now in south dakota...










rusty hangers, 3 for $1!

3/7/2006 10:56:03 PM

Quote :

"So I assume you're opposed to hormonal birth control as well?"

This was a few pages ago, but since it has come up and I answered the spookster in person, here's the answer for the benefit of everyone else: yes, yes I am. If research unequivocally finds that these types of drugs don't ever prevent implantation, I'll change this stance. But, that so far hasn't been found.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 11:13 PM. Reason : =spöokyjon]

3/7/2006 11:13:03 PM

you are one dumb bitch

3/7/2006 11:23:24 PM

where the fuck is implantation mentioned in the bible? its just your personal misguided unedecated presumption that there is something supernatural about the union of tiny sperm and egg.

living, breathing, thinking people should get rights. bunches of cells shouldnt.



^^why implanation, why not once the sperm gets depositted, its almost a sure thing from then on out given the right timming?


if i am certain my sperm will create life tomorrow night, then dont my sperm require constitutional rights?

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 11:40 PM. Reason : -]

3/7/2006 11:27:51 PM

I dealt with her much more succinctly.

3/7/2006 11:30:05 PM

how bout people just quit fuckin'

3/7/2006 11:48:06 PM

you go too far sir

3/7/2006 11:48:46 PM

Quote :

"where the fuck is implantation mentioned in the bible? its just your personal misguided unedecated presumption that there is something supernatural about the union of tiny sperm and egg. "

I am not a Christian. I am an agnostic. Thanks for the stereotype, though, I enjoyed that blatant display of ignorance.

Quote :

" ^^why implanation, why not once the sperm gets depositted, its almost a sure thing from then on out given the right timming? if i am certain my sperm will create life tomorrow night, then dont my sperm require constitutional rights?"

For your benefit, here is my definition of when life starts and why this isn't prior to the sperm meeting the egg:
As far as I am concerned, the event horizon, if you will, has been crossed when the sperm and egg successfully meet and form a cell with all 46 chromosomes. This is now a fully human cell and a human cell separate from the mother's own cells (i.e. DNA is different) (hence why the argument from many pro-choicers that "it's just like cutting off a finger" or “removing a tumor” is inaccurate) AND a living human cell which will, if it manages to make it, implant in the uterus and split until it becomes the whole living human body. It seems wrong to me to actively prevent the formation of that human at any point in its development, whether you are actively preventing implantation, or actively removing the cells from the uterus. It is interference with a human life (for me, defined by the presence of living human cells, which are different from the mother’s body in DNA and will split until the entire living body is formed).

The sperm and egg are discreet objects that do not have the capability to form a living human body on their own. There is no ethical issue for me regarding preventing them from meeting; but once they DO meet, it is unethical, to me, to actively prevent them from reaching their natural conclusion.

3/8/2006 12:15:00 AM

^ blah blah fucking blah

you feel pretty smart using "event horizon" in a sentence?

Event Horizon: The boundary of the region of a black hole from which no electromagnetic radiation may reach a given observer.




[Edited on March 8, 2006 at 12:50 AM. Reason : applied anthropology meets astrophysics ]

3/8/2006 12:30:44 AM

DNA does not a human make.

Brain function makes a living human being. DNA makes a living human cell, or perhaps some dead cellular matter.

3/8/2006 2:13:40 AM

Quote :

"i think tooley's defense of abortion and infanticide is the clearest. 1) In order to have a right to life, one must desire to live 2) The desire to live requires that one have the concept of a continuing entity 3) Therefore, in order to have a right to life, one must have the concept of a continuing entity. babies/fetuses dont have "the concept of a continuing entity" "

wow, what a fucking idiot.

you missed a couple ideas before the final conclusion. namely, proving that a baby/fetus does not have such a concept. as well, if we take WP2K's line of argument, I can kill an infant, because it doesn't have this "concept," right?

Quote :

"Women should have the right to choose whether or not they want to have the child."

what about men? oh, and the woman has the choice: before she lets that cock between her legs

Quote :

"So because there's the potential for women to be forced to do A, we should instead have the government force women to do Not A."

I know a similar example that "pro-choice"-ers love to give that is of the same vein: WHAT ABOUT RAPE!!! so, because there is the potential for a woman to be raped, no matter how remote, the "solution" to rape must be available for all women, regardless of rapage.

Quote :

"Isn't it better to decide that before the child is born rather than after? "

isn't it better to decide if you want a child before you fuck, rather than after?

