Quote:
Don't worry, France will surrender soon enough.

Quote:
Harsh... but fair.

Quote:
Exactly the same thing happened in the UK in the 80's.

Quote:
In the USA this type of event happens every time a sports team loses (or wins) a major title.

Quote:

There's more reason to revolt in the US right now than likely anywhere in Europe, yet the US public continues to bend over to take it in the rear from the Bush administration.

Quote:
and makes the point that one reason Haussmann's Paris is so beautiful is that the boulevards were deliberately made wide enough to charge cavalry down, and too wide to barricade.

And no more cobblestones since 1968.

A couple of posts here I'd like respond to, but time for work

Quote:
Why are people attacking schools, of all things?

Quote:
Don't worry, France will surrender soon enough.

Quote:
There is very little reason to revolt in the US.

Quote:
Personally, I think that any place you have those levels of unemployment you've got a good chance for some good old civil unrest.

Quote:
There's more reason to revolt in the US right now

Quote:
Our administration would have you believe that dissent is treason, too.

Quote:
Revolt would be correctly called treason.

Quote:
I'll give you ten to one odds you will not be arrested.

Quote:
Depends who wins.

Heh. Sorry about the 1776 thing.

Quote:
Jeff, you have succinctly defined why we "Bush haters" feel so strongly the way we do.

Quote:
Plain view? Hardly. Bush LIED to me, to you, to everybody in America to persuade gullible people to endorse his unwarranted, illegal war so that he was able to proceed with it, branding any and all dissenters as upatriotic.

Quote:
We are heading towards a global economic collapse the like of which the world has never seen, hastened in no small part by the Bush administration's ludicrous deficit spending policies. I want you to contemplate 30% unemployment, a tax base so shrunken that people will lose their homes because property taxes will skyrocket as they will be the only source of revenue left to the government and even that will not be enough to maintain essential government services like police... all this happening in a country where there are more handguns than there are people...

I agree that government spending is ludicrous, but it isn’t fair to blame Bush for it. Yes his administration has blown it on this front, but so have many who’ve gone before him. Democrats, Republican- it doesn’t matter. We have deemed more things critically important than we can afford, so we are gong to crater economy to get them (and yes, war with Iraq is one of those things).

Isn’t there a quote somewhere about the failure of Democracy being immanent once people realize they can vote themselves money?

But once again, this isn’t Bush or his administration (though I’ll agree they contributed); it is a foundational problem with our country. We can’t control ourselves.

Quote:
It seems to me all of the "lying" done about Iraq was done in the first term and it didn't upset the collective nation enough to vote him out.

Quote:
What I meant was that for THIS term his attitude toward Iraq was in plain view.

Quote:
I keep thinking one reason for the high unemployment might be all the holiday time off they get. I mean, why would Wal-mart want to expand to France and pay for those great benefits.

So, how are things going in Kansas?

Oh, I know, I know. You were joking and I was slow to get it.

Quote:
I can easily see this happening in Belgium as well. More specific in cities like Antwerp and/or Brussels where also a lot of immigrants live. There already have been some small riots in the past few nights, as per France's example. (on a -for now at least- smaller scale)

Quote:
Oh, I've no doubt. I’m not crazy about Bush and haven’t been for a while, but I’m certain if I were in your shoes I’d be completely ticked off. Because you live in a country that has by majority endorsed a candidate and policy you despise. I get that- but the system is working, just not in your favor. Fortunately for you, it looks like the majority of the country is agreeing with you now, which means you might be able to rectify the situation in just a few short years.

Quote:
Because you live in a country that has by majority endorsed a candidate and policy you despise.

Quote:
Given that large numbers of the working and middle class in the US are sliding under the poverty line at a rapid rate, it may not be such a reach that it can happen here...and given the precarious state of the world economy, probably anyplace else where frustation reaches critical mass.

Quote:
with a 2.46% margin of victory one has to wonder what the real will of the American vote would be if everyone gave two sh1ts and voted

Quote:
Is being shipped off to Iraq a suitable outlet for the frustration and anger in today's youth?

Quote:
It amazes me that no one has made the connection between what's going on in France and what happened post-Katrina in New Orleans...we don't have to reach back to 1992!

