tvashtarkatena

Actually, that's true. Certain members of the religious right who are pushing to grant full 'personhood' to the unborn would be happy to see women tried and executed for having early term abortions, including taking the morning after pill. Murder laws would have to be enforced across the board in this manner under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Think about it, ladies. Anyone down for that?

I gotta say that this is one of the most circular, inane threads I've seen in a long time. Tolerance is the only way for a civilized society to go, but tolerance doesn't mean tolerating intolerance. That's a non-idea. Europe happens to be doing quite well right now, thank you, particularly compared to the U.S. Check the Euro lately? Europe does have some discord involving segments of their muslim populations, but it's not because they 'tolerate it'. France, for example, has laws (the banning of headscarves, for example) that would never fly in the U.S. It's also ridiculous to compare the U.S. to Europe given our vastly different histories. Just over 50 years ago several European countries were embroiled in civil wars with their muslim colonies. We were not. The fact that some European countries have a different relationship and issues with these muslim populations should come as no surprise to anyone who has a shred of historical background about Europe's colonial past. So cut the histrionics. Yeah, the Sudanese calling for blood are assholes. Stuff like this happens in nations who do not enjoy a separation of church and state. We in the U.S. would be well advised to take note. Burn yourselves a teddy bear and move on.

How long did you search the intertubez to find that little gem? About 1 minute. There's a video for every occasion somewhere out there.

The court did not decide that an unborn child is not alive. It searched the constitution for any principles or language that would grant the unborn full rights of personhood but came up empty handed. Read my original posting. The court's Roe v. Wade decision did grant considerable rights to the unborn. States may restrict abortions in the second trimester and ban them in the third. The court decided on 'viability', or survivability outside the womb, as the criteria for determining when the rights of the unborn outweigh the rights of the mother. Remember the mother? There's a whole extra human being involved here who also has rights of self determination. A being becomes a separate person when it can physically live unattached from another. Seems reasonable to me. I don't know how the court deals with Siamese twins, however. A first trimester fetus is not viable outside the womb. Under the constitution or otherwise, it cannot be considered a separate 'person'. There simply is no physical reality to that concept. Like it or not, it is inextricably tied with a pre-existing 'person' that already enjoys all the rights and protections granted by the constitution and other laws. Adoption is one thing, but it does not lessen the harm that carrying an unwanted child imposes on a woman. Childbirth is extremely dangerous; the risk and mortality rate for women remains substantial. It also constitutes an extreme financial and physical hardship. Opponents of abortion seem willing to let the State impose these harms, under threat of imprisonment, with impunity on women without considering their pre-existing personhood and all the rights of self determination that comes with it. To me, it's a purely religious thing. Certain religions claim that the second a sperm punches through an egg, that's a whole person, not the potential to become a person, whose rights somehow immediately upon conception trump those of the potential mother. The root of this belief, in my opinion, lies in a puritanical belief in the immorality of sex. Forcing women to have unwanted children is a State imposed punishment for getting knocked up accidentally, for 'being irresponsible'; a concept which people with certain religious beliefs seem to revel in. Fortunately, we have a separation of church and state, which prevents those holding these religious beliefs from imposing them, by force, on the rest of us. My view is that, if you don't believe in legalized abortion, by all means, don't have one. Your choice. Allowing the State to force women to have unwanted children and imprisoning them if they don't comply, to me, not only seems draconian and medieval; it also constitutes a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state for which I give thanks every damn day.

The innocents weigh in.... dudAKxUl3VE

... Roe v. Wade ruled that the 14th amendment does not grant personhood to the unborn. The court did recognize, however, that the states do have two legitimate interests: to protect the health and well being of the mother and to protect the unborn. .... How is this NOT a contridition? Our law does not grant personhood to the unborn, but at the same time is called to protect the unborn; the one who does not have personhood. The 14th amendment specifies those born or naturalized; not the unborn. The supreme court weighed this very clear wording, a women's right to privacy as implied by the due process and equal protection clause of that same amendment, and the legitimate interest of States to protect the unborn and came up with what it considered a balanced compromise. In so doing it considered historical precedence, both legal and otherwise. A contradiction is unidimensional. Balancing two or more competing interests, as in this decision, is not. Essentially, the abortion issue is a balancing act between the rights of the mother and the unborn. As long as there are those two competing interests involved, it's never going to be a simple issue. Some things to consider: Make abortions illegal across the board, and the State forces women to bear unwanted children. This constitutes a pretty grave and invasive harm for an unwilling individual to bear for simply engaging in a legal act; sex. Public safety and well being is also at issue. Such a prohibition would also constitute a self defeating direction for an overpopulated and increasingly resource starved society to take.

