chiefpayne said in response to a comment of mine: 'Ok then, just the babies of criminals then...why just the rapists? Why not ALL of them, if they are so predispositioned to be criminals?'

You're the one who brought in the rapists when you said the poor women should/must carry their potential offspring to term. We know the father is a violent criminal (100 %). We can either take the chance that the fetus is more stable than the father or we can decide to not take the chance. I leave the decision to the one carrying the fetus. Not chancing bringing another piece-of-shit, rapist scum into the world is a valid reason to abort, IMO. You and I will just have to differ here.

chiefpayne answer to my question about the aborted fetuses going to heaven: 'Actually I did - I said the yes they go to heaven but does that mean that they don't deserve a chance at a life?'

Sorry I missed your response on this one. Sad to say, due to the terrible circumstances of their conception, they don't (IMO). Happily for you & them, they will be exalted in heaven.

chiefpayne response to my last question: 'Hummm...possibly damage her long-term health or suffer complications versus definitely killing a viable human being. Not much to ponder here.'

You know the 'complications' I alluded to potentially include her death. Yes, and 'damage to long-term health' is just words, isn't it? No real post-born person would have to suffer if they had 'damage to their long-term health'. I also object to the characterization 'viable human being' in your response. You cannot first generalize that all fetuses are 'viable' to begin with & then I don't think a less than 7 month old fetus is a 'human being' (I don't care what they look like in the womb). They are at that stage a 'potential human being', IMO. I will concede that at 7 months or so you could consider them a 'human being' biologically, since they generally would have some viability if removed from the womb. Legally, I don't think you have any rights until you come out of a vagina.

You see, if we follow your point of view, any loser will be able to ensure their genetic survival by forcibily impregnating a women. That does happen among some lower creatures who don't know any better, but I think we should aspire to a higher level of morality than the law of the jungle or the law of if-I-get-my-dick-into-you-and-you-conceive-then-I'm-a-daddy.

I thought I had been taught in school (and this was 28 years ago, so I might not have remembered it correctly), that when you say 'Candidate A has 52% and Candidate B has 48% and the margin or error is 3%' that would mean that due to the sample size, the actual outcome could be anywhere from Candidate A has 55% and Canidate B has 45% to Candidate A has 49% and Candidate B has 51%.

The actual ratio being somewhere within the 2 extremes.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Heron23 asked: 'Please put it back. My mom left on a trip yesterday, and probably didn't get a chance to read it. I'm dying to discuss how you answered the letter with her when she gets back!'

Can't you just recap the letter & Cary's response verbally to your mother?

djansing commented: 'I think CBS figured Louisville would do their usual second round swan dive and not make the Sweet 16.'

Now I think UL has been to the Final 4 rather recently (a whole lot more recently than UK) & advanced to Sweet 16 last year (being beaten in a thriller by Texas A&M), so I disagree with your above characterization.

As for the who goes 1st & who goes 2nd stuff, Kentucky is only 1 state & whereas it's pretty easy to see that putting WV vs Xavier in 1st game & keeping West coast team in 2nd game was the right thing to do, I would have hoped they would have wanted the 'Overall Number 1 Seed' (tm) to be in the 2nd game as well. But they chose the UL/Tenn game & I can see where they considered that the more primo game.

Also, Division 1 basketball players are on scholarship to play basketball. They are not there to get an education, or the education they are there to get is to learn how to play basketball better. You could put your typical Division 1 president under torture & he/she would never admit that, but it's the truth.

who had this quote: 'Bush is, hands down, the worst preznit in Murkan history, excluding only Jefferson Davis.'

Jefferson Davis was only the president of a breakaway, failed state called 'The Confederate States of America'. He was never within a country mile of being President of the United States of America (thank God).

You might try James Polk or Ulysses Grant (2nd term), or Warren Harding. I think he is worse than all of them.

L.W.M. confessed: 'Throwing my up in despair and disgust when Bush speaks or Shooter posts.'

I understand your revulsion to Bush & I try to avoid hearing/seeing him. As for Shooter, I don't read his posts. He basically does not exist to me on this site.

You might give it a try & see how it works (else, you can go back to skewering his drivel).