jhillr64, speaking of evolving positions, Joe Biden was on Meet the Press recently. Part of the exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: You have changed your position on abortion. When you came to the Senate, you believed that Roe v. Wade was not correctly decided and that you also believed a the right of abortion was not secured by the Constitution. Why did you change your mind?

_

SEN. BIDEN: Well, I was 29 years old when I came to the United States Senate, and I have learned a lot. Look, Tim, I’m a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my, my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381961/

Heavens to Betsy, Joe Biden's positions have evolved over the past 34 years, that flip-flopper!

You know, a stagnant mind starts to reek after awhile.

What odd timing! I was waiting in the checkout line at the supermarket, surrounded by tabloids with celebrity moms and their twins on the covers. And I thought, is it because they are too old, too thin or too busy/career-oriented to reproduce without assistance? Then I thought, wow, that’s awfully judgmental of me.

ART is a huge social experiment, the long-term effects of which remain unknown. There are the health and cost implications. Do we need to re-think how we structure adoption and foster-care in light of the fact that those who cannot conceive “naturally” have other options?

As someone who considers herself pro-choice, I’m surprised by my biases against ART. I consider the hallmark of being pro-choice not being “pro-abortion” (as some pro-lifers seem to think), but truly believing that there is no blanket solution for everyone and that even if I disagree with an individual’s decision, only that individual is in the best position to decide what is best. And when you get down to the individual level, people have good reasons for choosing the path they have chosen.

I’ve never achingly wanted my own genetic offspring or wanted to be pregnant and been unable to do so. So I don’t really understand why more ART couples don’t choose adoption, which is ultimately my bias against them. I’m definitely interested in reading more letters about this on Salon so I can understand it better. Ultimately, of course, ART couples have no obligation to convince me, but I would like to understand more of individual’s perspectives.

The parents of mostly-healthy, well-adjusted Down Syndrome kids add an important perspective to the debate. But theirs is not and should not be given any extra weight.

Not every Down Syndrome kid is like Corky from Life Goes On. Some have vision, hearing and heart problems. Weak bones, gastrointestinal problems and frequent infections. And retardation that can vary from mild to severe. Some work, but many cannot live on their own.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000997.htm

You can wind up with a kid with some mild challenges that don't prohibit a happy, well-rounded life. Or you can wind up with a chronically ill, chronically in pain, severely retarded child. Odds are, your child won't be in the "severe" category, but it's still something to consider.

And if your child has only mild challenges, are you as a parent prepared for the additional emotional, physical and financial costs of a challenged-child? Even at the expense of your other children? Parents need to come to these decisions with complete information from their doctors and other experienced sources.

“What drives me nutty about so many searching-for-links studies is the lack of context.”

You can say that again. Causation versus correlation? Chicken or the egg?

Chicken or the egg: Do difficult babies make for more depressed mothers, or do depressed mothers make for difficult babies?

Causation versus correlation: Are depressed mothers making their children difficult, or is some outside factor causing both depression in the mother and difficulty in the baby?

Wow, I’ve learned nothing from this article. A little context goes a long way.

From Anonymous: “You, and others like you, are requesting even more policing, in order, I assume, to create a disagreement-free zone.”

Actually, many of us who want greater policing want more dialogue. It’s hard to get a good dialogue going when people are just hurling insults and unsupported “facts” at each other. You end up having to scroll through a lot of crap, and some posters have such an extensive track record of crap-spewing, it’s hard to take anything they say seriously.

Posting as “Anonymous,” I’ve gotta ask, why? Blogging is pretty anonymous already. Having different screen names helps us all tell one “Anonymous” from another. I can understand a desire to post as “Anonymous” when revealing particularly personal information (details of one’s abortion, for example) but otherwise, just pick a name!

When Broadsheet references a long scientific article (such as this Sexual Harassment one), it doesn’t do a very good job. Most people don’t bother to read the 10 page study before posting—I’ve printed it out to read later—which prompts a lot of broad assumptions about the content of the article. And the Broadsheet writer fails to properly summarize the article (summarizing scientific articles clearly not his or her area of expertise). Broadsheet, stick to what you know—if you can’t adequately summarize a long article, leave it alone.