selkirk

We need more puppy pictures! Politics is keeping me from getting my work done and giving me heartburn!

Agreed, if your going to create a viable third party you'll need to get the elections system modified more along the lines of the parliamentary or otherwise (i.e. If green gets 10% of the popular vote, they get 10% of the congressional seats.) Really not that bad an idea I don't think.

So who's going to admit having participated in the poll?

It's not utterly cut and dry but it's pretty indicative of a trend none the less. Your right, Northern Nevada, Chicago, what looks like Austin Texas, and parts of Alaska all went Bush. But that's compared to Metro California, Portland, Seattle, swaths of the east coast, and other populous points around the country. Though there are outliers the other way too.. like the Mississippi Delta, and that portion of Texas. Just looking at the counties though, and the number of overall votes that carry took, it's pretty clear he held most of the metro areas (which look to correspond with higher median incomes), and lost most of the rural ones (with lower median income).

So again, with the exception of Chicago, and Salt lake city and that portion of northern alaska (WTF?), the areas with the highest median incomes which happen to correspond closely with with metropolitan areas went Kerry. Anyone have an educational breakdown by county?

your right, your position may be more acceptable then some, but it still amounts to YOUR position, which isn't any more or less valid than the catholic one, or more less valid than requiring a heartbeat, or a brainsteam, or the ability to breathe independantly. So i just don't see if yours (or any other position) is no more or less valid, how can you justify enforcing it on others? Just because you think your right? Just because the Pope says so? If theres no clear (i.e. everyone can agree on it, or damn near everyone. Being clear to you or I isn't sufficient)right or wrong, then it's a personal or familial decision, not governmental. well, my 2cents... I think were approaching dead horse country... though it's interesting that it's only the two of us left....

But attachment to the uterus isn't always necessary, there's the whole possibilty of test tube babies as well... You still haven't said why this is morally superior to conception? Why is it necessary for it to start differentiating into organs and body parts before it's human? Why not the moment that it becomes independantly alive, at that point isn't it on the path to becoming human, one step of which is implanting on the uterus? Why shouldn't you submit the moral superiority of the Catholic church which believes that even contraception is immoral? Unless you can give me a compelling moral and ethical reason that your position is the only valid one, and ones that are both more and less restrictive are morally invalid then how do you justify imposing your stance on those whose positions are less restrictive while those who are more restrictive aren't allowed to impose their beliefs on you? Now on something like stealing, or murder, or exploitation of children, there's a societal consesus, it's pretty much cut and dry. Everyone agrees on the same moral and ethical stance. Regardless of their background, religious or otherwise.

You haven't answered the fundamental question though.... why is your definition morally superior to the position that it requires a heartbeat? or that it life begins at conception? Were talking murder here, practicality (such as when an abortion could occur) should have no place in the discussion so. Once weve figured out when life "begins" or when the fetus is "human" that will determine all by itself when it's acceptable to terminate a pregnancy. So, please, what makes your position superior?

Are you saying and implanted embryo has ? Or is it now okay to abort an implanted embryo so along as it doesn't have a "structural resemblance" to an adult? Or what defines "structural resemblance"? Somehow I don't think 5 cells is sufficient. Bone structure, brain stem, beating heart, now were getting somewhere.... But that wouldn't that make abortion up until that point acceptable? So maybe, only the first trimester?

Why not? It could be taken out of the mother and grown in a test tube for crying out loud! Why is your definition of fetus superior to mine? Why is your definition of human superior to mine?

as long as you make statements like this, the right will continue to drift right and any hope of you finding an electable candidate left of Churchill will be hopeless. If the Christian right in places like Oklahoma can tell people on the west coast who they can and can't marry then we can make jokes about feeding them to the lions. You are all juveniles. Maybe you can grow up and act like adults and sort your shit out rather than being a wedge making our country more and more divided. You think you are any better than they are? Give me a break. I am for gay mariages. Yeah go throw me to the lions too though ass hole. SpecialEd is just feeling persecuted after the last election, so he's being defensive and refusing to give up any ground whatsoever

It makes sense to me, but that's not the point. What does the mother have to do with anything? If you want make abortin illegal, then once the baby is concieved she's just a vessel and nothing else in the eyes of the law? The point is why is your definition more valid than say the point of fertilization? At that point a new life has been created, it's chances of survival may be small, but isn't preventing it absolutely from implanting definitely "murder" while letting it try to implant is at least "natural causes". Aren't there actually quite a few fetuses that die shortly after implanting as well? Are you saying statistics are important in determing what "murder" is? If an unknowing mother drinks heavily or abuses drugs and her fetus aborts is that murder? The point is that your definition is no more or less valid than the point of conception, or the point when the fetus has a 50% chance of survival, or a 90% chance of survival. So who are you to enforce your views? Maybe the view that the point of conception should be enforced and there should be no morning after pills, or low hormone birth control pills. Or maybe just contraception in and of itself is wrong as it's preventing life from naturally occuring? Do people who use it hate babies? are they unfit parents?

Would be interesting to go back to the person receiving the most electoral votes becoming president, and the person recieving the second most veep.... Can someone say non-partisan

Do I get an answer? I know the moment of implantation is your definition, but isn't that an arbitrary point that you've chosen to suit your beliefs?

Isn't that an arbitrary definition though? How about the moment of fertilazation? How about the moment sperms enters the uterus and there's the potential?

May have been a prosecutor, but he wasn't someone people could identify with. As a prosecutor he has to convince people of his points, not lead them. Looking at the polls, people thought Kerry would do a better job on a most of the domestic issues and some of the foreign policy ones, and voted for Bush base on morality and because they could identify.

When does it become murder? We need a specific point....

as long as you make statements like this, the right will continue to drift right and any hope of you finding an electable candidate left of Churchill will be hopeless. No shit, bad form. Might as well tie wiccans to the stake while your at it. Not very progressive you Shred....

I agree, it's a much better option. But at the same time I don't think my moral compass is sufficienty superior to Jehovah's Witness to enforce it on them. I think that feeling sufficienty superior and self righteous to enforce your beliefs on someone else is pride, which isn't a very good christian value either

So Kerry carried every major population center with the possible exceptions of Chicago, and Salt Lake City? While Bush carried almost everything rural, what's up with the county in central Idaho? I wonder if anyone will make breakdowns available by income and or level of education?

Is this by county Scott?

you must be joking? A baby that is in danger of dying out of neglect, or malice, should be taken from the parents post haste. However that still doesn't mean that the state gets to make decisions on the life or death of a family member, or child when the parents and family are mentally fit and caring. (i.e. JW, or Christian Scientist).

Granted that's bullshit. Celebrate none or celebrate all, celebrating half is .

If your going to avoid the religous conotations then you had better put them all up, from Hamurabi's code through English common law, then it's history and not religion. But that's not why the people who feel like they need the ten commandments in the courtroom or courthouse want them there and you know. Most could give a shit less about history.....