Quote :

"So what about people who are anti-choice but anti-birth control as well? Also, are you opposed to hormonal birth control, ncsutiger?"

soo,k what about a completely irrelevant topic? WHATTAYATHINK OF THAT, HUUUUUH?

Quote :

"For starters, roughly half the country doesn't think it's a right to life issue. "

for starters, more than half the country used to think that segregation was A-OK. Guess that means the civil rights people were wrong, right?

Quote :

"Abortion being legal doesn't encourage it to happen."

it sure as fuck doesn't discourage it...

Quote :

"Car companies (and even tire manufactures) know that people will drive over the speed limit - so they adjust their product accordingly. People still drove too fast before all the safety features, they just didn't survive the wrecks. I guess car companies should remove any safety feature that might save someone's life if they decide to break the law? And tires should explode if the car reaches 71 mph. That would keep everyone from breaking the law. "

seriously, shut the fuck up. you know those babies you say would have been "better off aborted?" you are one of them. you are polluting our gene pool with your stupidity.
1) The car company is NOT the gov't.
2) Why shouldn't a car company make its PRODUCTS safer. the things you mention make the car safer in circumstances beyond speeding. thus, your "analogy" is bogus. shut the fuck up.

Quote :

"Wolfpack2k, if you think that unborn children are deserving of the rights any other human being is at the federal level, then try to organize a bunch of your extremist buddies and draft a constitutional amendment."

i think they did. what was that ammendment about again... due process... something like that???

Quote :

"blah blah fucking blah"

translation: ouch, you owned my ass

Quote :

"Brain function makes a living human being. DNA makes a living human cell, or perhaps some dead cellular matter."

and how did you deduce this? oh, thats right, its arbitrary

[Edited on March 8, 2006 at 3:00 AM. Reason : ]

3/8/2006 2:59:57 AM

You sure quoted alot for someone who managed to say absolutely nothing with so many words.

3/8/2006 8:26:59 AM

^ Hence his name, PostPadder.

3/8/2006 10:18:16 AM

Quote :

"living, breathing, thinking people should get rights. bunches of cells shouldnt."

What's the distinction? A living, breathing, thinking person, is just a bunch of cells also. Even though I'm not sure you fit the qualification of "thinking person", still I would imagine even you are a bunch of cells. I am correct in this guess, am I not?

Quote :

"DNA does not a human make."

And your scientific support for this statement is...?

Quote :

"if i am certain my sperm will create life tomorrow night, then dont my sperm require constitutional rights?"

What is the scientific difference between your spermatozoan and the unborn child? Specifically, it might help to refer to your scientific support in response to my previous question.

[Edited on March 8, 2006 at 3:37 PM. Reason : add]

3/8/2006 3:36:41 PM

So, when you type this stuff,

are you able to keep a straight face?

3/8/2006 3:42:08 PM

Quote :

"And your scientific support for this statement is...?"

Certainly not Catholicism.

A mass of cells that has never experienced any thoughts has not yet begun a human life. Wouldn't you consider the capacity for thought a pre-requisite to being considered human?

3/8/2006 6:09:45 PM

(just a hint, he's gonna use your statement to make it look like you support killing people with developmental differences)

3/8/2006 6:16:01 PM

I can't wait for the Chinese to reveal to the world the chimp-human hybrids they've been breeding. Holy shit will that throw a wrench in the system.

3/8/2006 6:18:18 PM

Quote :

"I can't wait for the Chinese to reveal to the world the chimp-human hybrids they've been breeding. Holy shit will that throw a wrench in the system."

Sorry to steal your thunder, but they released Lucy Liu YEARS ago.

3/8/2006 6:23:28 PM

Okay, so what if we just agree that abortion is a type of murder that the majority is willing to tolerate?

3/8/2006 7:03:36 PM

like the death penalty?

3/8/2006 7:10:13 PM

Okay, so what if we just agree that abortion is a type of murder resulting from sloppy sex?

3/8/2006 10:04:33 PM

Abortion is just like a variety of other issues to the religious right.

They just LOVE to get into peoples' sex lives. Probably something to do with religion cock blocking them out of a fulfilling one.

3/8/2006 10:31:13 PM

i know. its not possible at all that they think its an actual human life in there that they want to protect. thats not possible at all is it? nope, they just want to tell you where you can put your dick somehow by telling a woman she can't murder an unborn child...

3/8/2006 11:31:08 PM

Quote :

"its not possible at all that they think its an actual human life in there that they want to protect."

Most of the time you hear something along the lines of: "WHAT, YOU DONT THINK SEX HAS CONSEQUENCES!?"