A disenfranchised, largely minority population with high unemployment and few prospects for better....and the opportunity to strike back, however blindly....Detroit as well as LA did it in the past. Given that large numbers of the working and middle class in the US are sliding under the poverty line at a rapid rate, it may not be such a reach that it can happen here...and given the precarious state of the world economy, probably anyplace else where frustation reaches critical mass.

Quote:

Quote:
Personally, I think that any place you have those levels of unemployment you've got a good chance for some good old civil unrest.

I keep thinking one reason for the high unemployment might be all the holiday time off they get. I mean, why would Wal-mart want to expand to France and pay for those great benefits.

Quote:
Jeff, I am going to say that I find some of what you are saying a little bizarre. "If I were in your shoes"..."just not in your favor". Dang, I would have sworn that you were in our shoes and we in yours. What to make of this?

Quote:
You think the system is working and I find your opinion pretty surprising.

Quote:
Wind the clock back to November 2004 and vote: Bush or Kerry?

Wind the clock back to November 2000 and vote: Bush or Gore?

Quote:
You know that the US military is all-volunteer, right?

Quote:
Walmart is huge in China, but non-existant in Europe as far as I know.

Quote:

Quote:
Walmart is huge in China, but non-existant in Europe as far as I know.

They own one ASDA, one of the top four grocery chains in the UK.

Quote:

-Loren- The policies the "majority" supported weren't necessarily those having to do with the war... they were more likely things having to do with abortion, gay marriage, and business.

-Jim- Wind the clock back to November 2004 and vote: Bush or Kerry?
Wind the clock back to November 2000 and vote: Bush or Gore?

-Jeff- Bush in both cases because of the Supreme court. I don't like any of the choices, really, but given those that's the way I'd have to vote.

Quote:
There's WAY WAY WAY bigger things, i.e. THE WORLD COMMUNITY, to worry about than if two same sex couples can marry or if a woman can choose to have an abortion.

Quote:
I hope there's enough money coming in from China when your Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade for all those unaborted fetuses to have an education and a job.

Quote:
How about the twenty-five thousand civilians killed in Iraq? Are they less important?

Quote:
The war in Iraq would not have occurred if George Bush (or some other oil man) wasn't in office in 2002. I feel pretty confident in that stance.

Quote:
Your argument seems to be that babykilling would go on the decline with Bush elected. My argument is there would have been less death in Iraq with someone else (and I am taking the murderous Husseins into account). Seems like a pretty strong dichotomy to me. If anything, it seems weaker on your end.

Quote:
This is a snarky comment, but I hope there's enough money coming in from China when your Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade for all those unaborted fetuses to have an education and a job.

Of course, overruling R. v. W. will not lower the number of abortions (especially because it will go hand in hand with trying to stop things like contraception education in schools); it will only increase the number of women killed or rendered sterile by botched illegal abortions. But that will not stop religious right feeling righteous and self-satisfied about it...

Quote:
but I think this country makes us something wildly different from what Europeans are, both from psychology and logistics, both positive and negative

Viva la difference!

Quote:
It also wouldn't make abortions illegall it would just leave that decision up to the individual states. Chances are that it would remain legal in half or so.

Quote:
I think the Supreme Court is so important because whoever the president is, he will be gone in a few short years. But the makeup of the Supreme Court will affect the US (and the rest of the world through influence) for a long time to come.

Exactly, which makes the current state of affairs in travesty of justice called Supreme Court so serious. As I already noted here (earning me a carefuly worded remark on my naivete by Jim or Bitt ), one can bet with 90% probability how each of Justices will vote on any given case. Their decisions almost always reflect their, pardon the expression, values (a.k.a. prejudices). Which means that they don't give a damn for law or Constitution, just their personal prejudices or political agenda. At very best, the conservative ones play spiritual mediums trying to divine what plan a bunch of slave owners* had in mind 230 years ago for the premier nucler and high-tech superpower.

*) OK, probably not all of The Founding Fathers were slave owners, but you see my point.

Quote:
Is it being reported or represented anywhere about a religious element of the rioting? Is there any truth to some stories that it is young Muslims who are rioting? Is it germane?

Quote:

Quote:
It also wouldn't make abortions illegall it would just leave that decision up to the individual states. Chances are that it would remain legal in half or so.

Thank you for stating this. I had a post I was working on and you beat me to it. 39 states is what I've read (wherein it would be legal).

Quote:
just makes it more dangerous.

