexican" Its a great movie to watch the real impact of immigrants on our society. This has nothing to do with mexicans. I have a problem with anybody being here illegally. As for what they do for me, it isn't much. I bring my own lunch, and the bathrooms aren't very clean. We used to clean the bathrooms ourselves at the other places I worked and we kept them cleaner. I don't get the sidewalk one, but I'm assuming you're claiming that they are kept clean? You should check out what they do in the park by my house. One lady had her kid take a dump in a bucket and then emptied it in the river. There were bathrooms about 100 ft away. They throw garbage in the river and on the ground all day and when you say something to them, the answer is "I don't care. I don't live here." So as far as I can see, not much benefit. They can follow the process and come here legally.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 03:39 PM) But see...then you're guaranteeing that no one here illegally will ever visit a doctor, even if they're at risk of dying, because they won't want to be referred to the authorities. And thats the price anybody that does something illegally takes. They could also die in the desert trying to cross the border illegally. Should we send them buses to come here then so they don't get hurt?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 03:33 PM) It shouldnt be illegal for a doctor to treat them if they get injured at that job though. But it should be illegal if he doesn't report them to the authorities. It's not about not treating them, it's about not telling someone they are illegally here.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 03:17 PM) Sure would. The doctor is just doing his job, and a very noble one in helping people at that. Even jailed criminals get medical assistance when necessary. It's silly to blame a doctor for that example. How about we use a bank robber then? If the doctor knew that the person robbed a bank and didn't turn him in, would that be ok? How many people here go to a doctor and don't give any information or insurance card? My guess is that if a person is paying cash and doesn't have insurance or identification, they are probably here illegaly and the doctor should report that. Edit the post to say that the bank robber was shot while getting away and then went to a doctor for treatment.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 03:19 PM) Not sure where you're going with that one... Using steroids is harmful. Working to provide for your life is not. He's trying to point out that steroids were illegal even though baseball didn't test or punish for them. Just because baseball didn't test doesn't make it legal to use.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 02:26 PM) My bad. I just don't agree that those who are here legally along with citizens should be punished for assisting someone here illegally. The great example being used is that a doctor who assists someone here illegally will be committing a crime. Does that merit jail time? Yes. If that same doctor assisted someone who did nothing wrong at the time, but later flew a plane into a building, would you be ok with that doctor helping that person too?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) I understand...but you can also argue that since a genuine, large caliber, semi-automatic assault rifle may be a different beast from a handgun. A handgun might be useful in your home for example. Or a normal rifle can be used while hunting. An assault rifle though could be a completely different story. Cut access to those, and maybe they become so expensive that the criminals just go ahead and use a less deadly rifle or a handgun, or maybe there are less stray bullets, etc. But then again, who knows, since we've never really tried a real ban. I need to get me one of these to keep the coyotes out of my yard. http://www.sendarmoury.com/id101790list269...liber&ovtac=CMP

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) Especially with children on the way. I'm pretty sure those are the 2-year old's blastulas. Will those 2 yr old blastulas remake quantum leap if they survive? That might change your mind about saving them too.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 01:31 PM) But if the blastulas had cub hats on...you'd never know unless you took the time to examine each of them with a microscope...and then you'd really be in trouble! Damn, you're right. Now I need to know if this clinic is on the north or south side too. And what if those blastulas were from gay people?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) Well, how did the fire start? Did I start it? Did the blastulas start it? Is the baby cute? How about the blastulas? For purposes of the thought experiment, would I get arrested for being alone in a fertility clinic when I have no medical know-how? Is this baby possessed? (Head spinning around, that sort of thing.) Are the blastulas Sox fans? Is this baby a biter? Am I incredibly weak at the moment from dehydration, and therefore unable to carry a 2 year old? Hold on, I'll think of some more... I mean, if you're gonna leave it THAT wide open... You do have 1 point though. If the baby had a cub hat on, my hesitation would probably cost it its life and I would only have time then to save myself.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) It's incongruous, sure, but it's a hypothetical, so deal with it! I mean, why the hell is there a petri dish of blastulas just sitting around?? And what procedure were you having done at this clinic that specializes in leaving blastulas and unattended toddlers lying around?!? Exactly. So it's ok to leave a child alone in a clinic, but it's wrong to have an abortion? Not trying to avoid the question like stated earlier. Maybe the question should just be asked instead of avoiding it. I would grab the baby before anything else and if the woman happened to be giving birth at the time and moving the woman would mean killing the unborn child, I would move the woman to save her. And then just to spite the pro-life people, I would go back in and try to grab the petri dish.

