People who push this shit don't want to be rational or logically consistent. Often angrily so. I once had a fundie kid in my "Critical Thinking" class who became so incensed by my mere discussion of evolution -- using Gould's "Drunkard's Walk" model -- that he dropped the class forthwith, never to return. All I was doing was using it as an quick exemplar of the difficulty in deciding when something is "argument" vs mere "explanation." I guess my alluding to the Occam's Razor simplicity of Gould's scenario implied my endorsement to this student. Beyond elegant simplicity, it does have a substantial body of empirical paleontological evidence in its support. But, rather than take the trouble to examine the details of the "argument"/model and the physical evidence, it's just easier to remain within the comfy confines of dogma for some people.

Well, you can believe what you wish, but, as a legal matter, you're simply wrong (and will continue to be). Hyperbolically, fatuously so.

Sorry. No, it is not. Not as a lexical matter.

See my blog post.

"It's arguable that a human zygote is just a very young person."

Not under currently accepted lexical and legal definitions. Fundamental to cogent argument is agreement on core definitions. If you don't get there, you just ending up in endless shouting matches.

There are various types of definition; lexical, operational, legal; stipulative (usually associated with legal, but also when you're coining the salient attributes of some object or phenomenon); and political/polemical. "Abortion = murder" falls in that latter category.

"Murder" - Black's Law Dictionary: "1. killing a human being with malice aforethought."

"Person" - Black's Law Dictionary: "1. "a human being."

Now, notwithstanding that you could indeed argue that a blastocyst is both "human" and it "be," that is not the current legal construction of "human being." It is a synonym for "person."

Thanks.

Legend-In-His-Own-Mind Scalia contradicts himself a lot. When you're on SCOTUS, you get to do that, 'cause you got the last word.

Beyond the tangential implications of the 9th Amendment, the 14th is really the crux here, as I see it. While IANAL, I have done a ton of research in this area (mostly on the 4th; see my old grad thesis draft at bgladd.com/drugwar).

Moreover, I am uncomfortable as a male even opining on this issue. I think, to the extent it's a legit democratic/plebiscite issue, males should have no voice.

I really tire of the simplistic, adrenally-driven, ideologically-driven, prefectionism-fallacy driven soundbite philosophies, usually proffered by those hiding behind anonymous screen names. I try to tend to detail, and I am fully accountable/identifiable for the assertions I make. And, I've walked the "pro-life" talk.

Gotta run and hang with me Ma (nursing home). Later.

Yeah. We're careless with words a lot.

My grad degree is in Ethics. Which is mostly about careful reasoning, buttressed by the breadth of cogent historical moral philosophy.

Yeah, I know, my friend.

And, you are correct to point out the temporal and cultural relativity of a lot of "moral" contention.

But, a lot of debate is stillborn at the point of dueling definitions. Wastes a lot of time.

Fundie religiosity addicts are all for literalism where it suits their ends. Otherwise, all proffers are broadly metaphorical, the divination of which falls only to them and their chosen Prophets.

had you not picked that Lenscrafters Gargoyle, you might have won.

Sir, please pee in this plastic vial and then affix the striped 'evidence' tape' after screwing the lid back on. Thank you.

As I wrote on my blog, regarding "sex offenses," LOL:

If you doubt, for instance, that we 'mandate by law...that certain activities be conducted "in private",' try urinating in public in front of a police officer sometime (say, maybe after attending that Jimmy Buffett concert you now only dimly remember in the wake of all that tequila). Under Nevada law, after trial and conviction you will subsequently be permanently in the system as -- minimally -- a "Tier I Sex Offender" ("flashing," "streaking," and, yes, peeing in public are considered "sex crimes" here -- only the first of which might truly be regarded as one worthy of the subsequent moniker "Sex Offender").

The topic of that post was "privacy amid a war on terror" (link in my name), but it goes to some of the general idiocy of overbroad "definition" when it comes to crime. We're good at stupid shit here (Nevada), notwithstanding our otherwise libertine culture. We once had some asshat legislator introduce a bill defining "terrorism" as "any act which interferes with law enforcement."

Palin the Lenscrafters Gargoyle.

"A century ago, few could vote, but all could self-medicate as they saw fit. Today, anyone of majority age—irrespective of civic interest or acumen—can cast a ballot, but no one can self-medicate as he or she sees fit. Iconoclast libertarian and psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz views this circumstance as one of our having traded a real right (personal autonomy) for a “fake” one (the right to select officeholders from cadres of candidates with only stylistically differing agendas for paternalism). True? Or mere libertarian romanticism regarding a past that was far less pharmacologically and epidemiologically benign than alleged?"

www.bgladd.com/drugwar.

Obama doesn't have the stones to do the right thing here. He's got too much else to deal with.

He sux. As does the even more execrable John Ensign.

At least we got rid of that Jon Porter.

stupidest shit I ever read.

will have to do another YouTube video. She did this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAdJLLmpWBU&feature=channel_page

a bit over a month ago, and has had more than 520,000 views to date.

When he called for props for President Obama, he got a huge, sustained roar from the crowd. I bet Toby Keith was really pissed.