Re: What Is A Partial Birth Abortion? -- here we go again! Sheesh!
From: Andrew Folley (agfolley@hotmail.com)
Mon Apr 23 17:38:15 2007
Yes I am wrong.............%$#*#
>From: "Gerald P.Rodriguez" <geraldpr@cybermesa.com>
>Reply-To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
>Subject: Re: What Is A Partial Birth Abortion? -- here we go again! Sheesh!
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:04:28 -0500
>
>I hate to correct you, Andrew, while admitting the fact that, in this case,
>El is correct. The separation of church and state is contained within the
>First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
>
>Gerald P. Rodriguez, M.D., FACOG
>Santa Fe
>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Folley" <agfolley@hotmail.com>
>To: "Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L" <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:36 AM
>Subject: Re: What Is A Partial Birth Abortion? -- here we go again! Sheesh!
>
>>We do have separation of church and state but it has nothing to do with
>>the US Constitution.
>>
>>>From: Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA>
>>>Reply-To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
>>>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
>>>Subject: Re: What Is A Partial Birth Abortion? -- here we go again!
>>>Sheesh!
>>>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:16:46 -0500
>>>
>>>As far as I understand the US Constitution there is separation of chruch
>>>and state. But then as Gerry would say, I am often wrong.
>>>
>>>el
>>>
>>>on 4/23/07 3:27 AM DoctorJoe@aol.com said the following:
>>> >
>>> > In a message dated 4/22/07 7:19:59 PM, dpriver@aol.com writes:
>>> >
>>> >> There are a lot of debatable issues here, but one thing cannot be
>>> >> debated. This supreme court ruling could not have occurred without
>>> >> the
>>> >> opinions of new justices nominated by a born-again Christian
>>>president
>>> >> whose Republican party has been hijacked by the religious right. I
>>>hope
>>> >> all of our physician colleagues keep that in mind when it comes to
>>> >> deciding in 2008 which party's presidential candidate to vote for.
>>> >
>>> > Just for the sake of debate ...
>>> >
>>> > If the shoe was on the other foot and someone accused the "new
>>>justices
>>> > nominated by a secular progressive president whose Democrat party has
>>> > been hijacked by athiest and elitist secularist socialists," would
>>>that
>>> > actually address the issues? Or would that be condemned as name >
>>>calling?
>>> >
>>> > The issues are the issues. Whether the president is this or that
>>> > religion, or whether 5 of the justices are Catholic, or whatever, does
>>> > NOT address the argument. It merely sinks to the level of the ad >
>>>hominem
>>> > arguing common to people who don't HAVE an argument.
>>> >
>>> > Joe P.
>>> >
>>>--
>>>Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
>>>el@lisse.NA el108-ARIN / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
>>>PO Box 8421 \ / Please do NOT email to this address
>>>Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ if it is DNS related in ANY way
>>
>