QUOTE(Balance @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) Zach- The 2-year-old is alive. It doesn't matter why she's there. This is a thought experiment. If you don't want to participate, then don't. I would be able to save both then because I would have already been dealing with the abandoned 2 yr old and it would already be in my arms before the fire started.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:12 PM) You are not allowing for the 'spirit' of the question. We can argue about the various scenarios and sets of circumstances, but when it comes down to it you are in a hall and know there is a 2 year old kid in one room and a petri dish in the other, which would you save? It's not that difficult. There is a problem here above which I would choose to save. If I was in an empty clinic, there would be a specific reason I was there. I don't just wander around empty buildings. I would know why the 2 yr old was in that room and if it was alive or not. If it was alive, I would already have either removed the 2 yr old, or would be calling somebody about an abandoned child. The 2 yr old would already be in my arms before the fire started. I would then only have 1 choice to make and that would be to grab the petri dish. The real problem here is not which I would save, but why the 2 yr old is alone in a room in an empty clinic.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:03 PM) I think it would be safe to say that the intent of the question would be the assumption that the 2 year old would be alive ... and it's mother had to go to the bathroom or something. So then the mother would have saved the 2 yr old. I don't know of any mother that leaves their 2 yr old alone in a room and then runs out of a building, even if it's on fire, and leaves their baby. I really need to know why that 2 yr old was left alone in order to make a decision on which to save? I can only assume the 2 yr old is dead already if it's left alone in an empty clinic.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:55 AM) I believe that question is answered by the premise of the hypothetical. I'll paraphrase, "you have a chance to save the two year old..." But it doesn't say to save the life of the 2 yr old, just the 2 yr old. And again, why is the 2 yr old in there alone? I need more info to answer the question and I need to know whether or not the 2 yr old is alive and I'm actually saving the life or if it's dead and I'm just saving the body. I don't just hang around empty fertility clinics, so there is not enough info about the situation.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 11:31 PM) Details. I'd save the child, no question. An important detail though. What if the 2 yr old is already dead? It doesn't mention that the 2 yr old human is alive, but it does mention that the blastulas are frozen and "would" be able to grow into normal children. If I already know that about the blastulas, that means that someone must have already given me that information or I wouldn't know that. I would also have been told then if that 2 yr old human baby was dead or alive and what it was doing there and why it was left alone in a fertility clinic.

QUOTE(Balance @ Mar 9, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) I recently heard of a conservative radio show host who was presented with the following thought experiment. I'd like to know what all of you would do in this situation: You are in a fertility clinic. In one room of the clinic, there is a two-year-old human child. In another room of the clinic, there is a petri dish containing ten human blastulas. Let's say that the blastulas have been frozen in the petri dish a few seconds after sperm and egg united. All of the blastulas, if implanted into a woman's uterus, would be able to grow into normal, healthy children. The fertility clinic catches fire. You are the only adult in the clinic; no one is there who could help you. You only have time to save the two-year-old child or the petri dish with the ten blastulas, not both, before the fertility clinic is completely engulfed in flames. Which do you save, the two-year-old or the petri dish, and why? EDIT- Let's also assume that the two-year-old is anesthetized. She wouldn't feel any pain or suffering in the fire. Why is the 2 yr old in a room all by itself?

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Mar 8, 2006 -> 03:52 PM) Anyone else notice the lady has 4 kids and she is only 22. Wow.... So she was only 11 when she had her first child?

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 03:16 PM) Yep. Another.. That one doesn't look familiar.

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 03:13 PM) Yes it is. That was probably the most frightening scene in the whole movie just because they go from two innocent little girls standing there to flashing that for a few seconds. redrum... redrum... Now I remember that part. I took a guess because of the hallway and the axe and 2 bodies on the floor.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 03:07 PM) Yes Zach. That was an easy one... Here's another... Kinda hard to see, but is it from the shining?

QUOTE(Brian @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 02:57 PM) You're very warm. Was it the suicide virgins?

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 03:00 PM) Pffttt... I'm gonna go visual. Name this movie. Big

I brought in 4 dozen paczki to pig out on with the people here at work. For lent this yr, I'm going to give up brussel sprouts. I'll suffer through and eat asparagus whenever I want brussel sprouts. Can't wait till Easter dinner for the ham and brussel sprouts.