Quote:
Might be more inconvenient but not likely more dangerous for the woman.

Quote:
To continue this tangent, I've often looked at the recent civil unrests in Europe -- Yugoslavia comes specifically to mind -- and wondered how these people who formerly lived next to each other fairly peaceably for generations could suddenly come to the point of burning their neighbors' houses down.

Yugoslavia is a completely different matter, in so far that this was not the case of civil unrest, but aggressive war of one country against its neighbors and former members of the same union (although your question of how one could burn one's neighbor's house under any circumstances is still relevant in our case and bothers me, too, of course). You should have followed Milosevic's rise to power in late 80's: the similarity with Mussolini (more than Hitler) was uncanny.

There were no "centuries of hatred" between Serbs and Croats one often reads about (which makes it even more difficult to understand the bloodshed). The first conatact we had was when Serb refugees fleeing the Turks ware given some land in exchange for military duty in the border regions (a short Wikipedia article). But then, what possesed Italians and Germans in 1920's an 30's?

Blah, the layer of civilization is so thin...

Quote:
you are thinking that women living below the poverty line there will just hop on a Delta shuttle and fly to Syracuse if they decide they want an abortion?

I haven't thought that far in advance. Maybe there could be a shuttle paid for by proabortion activists to pick women up once a trimester or something. Perhaps even the federal government could pay for it. Republicans would probably go for it since it would help keep the welfare costs down.

Quote:
Their decisions almost always reflect their, pardon the expression, values (a.k.a. prejudices). Which means that they don't give a damn for law or Constitution, just their personal prejudices or political agenda. At very best, the conservative ones play spiritual mediums trying to divine what plan a bunch of slave owners* had in mind 230 years ago for the premier nucler and high-tech superpower.

Quote:
I'm interpreting this statement as saying that you believe to it is bad for members of the Supreme Court to vote their values, but you also believe that it is bad for them to try and strictly interpret the Constitution. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, what would you say is the correct way to decide law?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It also wouldn't make abortions illegall it would just leave that decision up to the individual states. Chances are that it would remain legal in half or so.

Thank you for stating this. I had a post I was working on and you beat me to it. 39 states is what I've read (wherein it would be legal).

Thanks pointing this out, but my point was that outlawing abotion does not significantly lower its prevalence, just makes it more dangerous.

39:11? Not that bad.

Quote:
Also, I think your average innercity and/or trailer-trash slut will think twice about mashing it with every cock in sight after the first time she has to stick a coat hanger up her dirty box in a dark alley.

Quote:
In the USA this type of event happens every time a sports team loses (or wins) a major title. Nothing justifies the wanton destruction of property, but at least it's not sparked because of a soccer game.

Seems to me that someone has forgotten that there was a riot in Vancouver after a Stanley Cup loss and there was also a riot after a Gun N Roses concert in Vancouver as well!

Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

Quote:
Also, I think your average innercity ...

Quote:

Quote:
Also, I think your average innercity and/or trailer-trash slut will think twice about mashing it with every cock in sight after the first time she has to stick a coat hanger up her dirty box in a dark alley.

No one wants to hear about your mother Billy.

You´re my mother?

Quote:
You´re my mother?

Quote:
I haven't thought that far in advance.

Quote:
Maybe there could be a shuttle paid for by proabortion activists to pick women up once a trimester or something. Perhaps even the federal government could pay for it. Republicans would probably go for it since it would help keep the welfare costs down.

Quote:
I really don't get the male willingness to weigh in so heavily on how women must behave, what women must do.

Quote:
No... we as a country (no, let me re-phrase that: enough gullible people to create a 50.2% majority vote) believed and were taken in by the lies, deceit, and intimidation espoused by the Republican party.

Quote:
I never stated my position on abortion. You are leaping to conclusions. <snip much>

Quote:
I have no doubt that the religious right, if they had their way, would leave us with abstinence as the sole defense.

Quote:
long after Jeff's god has joined Zeus in the Religion Hall of Fame.

Quote:
In the meantime, his followers/inventors see fit to preside over the lives of others...women...make those lives more difficult and potentially more dangerous, history and individual freedom be damned.

Quote:
Would I want my teenage daughter (if I had one) to have that option available... hell yes. Would I prefer she didn't have to have one either through birth control or abstinence ... double hell yes.