$6 million worth of firefighting to fight a 315 acre fire? What I asked was: Given the amount of money that is actually budgeted and available, and given the EXISTING system for allocating that money (regardless of how you think the system could be improved, it's not going to change), how would you prioritize/allocate those funds?

Ask me about my emissions.

It's striking how much JayB argues about the application of the law and how little he actually knows about it. JayB, pick ANY supreme court ruling and read it. It's all about history, context, morality, and balancing interests.

Damn. I must really be a fucking nerd.

Sorry, honey. Subscription only. Plus you have to verify that you're over 55. Hey, I'm going out to try my new Microspikes now.

Fair enough on the fire fighting savings, but who knows where the next fire might strike and what roads will be most critical at that future time? One might argue that, since the area has already burned, the firefighting priority for repairing the Stehekin road is lowered. Blake, how would you divvy up the budget, as it exists, road for road, and what criteria would you use for establishing those priorities?

I don't have a nice enough ass to pull that off.

Does anyone else see the irony of these two juxtaposed statements? Blake, you know as well as anyone else here that the road repair budget is separate and very limited from those expensive federal 'boondoggles'. Yours is a non-argument. Wishing to live in a magical fairy kingdom doesn't make it so. It also seemed that you were nitpicking the NCCC's statement for petty innaccuracies that didn't really have much to do with the issue at hand. A 50 mile versus 30 mile boat ride? Who cares? (most passengers opt for the 50 mile trip, BTW) Only disagreements with their last statement seemed substantive. You could have simply left it at that and made a stronger point. Pretending that 'money has nothing to do with this' will get you nowhere on this issue. This issue is all about projects competing for limited funds. Personally, it seems like, while repairing the Stehekin road might be nice, it's too much buck for the bang as compared to other worthy road repair projects. As you mentioned, you can walk 12 flat miles into the area. That alone seems to reduce the importance of repairing this particularly expensive road to just about zero.

Civil disobedience, which is by nature completely passive, hardly constitutes 'force'. Come fucking on. We're talking about misdemeanors here. And history has proven over and over again that minorities who engage in protest involving civil disobedience DO win the day in the end if the public sentiment is with them. I would say at this point that the public sentiment is overwhelmingly against this war by any measure. Rest assured that even citizen's who may disagree with the effectiveness of specific tactics employed in Olympia are glad that someone is getting off their ass and trying to do SOMETHING substantive to stop this war. You, of course, support the war and therefore are not in that category. There is a part of the many of the rest of us who do not that do applaud the personal sacrifice and risk taken by these protesters to stand up for what they think is right. You are also conveniently skipping over the fact that the rule of law was shat upon to get this war started, unless of course you condone a President lying to the American people about a threat to national security. Two wrongs may not make a right, but the first wrong far outshines the most recent minor infractions committed in Olympia in terms of the damage done to this country. As usual, your Weathermen example is well off the mark. While their members got started in the Civil Rights movement (disagree with that one, do we?) and the Anti War Movement, they were not an anti war group; they advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. That, in itself, is a crime, so no support there from these quarters. Do your homework, grasshopper: Weathermen

To be a hard man alpinist or fun-in-the-sun sporto? That is the question. During one of his rare silences, Ivan quietly promised me that one day we'd all drink whiskey and smoke your cigarettes together. Now you're both lying assed bitches.

Yeah, some reviews of the Yaktraks indicated they break pretty easily. The Yaktaks are lighter and cheaper, though. We'll see about these. Unlike the Yaktraks, the bottom is all metal, so it seems like they should last a bit longer. I saw a guy running down a really ice trail on Si with them, so I decided to pick up a pair. I've got a pair of Tubbs 10K racing snowshoes. Nice and light, but I used them for everything and now they're blowing out pretty badly. I just ordered a pair of MSR Lightnings for backcountry stuff. I might try repairing the 10Ks and keep them for trail use.

Aggressive. Aroused. Airborne.

I think he means the mathematical definition.

Shoot. Won't be able to catch the Grinch. Gotta go to a funeral.

Now THAT was funny.

Decent prices. Just picked up snowshoes and a Montbell down sweater. Free shipping.

maps

Does the state have a compelling interest in restricting a man's right to give birth to an ass baby?

Very true. Big red state.