Jenksismyhero

Well, this was a game they should have won

Ugh, missed opportunity there

Ugh, Boozer sucks so much

No one watching the game? Bulls are playing well.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 03:41 PM) No it cant, read what laws it applies to. Its for the prosecutor to be able to double up crimes. It explicitly doesnt apply to women who are pregnant. So no it doesnt work that way. That's what I get for reading the first paragraph of the wikipedia article. So... the jokes on you.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 03:23 PM) Of course. The hypothetical was PRIOR TO BIRTH, can the govt stop the mother whose child isnt born. And he said there were already laws, and I wanted to see them because Id never heard of them. Everyone knows that after birth the child has independent rights and therefore the state can take the child from the mother if its in the childs best interest. I'm still not sure why this point of yours is relevant. But yes, if the action results in the death of the unborn child, potentially the mother can get arrested and charged for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) I'm not flipping anything, you're not reading all of what I'm saying, and I've said it several times. At conception, the zygote has a full set of chromosomes and is therefore a life form as opposed to sperm and eggs which are not life forms. In the 8-10 week range, the zygote has become a fetus with a full set of human characteristics and is therefore a human life form. If this is what you are saying, then yes I agree with you. He's not. He's saying it's not "alive" or "human" until at least 21-24 weeks, the point at which the "thing" can be born, separated from its mother and kept alive.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:32 PM) Being alive. A dead body has all the physical characteristics of a human, but we dont give dead bodies the same rights as humans. Why? Being alive means something. Not the same rights, but we give them SOME rights. They have rights to various things well after death. As an attorney you know that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:20 PM) Part 1, not sure how that is your conclusion from my posts. The entire question is "when is it alive" because once you determine its "alive" then its absolutely deserving of protection. Right now my best argument for alive is "can it survive without the mother." I dont know when that time is, Id ask scientists to give me data. Part 2, so im completely inhumane because I am not sure when life begins, but youre absolutely humane because youve set a 6 week deadline? How does that even make sense? And we've discussed how this is an awful standard. I kid would die without its mother even after being born.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:21 PM) I'm gonna guess that women are smart enough to make this decision regarding their body and their reproductive organs without a bunch of guys telling them what they can or can't do. Men and women have roughly the same opinions on abortion and when or if it should be illegal. So it's not like all women are pro-choice with no questions asked.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 12:54 PM) Abortion is such a touchy subject. I personally think the government needs to keep their nose out of it, but that doesn't mean I think it's right. There are situations where it could be the right choice (rape, clear indication of something wrong). I don't know how some people can make that decision so easily. My wife had a molar pregnancy (similar to a miscarriage), and we were both beyond upset about it, mainly because up until the time when the doctor found it to be molar we thought of it as our baby. So, I guess you could say that there in always the assumption of life beyond the fact that you can hear a heartbeat as early as 6-8 weeks. We can all agree it's a touchy subject. My issue is SB's ironically inhuman view of something he admits is alive, but nevertheless should not be considered a thing which is in need of keeping alive. I'm "fine" with it up until that 6ish week timeline. Morning after pill? Acceptable. After fertilization and the egg and the sperm begin to create something? Nope, except in cases of incest/rape/health of the mother. But the issue becomes that most of the time you don't know you're pregnant, so effectively its a no abortion but in exception situations type thing. I also think it's bulls*** that the government plays any part in the payment of an abortion, and I think it's bulls*** that some of the "barriers" such as having to wait 24 hours gets so much reaction, especially considering some of the problems that women have after going through with it. It's an important decision (queue SS telling me how terrible I am for assuming women DON'T think it's important) and shouldn't be taken lightly.

Here's a good read looking at some exit poll data and comparing it to 2008: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ers_116106.html

