K-9

Let the looting begin!

While I agree with all of this, a president needs to be careful that his rhetoric doesn't contradict the images people are bombarded with during these events. Before, during, or after the event itself. If Obama utters a "heckuva job, Brownie" quote against images of stranded people waiting for rescue or tens of thousands of people crammed into an inadequate shelter like the Superdome or, God forbid, corpses left on streets like in the aftermath of Katrina, there will be a heavy political price to pay. And just like the zealots on the left seized upon that opportunity and clobbered Bush with it, the same will happen to Obama.

That's an old Irish prayer, isn't it?

I think this is true. The Republican machine will turn the slightest hint of indifference by the administration into their "heckuva job, Brownie" moment. However, it also represents an opportunity for the President to be seen as "presidential" during a crisis and that tends to rally people historically. I think state governments have done a great job in getting ahead of the storm in terms of evacuations, bringing in crews from out of state, closings, etc., and generally getting information out to people. I would hope that the Obama administration would heap praise on state and local governments for their efforts.

What about the huge Democratic voting block in Philly? If Sandy impacts that turnout is that enough to turn PA back to the Republicans?

When Romney ran for governor of Mass. he danced to the middle of the issue like he is now. He flatly told Mike Huckabee that he would have supported a Mass. state constitutional amendment to define life as beginning at conception. He's playing with words and just parsing the language: life vs "personhood." And when he chose a running mate that he KNEW had co-sponsored a bill that defined personhood as starting at conception he made his position clear once again. We'll just have to agree to disagree that Romney is a moderate on the issue. He might convince me if he condemned his party's adoption of their plank regarding the issue and if he flat out objected to Ryan's stance as well. And that will never happen.

I agree. So if power is out at your polling place you can't vote?

Well, that's reassuring. Interesting how the Prime Minister was willing to forego his born again Christian principals for political expediency.

My question remains though. For his ENTIRE political career, Romney has opposed the right of women to choose. It was only after his phony shift to the center on this and other issues that he modified his tone.

Let's say those senate races end up with Mourdock, Akin, and others who have the same belief about abortion winning and the senate gains a Republican majority. Let's also say that the House stays as is. Bear in mind that Ryan and Akin have already co-sponsored a bill that would decree life begins at conception and that all rights shall be confirmed upon the zygote. Not to mention that for the first time in history their party has officially adopted the outlawing of abortions, except in the case of the life of the mother, as a plank in their platform. Do you honestly think that if that Congress sent a bill to the White House that overturns Roe v Wade that Romney WOULDN'T sign it? I don't believe that flip-flopping liar one bit.

This is becoming quite the exercise but I'll play one more round. I get the impression you're just messing around to see what I can come up with for you to refute. Not that you're necessarily interested, but here's a link to an article by a professor from Ithaca University on the question of the abortion/adoption issue. It's a bit dated and the number of abortions has decreased since, but still relevant. http://www.ithaca.ed...30/adoption.htm Here's a study analyzing racial and gender bias in the process. Not that you care to read it but maybe your wife would find it interesting given her line of work. wexler-100304-1.pdf I don't know if there are enough adoptive homes available. There are any number of combinations of households seeking to adopt, foster homes, and other institutions. I'll close by saying I respect your apparent stance against abortion. But I can't respect the position of anyone who seeks to make that decision for someone else. It simply cannot be legislated. EDIT: schit. my google link to the Professor Duncan's article didn't work. I'll try again.

I last researched the subject for an article in 2001. I'll see what I can find relative to sick children today. I can say this without any stats at the moment: Americans have ALWAYS been willing to adopt children from around the globe and I'd say we lead the pack when it comes to adopting kids with special needs. I don't think that's changed. But as a percentage adopted it will be much lower still. I'll see what I can find. Additionally there have been laws passed since then that have made it illegal to deny an adopting family a child based on that child's race. I'm betting I'll find that the percentages have gone up for minorities overall but still not as high as white kids under 10. Like I said earlier, I hope I'm convinced otherwise.

My answer is no. You'd be better off asking your wife. Does the agency she works for have a high success rate in placing minority children? Sick kids with high medical needs? Children 10 or older? Do the people that use your wife's agency seek these kinds of children in numbers equal to healthy white kids? If you have real data I'd be happy to look at it and hope to be convinced otherwise.

I'm positive. Speak to parents that have adopted. Research the adoption agencies. It's nothing new. The sad fact is that the overwhelming number of children adopted are healthy infant and Caucasian. Even as these children grow older their chances of being adopted grow slimmer. It's a harsh reality, but the highest demand is for healthy white babies. Minority and/or unhealthy children simply aren't has highly desired.