Sounds like holy judgement to me. Too bad more of it isn't self-directed.

If pro-lifers think that it's an actual human life, they need to try to push a Constitutional Amendment through, and stop dicking around.

What happened when there was controversy over black people being human beings worthy of rights? We got an amendment to clear it up. This is a similar case. Go fight the good fight if you want, but do it in a way that makes sense and that respects the processes of this country. Too many people try to dance around proper procedure just because they feel like they're SO right and their opinion is SO important.

[Edited on March 9, 2006 at 12:49 AM. Reason : .]

3/9/2006 12:48:00 AM

Quote :

"If pro-lifers think that it's an actual human life, they need to try to push a Constitutional Amendment through, and stop dicking around. "

ironic, I thought that the "due process" clause might have already covered that crazy notion of protecting life... There's no need to add more shit to the Constitution if you don't need to.

Quote :

"Most of the time you hear something along the lines of: "WHAT, YOU DONT THINK SEX HAS CONSEQUENCES!?""

yes, clearly thats what ALL pro-lifers think, and there is no other possible way to think of that statement than "holy indignation."

3/9/2006 12:50:48 AM

Quote :

"^ blah blah fucking blah you feel pretty smart using "event horizon" in a sentence? Event Horizon: The boundary of the region of a black hole from which no electromagnetic radiation may reach a given observer. "

Dear person who can't seem to read words following other words,

I said, "the event horizon, if you will." I'm sorry that you can't seem to understand analogy.

I know what an event horizon is. I have studied astrophysics. I have, in fact, a published astrophysics paper. Just because I chose to major in a social science does not mean that I am unfamiliar with "hard" sciences.

Thanks for being a dick, though.

Best regards,
Jessica

P.S., Here is a link to the info for that paper if you don't believe me: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2002ASPC..262..163C&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=

3/9/2006 12:55:34 AM

Quote :

"ironic, I thought that the "due process" clause might have already covered that crazy notion of protecting life... There's no need to add more shit to the Constitution if you don't need to."

Obviously not everybody agrees, and a definition needs to be drawn up if there is to be abortion prohibition at the federal level.

3/9/2006 12:59:14 AM

Quote :

"Most of the time you hear... ... Too bad more of it isn't self-directed."

too much of this shit if you ask me.

3/9/2006 1:31:04 AM

well, maybe them people don't agree can giiiiiiiiiiiiit out!

btw, I love the pic in yer gallery, phipps!

3/9/2006 1:31:48 AM

Quote :

"Abortion is just like a variety of other issues to the religious right. They just LOVE to get into peoples' sex lives. Probably something to do with religion cock blocking them out of a fulfilling one."

First of all, not all of us pro-lifers are religious.

Second, the issue is about preventing what we see as homicide; not about getting into people's sex lives. People can fuck all they want for all I care. I just don't want them killing anyone.

People say things like "Against abortion? Don't have one!" They are saying to follow our own morals and let them live by their own. But, to us, this is like saying that one shouldn't prevent another person from shooting someone in the face. It's the shooter's morals, so let them do it. If you're against it, then don't go around shooting people, but certainly don't prevent those who feel it's morally ok to shoot people from doing that.

For us pro-lifers there is no moral difference between these situations; they are both homicide. The only difference is that one is legal and one is not in the USA.

It isn't about sex. It's about human rights and the unborn are human.

So, yeah.

3/10/2006 6:21:12 PM

haha, I had someone yesterday keep saying that to me: "Well, I don't like abortion, but I'm not going to tell someone else not to have one." She seriously said it like 9 times, and each time I responded "well, maybe you don't agree w/ people stealing your stuff, but I think its a great idea, so I'll go ahead and do just that!" hehe, that pissed her off so much!

3/10/2006 7:41:02 PM

Not an argument to support abortion but should be said again and again:

The Republican party is obviously a big tent that holds a bunch of single issue voters. So you got this party saying "BAN ABORTION" and "CUT SOCIAL SERVICES" in the same breath. It's like they care right up until you're born, and then they don't give a fuck what happens to you.

3/10/2006 8:48:03 PM

wow. its like fallacy city! Democrats are similar in that respect, Bridget... They cry "RACISM!!!", "SOCIAL SECURITY!!!", and all kinds of shit. then do nothing about it. Of course, its easy to assume that "cutting social services" means that repubs "don't care." Instead, it probably means they don't want people who actually earn their money to have to give it away to those who won't work for it. but hey, as long as we are making stupid generalizations, I figured i'd throw that one in there for good measure

3/10/2006 10:33:50 PM

Quote :

"haha, I had someone yesterday keep saying that to me: "Well, I don't like abortion, but I'm not going to tell someone else not to have one." She seriously said it like 9 times, and each time I responded "well, maybe you don't agree w/ people stealing your stuff, but I think its a great idea, so I'll go ahead and do just that!" hehe, that pissed her off so much!"