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 12:02 PM) They're not conclusive on light drinking, but heavy drinking is known to lead to FAS. Well, I guess this gets down to what are we considering as heavy v. light. http://www.metro.co.uk/news/902611-pregnan...y-says-research Either way it's probably best not to, just to be safe.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 11:43 AM) The reactions to the election from the far-right, such as the Tea Party groups and Christian Coalition hardliners, are hilarious. They actually think Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Complete denial of reality. It is almost sad to watch. I can fully understand people's policy positions, even if they are further right than mine (by a little or a lot). But at some point, if the GOP wants to make changes, they need to deal with the obvious schism occurring in their party. They need to deal with the fact that the Tea Party types - who initially started as libertarian-like but quickly became just extra-angry right wingers - is falling back from being a party base to being an interest group. They can't have that be their platform keys anymore. This is why the primary needs to be rigged so that the stupid extremists will have no choice but to vote for a more moderate (socially) candidate.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 11:32 AM) Im not saying there is "no life." I am saying that there is a balance. And it wont change my opinion. Its not my choice what other people do with their lives. If they want to recklessly kill fetuses, it doesnt change my day. I dont believe in the govt telling people how to live their life, regardless of what I personally believe, it just doesnt matter. This is about punishing people for controlling their own body. As soon as the fetus is out of the body, it has its own rights. But it doesnt just magically get rights the instant of conception, because otherwise we are going down a terrible terrible big govt logic. For example, if a fetus is equal to a human, and if its true that alcohol damages fetuses, then why not allow the govt to arrest mothers who drink? Or mothers who smoke? Or mothers who dont eat the right food? At what point do we say no more? First off, they don't know what alcohol does, if anything. They think it causes harm with severe drinking but studies aren't conclusive on the issue. Either way, none of those examples are the same as aborting them. But whatever, this argument we've had before so i'm not about to waste a day on it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 11:21 AM) No they arent. If a fetus dies due to miscarriage before 3 months, does it have a birth certificate? Does it have a social security number? Has it taken a breathe? Has it lived? The answer is no. If you want to extend protection to unborn life, argue away. But at what point do we stop protecting something that isnt real? If you protect a fetus, why not sperm? Its the same theory, you are killing potential life. If we go down that road, shouldnt birth control be illegal, as it kills eggs, which could have been life? But please spare me the "fetus are humans", because they arent. They are not deserving of the same rights as an actual living breathing person. Its insulting to those of us who actually are alive. Lol, this is just an abhorrent view. I really hope your wife doesn't have a miscarriage. I'm sure the "Oh honey, stop crying. You're being ridiculous. It's not like that was a human you just lost. Just a bag of cells!" response would work well.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 11:06 AM) Fetuses arent humans, just like my sperm isnt a human and just like the potential baby that I am thinking of maybe having in the future isnt a human. And you dont need to think any reason is a good reason for killing humans because sex is a perfectly good reason for killing sperm and eggs, which is what we are talking about here. I'm very interested to see if your opinion on this changes once you actually have a kid. After hearing/seeing a heartbeat of the "non-human" you created at 4-6 weeks, and then watching the development of that "non-human" for the weeks thereafter, it's very difficult to definitely state that there's no life there just because it can't live on it's own without the mother.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:58 PM) that isn't why the GOP lost the Latino vote in such huge numbers. It's the laundry list of things they have actually said and done as well as their lack of any real plan to do anything about immigration or for immigrants. Is this one of your classic "one example means the whole party" situations? Cuz I know since Murdoch thinks rape is God's plan, so does the entire GOP!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:59 PM) ^^^this is why the pundits hate Nate Silver et. al. Meant 9 Pm, obviously.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:45 PM) I got a kick out of the post election coverage at least on msnbc. Before the election they were saying how close the race was and a nailbiter, then the minute the thing is over they say the Republicans will never win a presidential election again, the Republicans are a disgrace, blah blah blah blah. Let me say this, if the Republicans have a better candidate for once or a more popular candidate, that person will win. Or let's say the Democrats go with Hillary and people early on deem her a wretched b****. Well, the Republican candidate Rubio in that case will likely win and win big. I just got a kick out of how all of a sudden the Republicans are a joke and will never win, when a day earlier, some were saying Romney might even win. It all changes in one day? Give me a break, Democratic pundits. The truth is, Obama was a very very very weak choice, in fact a joke of a choice. But the Republicans threw out there an even worse candidate somehow. And I am somebody who voted for Obama saying this. Yes I voted for Obama and still think he is a wretched president. It's just that Romney is way worse and I did want to vote. All that s*** about Romney was to get viewers. Flipping between basically all of the networks last night, until about 9am you could tell they were just bulls***ting, trying to make it sound like it was going to be a tight race.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) No they do. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepolitical...es-By-State.htm Wyoming 3 electoral votes, population 565,000 = 1 electoral vote for every 188k people. NY 29 electoral votes, population 19.3 mil = 1 electoral vote for every 665k people. In order for NY to be as represented as Wyoming they would need to have 102 electoral votes. Well you could change the EC votes. I have no idea how they determine that.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:44 PM) I agree, it would make them much more competitive. They can't go libertarian though IMO because libertarians are usually okay with social regulations coming from states. Repubs need to more or less acquiesce on these non-economic things Agreed. They can come to more reasonable positions on those social issues - be fine with civil unions if not marriage, don't overturn Roe v. Wade but still fight for further restrictions (24 hour waiting period or something), immigration reform that doesn't deport everyone (oh wait, no one is advocating for that), etc.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:41 PM) I can understand people wanting to get rid of the EC. But, how can anyone argue that going to popular vote someone in a state like North Dakota would be worth more. The EC benefits the smaller states and gives them more of a say than their population does. I don't think the EC is perfect but popular vote isn't the answer be open to hearing other ideas to replace it. EC votes are all proportional to the states' populations so they don't get more of a say.

Ha, don't go to www.lemonparty.org while at work. Definitely NSFW. Though it does make that "email" from Rodgers 1000 times better.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:33 PM) They dont even comprise 50% of the Democratic party. And this isnt about why people vote for Democrats, is why Democrats dont vote for Republicans. And specifically the Democrats I am referring to our professionals, academics, and others. You dont have to believe me, but if the Republicans dont change that area, they wont win. I really believe that. ? You said you though the difference between the parties was social issues, and i'm giving you a big voting block of the party that is the same as republicans. Democrats might care MORE about OTHER issues and ignore the social ones, but it's not exactly 0% on one side and 100% on the other. And I have agreed with you. Go back to my posts at the beginning of the day. I said it's time the GOP moves on from gay marriage and abortion. The battles have been lost. You can run an apathetic position on those issues, but you sure as hell can't be all vocally against them anymore.