Regarding you first paragraph the key word you use is "sometimes." In the case of minority children and those with health issues, it's "rarely." Your second paragraph is indeed the crux. An unwanted child is an unwanted child for many reasons that have nothing to do with the passage of time. That will never change regardless of any legal questions surrounding it.

You're a lucky uncle. God bless your brother and sister-in-law for having the love and understanding required. And God bless your niece for being an inspiration to us all. As to the discussion, let's say doctors inform the mother of a malformed fetus that full viability can be expected but with a lifetime of special medical attention required. She doesn't have medical insurance to cover these expenses or is denied insurance because it's determined that it's a preexisting condition. Should she have the right to decide to carry to term or not?

You guys raise some very interesting medical and ethical questions. Let's say a fetus forms with some external organs or an external spine (this does in fact happen on occasion). Should the mother have the right to decide not to carry that fetus to term if she chooses? On another extreme, if zygotes are deemed human and are conferred full legal status thereof as has been proposed by the very bill that Paul Ryan co-sponsored with Todd Akin, can they be claimed as dependents on our tax returns? Or can mothers be made potential defendants in legal proceedings if it's determined that she didn't do enough to protect the zygote in the event that it naturally aborts and is expelled by the mom? That would be a headache considering it's estimated that up to 80% of all zygotes and blastocysts end up this way. I submit that morality can never be legislated. Speaking of adoption, unwanted children, and kids all over the world needing a better life, I would certainly find Ryan, Mourdock, et al far more credible if they gave one half a damn as much about children outside of the womb as they do about fetuses inside of it.

But the repercussions of laws passed defining it as such can have far reaching impact across a wide spectrum of legal issues. I know, I know it's just a red herring issue that anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize is NOT something the Republican party REALLY wants to do. Except that it's in their platform, their presidential candidate is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade, and their VP candidate has already CO SPONSORED the very kind of law that seeks to LEGALLY declare a zygote a human being. Not to mention his co-author was Todd Akin and their party has several other candidates for election, like Mourdock, who believe the very same thing.

I remember reading this article years ago and I've been trying to find it since we started our discussion yesterday. I think it might be of interest to some. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/25/opinion/zygotes-and-people-aren-t-quite-the-same.html

Thanks for the updates, ub. Good stuff. GO AMERKS

Bush's Republican party didn't have a newly adopted constitutional amendment banning abortions as part of its plank and, more importantly, neither he or his VP were on record as saying they would seek to have Roe v Wade overturned. In 2011, Ryan co-sponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a Personhood Bill that defined life as beginning at conception. This would also outlaw abortions and, again, makes no exception for rape or i.n.c.e.s.t Bush's Republican party was nothing like the one I left and the current Republican party has gone even farther off the rails. Unfortunately, neither Romney or Ryan are straw men. Empty suits to be sure, but very real none the less.

I'm not sure why you would assume I brought emotion into the discussion to begin with. Had I chosen to reach into that Pandora's box you warned about perhaps the potential would be there. Rest assured, I am calm as can be when I refer to those who care more for a zygote than they do a rape or i.n.c.e.s.t victim as batschit crazy. If that's beyond the pale, so be it. I won't be at any of the tables debating the issue. In my mind there is nothing to debate on the issue. In my mind it is a health issue and a woman's "choice" as to how she wishes to deal with it.

I don't think the logic you used is crazy. I think labeling an egg fertilized by a sperm during a rape as "the method of conception" is crazy. I think forcing anyone to endure that pregnancy is crazy. I think forcing a teenage i.n.c.e.s.t victim to do the same is crazy. I think saying that "God intended" for these things to happen is crazy. And I don't feel I need to explain why I feel the victim has more rights than a two-cell zygote. Like I said, that's the Pandora's box I said I wouldn't open earlier. Do as you will, but I'm gonna keep it that way. You think they were cheering for abortion? I KNOW you're smarter and more perceptive than that. I'm out of this conversation for reasons that weave already alluded to upthread. Pandora's box indeed.

I don't know anyone who's ever celebrated having to get an abortion. Quite the opposite in fact. Sorry Ghost, but that's far from the reality of the situation for the vast majority of people.

You don't think that labeling a pregnancy as a result of rape as the "method of conception" and that the woman MUST remain pregnant as a result of this violent assault, as crazy? Or how about forcing a 14 year old i.n.c.e.s.t victim impregnated by the same "method of conception" to do the same? The more I think of it, batschit crazy doesn't even come close to capturing it. EDIT: didn't know i.n.c.e.s.t wouldn't pass the word filter. Understandable though.