Ha, and I bet she STILL didn't understand the significance of what you were saying... People just don't get analogy sometimes.

Quote :

" The Republican party is obviously a big tent that holds a bunch of single issue voters. So you got this party saying "BAN ABORTION" and "CUT SOCIAL SERVICES" in the same breath. It's like they care right up until you're born, and then they don't give a fuck what happens to you."

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TEAM GENERALIZATION!

And I think that they are saying "reform social services," not "cut" them entirely, unless we're talking about people who abuse the system. I don't know for sure though... that's not my party affiliation anymore.

3/11/2006 1:32:03 AM

Quote :

"Certainly not Catholicism."

I didn't think it was possible to misunderstand such a simple question, but, remarkably, you have. I don't want to know what your scientific support is NOT, I want to know what your scientific support IS. We could go on forever about what your scientific support is NOT - it's not a can of Dr. Pepper, it's not a television set, it's not the Leaning Tower of Pisa, etc etc etc. However, it seems a much more efficient use of time to identify what your scientific support IS.

Quote :

"A mass of cells that has never experienced any thoughts has not yet begun a human life. Wouldn't you consider the capacity for thought a pre-requisite to being considered human?"

So you are saying that the mass of cells that has not experienced any thoughts is not human, whereas you, a mass of cells that HAS experienced thoughts, ARE human. So you are saying that humanness is defined by thoughts or the capacity for thoughts at that particular point. But that can't be - lots of animals are capable of thoughts. And there are quite a few people who it seems are not capable of thinking. So that can't be it.

So what else is there, scientifically, different between the mass of cells known as McDanger and the mass of cells that is known as an unborn child, that warrants saying one is human and one is not? As I see it, there is only one thing that scientifically identifies someone as a human being - it is what makes the human a human instead of a giraffe or a dog or something.

Quote :

"(just a hint, he's gonna use your statement to make it look like you support killing people with developmental differences) "

Sorry, forgot about that. Well if you identify humanness in terms of what people CAN DO instead of some inherent characteristic, then it doesn't seem to be much of a philosophical leap to say that people who can't do certain things are not as human as those who can, is it?

[Edited on March 11, 2006 at 5:13 PM. Reason : add]

3/11/2006 5:12:16 PM

Quote :

" Either abortion is murder, or it isn't. Your position on the fence must be comfortable, but it isn't very consistent."

Nah, I am consistent on the fence. There are exceptions to rules for a reason. If speeding is breaking the law, should the cop have to go the speed limit to catch you? I also support the death penalty and self-defense laws even though I think killing is wrong.

3/11/2006 7:48:43 PM

Quote :

"So what else is there, scientifically, different between the mass of cells known as McDanger and the mass of cells that is known as an unborn child, that warrants saying one is human and one is not?"

A functioning human brain. One that has ever functioned, or is currently functioning.

3/11/2006 9:27:00 PM

so, someone who is dead in the ground after expiring two days ago is still alive by your definition, then

3/11/2006 9:38:23 PM

there were 2 SD threads and I didn't really get into this one, but it seems to be the main one, so I'll ask here (sorry if its already been answered in the last 6 pages somewhere)

how long will it take this to move from SD to the supreme court actually making a ruling on it?

3/12/2006 4:14:00 AM

The answer generally depends on how fast the challengers move, if they move directly to the courts, and how fast the courts move on it. Generally it takes about a year, could be longer. I don't imagine there are a huge number of lawsuits going on in South Dakota, so it would move quicker there than someplace like, say, California.

The process is that it starts in the District Court, there will be cross motions for summary judgment, and the court will grant the challengers' summary judgment. (It must - there's nothing else for the District Court to do) That will usually take a couple of months, depending on how large the briefs are and how crowded the particular docket is. The state can also drag it out by using lots of discovery, which is probably what they would do. Discovery can drag things out for months longer.

Then, the case proceeds to a three judge panel of whatever Circuit Court of Appeals South Dakota is in. They will hear arguments and make a ruling. They will strike down the law. This will take the longest amount of time, becuase the judges must read briefs, schedule arguments, and write an opinion. Then, the state will ask the entire Court of Appeals to hear the case. If it does, then this adds a great deal of time to the process; basically they throw out the three-judge panel's opinion and hear the appeal all over again. This would add months. After that, or if the entire Court decides not to re-hear it, then the state will petition for review at the Supreme Court.

