LastPommerFan

JQ Adams, B Harrison, GW Bush, and Hayes all failed to get even the plurality (ie some other candidate got more votes) Lincoln, Wilson (twice), Clinton (twice), Nixon, Buchanan, Cleveland (twice), Taylor, Garfield, Polk, Truman, and Kennedy all failed to garner majorities (ie more people voted for "not them" than voted for them)

My parents lost a big pine tree last night, took out their service line from the poll in the back around 10pm. Good old Fairport Electric (SOCIALISM!) had the line reconnected in an hour, during the storm! Practically free electricity and great service? I'm jealous.

On a +/- 4 %pt margin of error. It's gonna be all about turnout.

Philly metro will be back up and running by next Tuesday, it's the rural areas that will still be without power, trees over roads, etc. not gonna swing PA. If the President blows this Katrina style, he'll lose, and deservedly so. I still think it's going to come down to the Economy in Ohio.

It will depress turnout in the North East. I think the national popular vote is pretty much a lock for Gov. Romney now. But it will have minimal impact in Ohio, and that is where this election will swing. Losing VA is irrelevant to the President if he wins in OH. And I don't care how far turnout is depressed in New England, NY, NJ, MD Obama won't lose a single electoral vote. If anything, any issues in NH would help him as it will depress rural turnout, with less impact in the two or three cities that are the base of the President's support. Maybe once both parties get screwed by the Electoral College we can do away with the system entirely.

See, I really, really want Bama and the Ducks to lose. I'd LOVE to play the wildcats for the crystal football. That said, the last 2 times Notre Dame was 8-0, they lost to Boston College. Still lots of work to do.

omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg omg

if the legislation did not include exceptions for rape, ######, and health of the mother, I would fully expect a veto. This is simply not true. Romney was pro choice for a majority of his political career. Basically until he needed to pass the far right litmus test for president.

They also both basically agree on maintaining the status quo (I don't buy Romney's weak suggestions that he would do something different), it's not a separation topic for the presidency. Now the senate races...

Oo Oo, I can help make this more unstable. Adoption rates would go up significantly if more states facilitated adoptions by married homosexual couples. You've got a large population base, many of whom want children, but do not have easy means to have them. [looking for my flame retardant suit] edited for clarity

HOLY MISLEADING STATISTICS BATMAN!!! "welfare" benefits go to many families above the poverty line, especially the largest contributor, medicaid, which in many states goes to people at 150-200% of the poverty line.

This is not possible in under current law. January 1, everyone has to carry insurance, and they cannot be denied due to pre-existing condition. But to the spirit of the question. If the fetus is currently viable, I do not recognize a right to end its life. If the fetus is currently not viable, I do not recognize the fetus's right to maintain its unwanted connection to the mother. There is no legal requirement for the mother to provide care for the child after birth. In fact many states have Safe Haven laws that allow mothers to leave babies at the hospital with no questions asked. Of course, none of these are ideal or "wanted" results. I'm simply trying to recognize each participant's "rights" Edit, January 1, 2014

I think viability separates terminating the pregnancy (ending the connection, after which the fetus necessarily dies) and terminating the life of the fetus (ending the connection must also be combined with ending the fetus's life). I think this provides an excellent legal division.

Yup. I'll send flowers. :P

There may be a moral dilemma. In fact I would maintain cessation's immorality, but laws are not completely based on morality. It should not be a legal dilemma.

I think your position is informed by a confusion between not preventing death and causing death. At least that is where I see the difference in supporting values between my position and yours.

or to word it differently, you suffer from an auto-immune disorder, but my blood contains an antibody that keeps you alive. For 3 months we have done daily transfusions to keep you alive. Should I be legally obligated to continue those transfusions if I decide it is too much for me?

You are correct, I was confusing "best survival chance" with "viability". Just substitute 23 for 27 in my previous statement. Yes, it is a significantly unique situation. How about this analogy: You are dying of a kidney problem. I am a perfect match for a transplant that will keep you alive. Should I be legally bound to give you my kidney?

There is another non-arbitrary point at about 27 weeks, viability. At that point, the fetus is not fully dependent on the mother for life. Fewer than 1.4% of abortions occur after 20 weeks, so it's likely a very small number that occur at this point, and most likely these are the abortions tied to medical needs of the mother or significant defect in the fetus (missing a major organ, etc.). I fully support abolition after 27 weeks because there are excellent alternative methods to preserve the life of the child. The underlying value that drives my position in this discussion is that we would not allow one citizen to cause the kind of disruption a pregnancy and motherhood entail to another citizen. If we allow for full recognition as citizens of embryos (which I do not support, but for a thought experiment...) , we would not allow one citizen to affect another citizen in that way if it was unwanted. At the point of viability, there are alternates that allow respect for both "citizens" rights. Edit: I should add, "full abolition after 27 weeks with the exception of life of the mother"

Notre Dame - Oklahoma tonight. I'm literally shaking from excitement already. Our first legitimate shot being among the national elite in at least a decade. Go IRISH!

Both campaigns are doing it, It's all about getting votes in the bag.

I'm always up for a drink!

This is the status quo with bipartisan legislative support. No tax money for abortions. I don't know of a candidate that is pushing for it, although I'm sure they exist.

Like it or not, the right to have an abortion has played some part in this equality in achievement. 1973 was an important year in its development. Maybe it is a small role, but having 100% control over when to become a mother is an important piece of allowing women the freedom to choose their life's path.

That doesn't really work in this debate, because we're arguing about an entity that wouldn't have a voice in the debate, even if we go to the extreme case for recognition and grant citizenship upon conception. I'm not trying to make the point that men can't debate this issue, but men can't debate this issue without women having at least half the voice. But that is exactly what is happening nearly everywhere and substantive legislative debate is occurring on the issue. You seem to be filling that voice, the voice of the champion, pretty well. I don't think it's missing.