Quote:
I seem to remember a ship set up out of Ireland for Irish women to have legal abortions in international waters.

Quote:
this was pretty flippant

Quote:
Wasn't it just a year ago when the French banned head scarves by muslims in public schools? With that simple edict, aren't the French stigmatizing muslims within their country. Is that law symbolic of the French attitude towards an element of their own population? How is a muslim supposed to reconcile the conflict between their religious beliefs and French law?

Quote:
I can easily see this happening in Belgium as well. More specific in cities like Antwerp and/or Brussels where also a lot of immigrants live. There already have been some small riots in the past few nights, as per France's example. (on a -for now at least- smaller scale)

I've just started working for a client in Brussels this week and got home tonight for the weekend. While I didn't personally witness any sign of trouble, there was quite a bit of chat around the lunch table about it for a day or two, and it sounded like there was some sporadic and organised disturbances, with half a dozen or so cars burned not far from my apartment or the client's office, by all accounts.

I'll be back again on Monday, and travelling to and fro between now and Christmas. Having been to university in Belfast, you'd think I wouldn't be too worried about 'a bit of local difficulty', but I suppose it goes to show how things have changed at home over the past decade when I say I was more than a bit concerned... You used to be able to set your calendar by where the latest riot was

Of course, some idiot somewhere in Belfast is going to want to break France's new 'car torching record' more than likely

Quote:

Quote:
I have no doubt that the religious right, if they had their way, would leave us with abstinence as the sole defense.

This is not my position. I believe in forms of birth control other than abstinence and don't believe that they should be relegated to only married people. People should make their own decisions about sex and protection.

Quote:

Quote:
long after Jeff's god has joined Zeus in the Religion Hall of Fame.

We'll see . . .

Quote:

Quote:
In the meantime, his followers/inventors see fit to preside over the lives of others...women...make those lives more difficult and potentially more dangerous, history and individual freedom be damned.

Regarding your accusation, I am not cavalier about anyone's individual freedom- unfortunately it seems that there are two freedoms to protect- that of the child and that of the woman.

I absolutely agree that making abortion illegal and then feeling the work is done is wrong. The women we're talking about need help and protection- that is our collective responsibility.
And if you mean to imply that there are no Christians helping these women then you are mistaken.

Quote:
Anyway, I agree that the state being separated from religion means it should not care whether schoolkids wear some religious symbol or other.

Quote:
I truly believe a conservative court is going to lead to a better nation and world than a more liberal one, so that is my choice.

Quote:
I think that myth of lazy French is very much exactly that, myth.

Quote:
That said, I don't think that religious freedom should be absolutely unrestricted. For example, I think that perpetrators of clitorectomy should be prosecuted as if they mutilated their victim in any other way, religion and custom or not.

Quote:
And do you hold the same view of male circumcision? Do we prosecute all the Jews?

Quote:
And do you hold the same view of male circumcision? Do we prosecute all the Jews?

Quote:
So, I am concerned that France has gone too far, but I can also see some merit to the notion that France has avoided some bad things by a matter of degree.

Yeah, things are rarely simple, are they...

This reminds me of a case of bigotry we had here in Croatia recently. We have mandatory national photo ID cards, issued by our equivalent of DHS (police, actually). Some local police clerk refused to let some Muslim woman wear her headscarf on the photo taken for that ID. It was funny to read verbal gymnastics the guys employed when trying to explain why said Muslim girl cannot wear her headdress on ID photo, while Catholic nuns can.

Quote:
The recent political bashings aside, I find the comparison of the relative tribulations of the USA and France interesting. We have guns. They have cigarettes.

Heh.

Ah, Paris and Athens are among the last places where I could have my small cigar after a meal in a nice restaurant... Well, one has to die of something, doesn't one? And frankly, I think that the mentioned meals do more harm to me than cigar... (In my case heart is a clear favorite, in a very little part helped by that small amount of nicotine, carbon monoxide etc; cancer is faaar beyond.)

Quote:
As a practicing isexual

Quote:
My take on the situation in France is that it´s a fierce battle between the French and the muslims

Quote:
Now, they may all worship the same Allah, and I wouldn't be too concerned, but I'm afraid that the mullahs that prevail could be the ones who want to take away and burn all the electric guitars.

Quote:
Supposedly by 2050, Western Europe will have been "conquered" by Islam without a shot being fired.