Now, at all stages, if the judges are of the opinion "I really think Roe should be overturned, but it is settled law and I have to apply the law", then there are things they can do to "drag their feet" and drag out the process long enough for another Justice to retire/die. They can take their sweet time writing opinions, making continuances for oral arguments, etc.

Now, the challengers have suggested that they might first take the issue directly to the people of South Dakota by getting it put on the ballot in a referendum. This would be an extremely unwise move; not only would it likely not overturn the ban, but it would also lengthen the time frame because they could not file suit until after the vote. Time is on their side, and not on the pro life side here. The quicker this issue gets to the Supreme Court, the happier the pro-death side is apt to be with the result.

Quote :

"A functioning human brain. One that has ever functioned, or is currently functioning."

You used the word that you want to define in your definition. You said a functioning human brain. What is it that makes the brain human? That's what I want to know.

The very existence of a brain does not make something human or not; many animals have brains. So, as you seem to admit by your inclusion of the word human, there is something else, something deeper than just a brain, that makes someone human or not. That is what I want to get at.

And what about those people who have brain diseases, birth defects, or other such conditions whereby their brains do not completely develop? Are they not human, or less human?

[Edited on March 12, 2006 at 3:12 PM. Reason : ballot initiative]

3/12/2006 3:10:06 PM

does the new england journal of medicine have a definition for the term "soul"

3/12/2006 3:13:02 PM

SEMANTICS.

THEY'RE FUN.

3/12/2006 3:14:13 PM

Quote :

"The very existence of a brain does not make something human or not; many animals have brains. So, as you seem to admit by your inclusion of the word human, there is something else, something deeper than just a brain, that makes someone human or not. That is what I want to get at. "

It's not that hard to see what he was saying... a brain, that is functioning, that is configured and operates as you would expect a brain in a known fully developed person (ie a born human child for example) to operate (handling sensory input, processing data in an intelligent manner, etc.).

If I sucked out a portion of your brain, for example, that's only part of a human brain. If I took a dog brain, and connected it in your skull (i feel there's a joke there somewhere, but I can't see it), that also is not a human brain. If I took a toddlers brain, and put it in your skull, that too is a human brain (it would result in an odd human though). If I took a clump of nerve cells of a fetus half way through the first trimester, that is not a human brain, because at that point in time, it's not performing the functions, and never has, that a typical human brain does (processing sensory inputs, making decisions about them, etc.).

3/12/2006 3:20:59 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11786788/site/newsweek/

Quote :

