RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Although I fundamentally disagree with the notion that women should be denied first-term abortions for any reason, this is the intellectually correct position for conservatives who believe that live begins at conception.

drsmooth wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Although I fundamentally disagree with the notion that women should be denied first-term abortions for any reason, this is the intellectually correct position for conservatives who believe that live begins at conception.

Conservatives have ENORMOUS technical problems with this "life begins at conception" #$!&@ - just among their own crazy crowd. for example, there's the difficult matter of cell division, which may take place for up to 2 weeks following sperm meeting egg. Presumably lunatics like Ryan are most concerned about when god enters the little heap of cells; a soul, or whatever. well, if "it" enters at conception, what takes place at cell division? Does each little heap get 1/2 a soul? Does a new soul get the signal to jump in?

(why am I even speculating on this nonsense?)

the entire proposition is garbage. Sorry, believers.

JFLNYC wrote:What can you expect from a guy who is a member of a church which didn't fully accept Blacks for the first 30 years of his life? I wonder what scientific studies would make of THAT kind of upbringing.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Although I fundamentally disagree with the notion that women should be denied first-term abortions for any reason, this is the intellectually correct position for conservatives who believe that live begins at conception.

Conservatives have ENORMOUS technical problems with this "life begins at conception" #$!&@ - just among their own crazy crowd. for example, there's the difficult matter of cell division, which may take place for up to 2 weeks following sperm meeting egg. Presumably lunatics like Ryan are most concerned about when god enters the little heap of cells; a soul, or whatever. well, if "it" enters at conception, what takes place at cell division? Does each little heap get 1/2 a soul? Does a new soul get the signal to jump in?

(why am I even speculating on this nonsense?)

the entire proposition is garbage. Sorry, believers.

Well, yeah, but I wasn't even talking about the obvious technical/scientific issues. I was referring to basic logic problems: "Life begins at conception, life should always be valued, but life can be extinguished in a small percentage of cases due to the sins of another person (i.e., the father)." If they're willing to undergo a balancing test for anything short of preserving the life of the mother, then it's NOT a hard and fast rule created by God.

td11 wrote:Romney rejected new birth certificates for gay parents

The next month, Romney delivered remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington in which he decried the state Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling and its effect on child-rearing. He outlined his misgivings about the request from the Registry of Vital Records.

“The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother,’’ Romney said in his prepared remarks. “What should be the ideal for raising a child? Not a village, not ‘parent A’ and ‘parent B,’ but a mother and a father.’’

Romney also warned about the societal impact of gay parents raising children. “Scientific studies of children raised by same-sex couples are almost nonexistent,’’ he said. “It may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole.’’

Romney expressed similar beliefs during a speech in 2005 to socially conservative voters in South Carolina, as he was beginning to be viewed as a serious candidate for president.

“Some gays are actually having children born to them,’’ he declared. “It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact. Every child has a right to a mother and father.’’

moderate mitt

philliesphhan wrote:People have made the "this might ruin society forever" arguments for a long ass time

td11 wrote:more norah o'donnell plz

Critics have questioned that argument, and its jobs math. They point to leveraged Bain buyouts and layoffs, and argue that the purpose of private equity is to deliver shareholder value, not paychecks.

As Bill Bain puts it, “Bain Capital was founded in 1984 to create value. The founding partners took risk in starting this venture, but succeeded in raising their first fund and in investing it well to create value for their investors.”

pacino wrote:It's just a legal way to bust-out companies

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:obama up 51-47 in colorado according to ppp.

all of their polls had large democratic samples today, so who knows.

They're doing their part to generate the narrative

It will be interesting to see if Nate treats them separately or if he lets them pull his model even further from the most likely outcome

Welp, Nate now has Obama up to a 73.1% chance of winning, 294 EVs, +1.5% in the popular vote. I suppose you think this is "even further from the most likely outcome."

gr wrote:If Obama loses somehow, I assume he runs again in 4 years? Unless the party totally forgets about him in that time. I'm fascinated by what he'd do post-one-term since he's pretty young. I'm not hoping for that, mind you.

gr wrote:If Obama loses somehow, I assume he runs again in 4 years? Unless the party totally forgets about him in that time. I'm fascinated by what he'd do post-one-term since he's pretty young. I'm not hoping for that, mind you.