Quote:
They used to say that about Catholics

Quote:
I think he's referring to onanism.

-Zeke

Quote:
Sure, Dragi -- die of whatever you want!

Just don't smoke your awful cigars around me and take me with you!

(Juussst kidding! I am pretty confident that you would never light up in the vicnity of anyone who really objected)

Ah, food is more likely to do me in than cigars. And, as I said in a previous thread on second-hand smoke, one doesn't fart in company, so why would smoking near someone who complains be any better?

Incidently, I find that smoking feels better in clean, slightly chilly air - perhaps it's an effect of contrast? Or perhaps I am just fooling myself, shivering on my office's balkony in shirtsleeves, with a mug of coffee and cigar?

Quote:
That second civil war is brewing; but this time instead of a societal clash, a holy war.

Quote:
That being said, you pretty clearly told us that, electorally speaking, you are pretty much aligned with the folks I call by [the religious right]. Same omnipotent god, right?

Quote:
If a large group of people are worshiping a "one, true deity", how is it that the omnipotent deity does such a crummy job of communicating what the rules are?

Quote:
You know, of course, that some folks don't accept your basic assumptions re "life of the child".

Quote:
What is almost ironic is that I think, thankfully, that you have been outflanked by (shudder) science.

Quote:
amateur abortions that you, on balance, seem willing to accept

Quote:
Quote:
And how would this play out if we were talking about 2 week old babies? Would that change things? If legalizing the killing of 2 week old babies made it safer for women who did it, would we consider allowing it?

This, I would like to think, in our current society, is a false dichotomy. I'd never contemplate this, nor would I want to.

Quote:
I think that your positions are based on an artificially bounded conception of life

Quote:
If, in the broader historical context of women, pregancy and women's right to self-determination, you are willing to argue that women shouldn't be free to employ an early-stage abortifacient like RU486, then all I can conclude is that your "life" definition is simply something based in mysticism

Quote:
Voting for anti-abortion governments, IMHO, does nothing but prolong the problem.

Quote:
When I see more pro-life types adopting a crack baby, or one damaged by poor maternal nutrition, or any of the lost souls in foster homes, I'll have a little more sympathy for their concern for the unborn!

Quote:
Jeff: "it is a foundational problem with our country. We can’t control ourselves."
What humans can control themselves? It's a foundational problem with our species. We're all animals.

Quote:
My wife was born over a month premature and could have easily been aborted

Quote:
one doesn't fart in company

Oh. Maybe that's what I'm doing wrong...

Quote:
Assuming you mean legally aborted, you're wrong. Seven months gestation is generally considered the outside limit for legal abortion in the US. Roe v. Wade states that a fetus may not be aborted if it is viable outside the womb, even if it requires life support technology, and specifically mentions 6 to 7 months as the time when that's possible. Medical technology has improved a good deal in the intervening 32 years and earlier dates are possible now. But no one would suggest that an 8-month fetus even begins to fit in the realm of legally abortable, now, back in 1973, or when your wife was born.

Quote:
When do YOU think a life becomes a human enough to be worth protecting under the law?

Quote:
Plus it seems weird to pin a point of ethics to a moving target

Quote:
And in a tangentially related vein, I've always been bemused by the hyprocisy of people who are adamant that abortion is murder, an absolute evil that must be stopped at all costs... oh, wait, except in cases of rape or incest where apparently [i[those fetuses are not deserving of protection.

Quote:
Since science will someday not need for a womb to be involved at all, let's make masturbation illegal. Menstruation, too

Quote:
And since science will someday be able to use random genetic material from parents instead of eggs and sperm, let's make sneezing illegal. And skin flaking. And hair loss.

Quote:
<sarcasm>Great logic.</sarcasm>

Quote:

Quote:
Plus it seems weird to pin a point of ethics to a moving target

Quite simple. Since it seems little doubt that medical advances will one day push that date right back to fertilisation, pin it to a stationary target such as fertilisation. Problem solved.

Quote:

Quote:
That being said, you pretty clearly told us that, electorally speaking, you are pretty much aligned with the folks I call by [the religious right]. Same omnipotent god, right?

Only because I was given a binary choice. And I believe it is probably right to lump me with the religious right, but if I am aligned it is spiritually, not politically.

Quote:

Quote:
If a large group of people are worshiping a "one, true deity", how is it that the omnipotent deity does such a crummy job of communicating what the rules are?