"The GOP's Abortion Anxiety The pro-life movement is on a roll. So why are the Republican Party's top guns suddenly so shy on the subject? March 20, 2006 issue - When South Dakota approved a law sharply restricting abortion last week, many pro-life Republicans around the country sounded a loud hallelujah. But at least one very senior Republican did not seem at all eager to join in the chorus. As Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, flew to Memphis to attend the first gathering of potential GOP presidential candidates for 2008, a NEWSWEEK reporter asked him if he had anything to say about the South Dakota law. "No," he said. Did he plan to make a statement on that topic at the Republican gathering in Memphis? "No" was the answer. Would he ever be willing to comment on the topic, other than to say that it's up to the states to make their own choices on abortion? Again, the answer was "no." The look on his face was more expressive. It appeared to ask, "Are you kidding?" Why such reticence to embrace glad tidings? After all, the abortion issue has been good to the Republican Party. It has energized Roman Catholic and evangelical grass-roots activists and allowed the GOP to paint pro-choice Democrats as cultural extremists, out of step with Main Street and the heartland. But a recent flurry of activity on abortion is making Republican politicians nervous. With states moving to restrict abortion and the Supreme Court drawing closer to the day when it might actually reverse Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision guaranteeing a woman's right to an abortion, GOP leaders see big political risks. They may be in the awkward position of getting more than they asked for. The South Dakota law, for instance, would allow abortions only to save the life of the mother, not in cases of rape or incest. That is further than most Americans want to go. By a roughly two-to-one margin, polls show, people want to uphold the basic abortion right enshrined in Roe v. Wade, even if they approve of some restrictions, like parental notification. "I'm pro-life, but you can't wear the thing out," says Clarke Reed, the legendary architect of the GOP in Mississippi. "I'm worried about it." With reason: his own state legislature is moving in a direction similar to South Dakota's. "Republicans are going to be the ones who look like extremists," says former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who lost his seat in 2004 after being beaten up on the abortion issue for years. That does not mean, however, that Democrats are rushing to call attention to the Republicans' dilemma. In the upcoming midterm elections, the Democrats don't plan to spend a dime on ads highlighting the abortion issue, according to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the savvy Chicago pol who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He wouldn't spell out the reasons, but a top party staffer (who declined to be quoted out of deference to his bosses) told NEWSWEEK: "These guys are gun-shy because they're used to getting clobbered on the issue." Indeed, the Democrats are going through some soul-searching of their own over abortion. Four years ago, says Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life, she couldn't get other Democrats to return her phone calls. But today, a prominent pro-lifer, Bob Casey, is running for the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania. The Democrats' rising star, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, prefers to cast abortion in terms of parental responsibility. "Even as we defend this right," he says, "it's important for us to acknowledge the moral dimension to the choice that's made." Some of the Republicans' most ardent right-to-lifers are not embracing the South Dakota law. "It could backfire," says Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, if the courts strike it down—a near certainty, since the Supreme Court still lacks the votes to reverse Roe (and Justice John Paul Stevens, widely viewed as the vote that would maintain a 5-4 majority in Roe's favor, does not show signs of slowing down, despite being 85 years old). Virginia Sen. George Allen, a former governor, is firmly anti-abortion. But he told NEWSWEEK that if a similar bill had come through his own state's legislature, he would have vetoed it. Other presidential hopefuls are squirming a bit. Asked whether he supported the South Dakota law, Sen. John McCain riffled through his mental notecards and said he didn't know the "technical" details of the law. But he said he would support the measure if it were consistent with his long-held view that abortion should be banned except in cases of rape or incest—or to protect, as he put it, the "health" of the mother. His aides had to scramble to correct the record: he meant, they said, the life of the mother. McCain was uncharacteristically muted when he was asked at the Memphis gathering whether the South Dakota abortion law could cause problems for the party. "I just don't know," he said. McCain is not going to be able to duck the issue. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, who is vying for the evangelical vote, strongly backed the South Dakota law. "I'd have signed it," he told NEWSWEEK. "Rape and incest are horrible crimes, but why punish the innocent child?" Getting specific about restricting abortion can be a slippery slope. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has always carefully straddled the issue, saying that he was pro-life but would not overturn his own state's laws, which protect abortion. When aides let it be known that he would have signed the South Dakota law, the Boston press jumped all over him for lurching to the right on abortion. Romney has always tried to avoid easy labels, but sometimes labels stick. After the Democrats enforced pro-choice orthodoxy at their 1984 convention in San Francisco, they were branded as "San Francisco Democrats," code for culturally out of step with the mainstream. Republicans may not want to be called "South Dakota Republicans.""

Apparently I'm not the only one confused by the "health exception" not applying, but the "life exception" applying. Wouldn't an exception to preserve the life of the mother count as a health exception?

3/12/2006 5:59:12 PM

Quote :

"so, someone who is dead in the ground after expiring two days ago is still alive by your definition, then"

Sigh...

I think it was pretty obvious I was speaking about people who are in a state where their brain is inactive, but it could become active again -- ie a coma.

3/12/2006 6:11:53 PM

Quote :

"What is it that makes the brain human? That's what I want to know. "

Why do I waste my fucking time.

If the brain is the result of being developed from a human parent (ie has human DNA) and is functioning (neurons are firing).

How is it this hard to understand? Somebody as stupid as you is cut out for Christianity.

3/12/2006 6:14:11 PM

Quote :

" Wouldn't an exception to preserve the life of the mother count as a health exception?"

Yes, but not the converse. If the health of the mom is compromised that does not necessarily mean that she will loose her life. I'd guess the majority of pregnant women have their health compromised at some point during pregnancy (morning sickness, swelling, high-blood pressure, back aches,... ), but clearly the majority of mother's do not have their life endangered.

In short, "Life" is a much stronger restriction than "Health".

3/12/2006 6:18:42 PM

Your point about the converse is irrelevant. South Dakota has banned abortions in cases where the "health of the mother" is threatened; but not in cases where her life is threatened. If her life is threatened, how is her health not threatened?

3/12/2006 6:55:24 PM

Did they specifically say they were banning abortions with no exception for the health of the mother? I haven't read the text of the law, but I'm guessing it says something like "Abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother." Except more legaller.

3/12/2006 7:29:58 PM