can anonymous posters use an ID so that it's clear which anonymous poster we're blasting?

the lack of an exception for health of the mother makes it clear that anti-abortion christians only see women as petri dishes with legs. if women didn't give birth to boys, i don't think they'd care - it's worth killing a few women if it will save the life of the next brett favre.

also, is this a ploy to increase early-term abortions? creating a rising abortion rate to inflame the right wing ladykillers and pass legislation curtailing this alarming trend?

I don't think anyone posting on here, as a living lump of cells, would argue that any lump of cells doesn't matter. That's why pro-abortion is an incorrect adjective (semantically speaking). I can't say all, but most pro-choice people are exactly that. I want there to be zero abortions, because I don't want there to be a need for abortions, not for some smart-assed flippant hatred of cells (was that your point?).

it's about having the right to do what you want with your own lump of cells. if your god is against that, he is more than welcome to punish me for it - i'll take my chances.

But if someone deliberately killed another human to get that heeart, then it does become a matter of the law and the courts.

Remember, someone dies in every abortion.

- chickenshit anonymous

if someone kills someone else who is about to kill them, that is called self-defense.

ATSJer - respect for not posting anonymously.

but, i'm not saying i should decide which is important and which isn't. i'm saying if they're your cells (if you're a pregnant woman, they're half yours in the first place, and you are the one keeping the other half alive anyway making them ostensibly all yours) you should get to decide.

you don't get to decide, i don't get to decide. the one with the uterus gets to decide (i apologize for speaking out of turn).

i don't agree with forcing anyone into anything with their own body. i think that right takes precedent over anyone elses opinion of what is right or wrong.

sorry.

ouch.

but can you invoke slavery and naziism to really drive home the point? that's the true skill.

you want to, but don't pass laws against it. as much as it pains me to say this, having lived down the street from a planned parenthood, you have a right to try to convince (even through less than tasteful means) someone they're doing something wrong. where things get sticky is when you forcibly impose your values on someone else's lfe.

since all the pro-lifers are using the hackneyed shock language (nazi, jim crow), i'm going to lower myself to their level. how is forcing a woman to take a child to term any different than forcibly fertilizing her eggs (that's rape!). in either case, you take away her right to decide what happens to her body.

i think i know what you're thinking - is rape worse than murder?

if, god forbid, that happens to anyone close to you (or directly to you), you'll know the answer.

http://www.wheaton.edu

as a recent transplant to the bay area, justin case, i hope you're ready for the oakland curse.

if you follow the A's at all you're very familiar with the pattern. you go up 2-0 in a 5 game division series, then blow 3 straight.

this last year they made it to the ALCS and i blubbered like a little girl.

i have a feeling the Warriors will suffer a similar fate.

i think this curse is somehow related to Mt. Davis - the shadow of which falls on the arena for 9 minutes daily, thus extending the curse to basketball and justin timberlake concerts.

you have proven your self worthy.

although there are many more reasons to choose the A's over the giants, you have chosen wisely.

billy bean is such a good GM, he traded away his juice problem before the $#!^ hit the fan. may billy's alchemistic sabermetrics rock on for all time.

oakland is the team for the true bay area fan, and not just some asshole with a barry bonds fetish.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2006/10/24/bonds/index.html

i agree that getting off the gas is hard, but is it possible that some of the extra driving this year is due to a horrible spring? here in ohio, i would normally have been biking most of march and all of april, but we had a downturn in the weather, and i turned to the car (for shame).

maybe i'm overestimating the influence of something like this on gas consumption, but it's just a thought.

On the anniversary, everyone should hear this remix of the Bush Mission Accomplished '03 speech by TransAm.

http://www.transband.com/mp3s/uninvited_guest.mp3

It reads between the lines for you!

instead of constantly being hung up on "gas prices" can we change the way we talk about this and say our goal is to lower "energy costs"?

it seems like this would be more all-encompassing terminology that implies that there are environmental (and as a consequence long-term economic) costs to energy consumption. this kind of phrasing goes hand-in hand with energy independence, rather than running up against it.

i know it doesn't inspire the gutteral responses phrases like "what you're paying at the pump!" and the like you tend to hear on local news, but at the same time, it has the flexibility to reflect everyone's individual energy crisis du jour (e.g. california electricity, new england heating oil, etc.).