I don't believe God has done a crummy job of telling us the rules; rather it is we that have put the barrier of sin between us so that we have difficulty understanding.

Quote:

Quote:
You know, of course, that some folks don't accept your basic assumptions re "life of the child".

Right, which I have stated many times. But really this is off point from what I've been trying to say. My whole argument here has been that I have started with a premise and acted logically from that premise. If you disagree with my premise it's one thing, and I think that's the discussion we ought to be having, but I take exception to telling me that my actions are wrong without adressing the premise from which they flow quite naturally.

I believe a LOT of the abortion topic gets mired in highly charged accusations and self rightousness, on BOTH sides, when the dicussion really ought to be about "when does life being" and "at what point does life become a person deserving protected under the law". Because if the answer to those questions leaves with abortion taking an innocent life, it is clear that the law should not allow that. If, however, we agree that abortion is not taking an innocent life then it is equally clear that no one should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

Quote:

Quote:
What is almost ironic is that I think, thankfully, that you have been outflanked by (shudder) science.

I have not been outflanked by science, and if I had I wouldn't shudder about it.

I should have made "you" more general -- say the entire body of people that voted for Bush. And those people in Kansas

I *do* believe that you have been outflanked, though. In some ways I am less concerned about those anti-clinic forces in Mississippi and elsewhere. With RU486 and the drugs that will inevitably follow, it will be quite possible for a woman to make a personally pragmatic decision on Thursday and stand in the same pews with you on Sunday, with no one else the wiser.

Quote:
While Science may inform these questions, it cannot answer them because we are dealing with a moral issue. Science can tell us all about a form of life, but it is left to us to agree whether that life is worth protecting. We did not free slaves because of science, though science could give us all the clues to determine that the color of a person's skin does not change the fact he or she is a human. Many groups of people throughout history that have been unjustly hurt and killed, fiannly becoming liberated not because of science, but because people were enlightened and saw the truth of the moral issue before them.

You can find good and bad science without too much trouble, and I wasn't trying to make too much of an inherently virtuous role for science in this issue. Just couldn't help making fun of those folks in Kansas on the way to saying that the position of abortion foes is going to continue to erode in the face of pharmacology.

Quote:

Quote:
amateur abortions that you, on balance, seem willing to accept

"Accept" is too strong a word, I think. There are MANY wrongs in the world that I cannot stop. People are dying of aids in Africa, and while my church has built an orphenage to aid young children who've lost their parents, we do not have the power to stop the spread of HIV. We could possibly take the strong measure of killing everyone who test positive, but that is not an acceptable answer, as much as it hurts my heart to see what Aids does to these people. Similarly, I think we should do all we can for women receiving dangerous abortions, I don't see allowing the killing of innocents as being an acceptable solution.

Quote:
Quote:
And how would this play out if we were talking about 2 week old babies? Would that change things? If legalizing the killing of 2 week old babies made it safer for women who did it, would we consider allowing it?

Quote:
This, I would like to think, in our current society, is a false dichotomy. I'd never contemplate this, nor would I want to.

I know you wouldn't- my question is WHY you wouldn't. Protecting life only because it is ouside of the womb seems rather arbitrary to me. Is life two weeks before birth nonexistent and life two weeks after precious? My wife was born over a month premature and could have easily been aborted, yet clearly she had all of the qualities necessary for life and protection under the law- with the exception that she was in the womb rather than out of it. Would it have been OK for her parents to take her life? Under the law the answer is "yes", as long as they did it while she was still inside. I'm not OK with that, and I'm not OK with a society that allows that to happen.

Quote:
I think that your positions are based on an artificially bounded conception of life

And I think that yours are artifically bounded at birth.

Quote:
If, in the broader historical context of women, pregancy and women's right to self-determination, you are willing to argue that women shouldn't be free to employ an early-stage abortifacient like RU486, then all I can conclude is that your "life" definition is simply something based in mysticism

This all comes back to the question of the premise. When do YOU think a life becomes a human enough to be worth protecting under the law?

Quote:

Quote:
There are plenty of things I'd vote against that "the religous right" wants as a rule, but generally I'm not given that option. I've lamented this as a dissapointing part of the process many times before.

As much discomfort with this dilemma as you have consistently expressed, I would expect you to abstain or something.