ASSUMPTIONS make an ass of you and me. That is nothing more than an assumption. Everyone has a right to vote for who they want. If a person votes for a third party it does not mean they would for party one or two. In my case I would rather not vote than vote for the evil. How can a democracy be one choice presented as two? I read your comment and it reminds me of the “you can’t stop people from doing it so just make it legal.” Its asinine.

“That evangelical conservatives are foisting their religious beliefs upon others via the Bush administration? It’s a religious contention that the “soul” enters at conception, right?”

Are you saying that before Bush took office it wasn’t possible to charge a person with 2 counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman? I don’t think that is the case, and I don’t think you have the info to support your answer.

I think the real answer to Tony’s question is that whether or not a fetus has any rights is whether or not the mom wants it. I also find it hard to believe that a rational person like yourself, cineaste, would find that legal definition of personhood tenable.

http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=161#309

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

Interesting article comparing Bush’s record on African aid. (Warning foul language from a musician)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/may/28/disasterresponse.famine

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1717934-1,00.html

Also, I’m pretty sure Rwanda, Uganda, Congo, and Yugoslavia all happened on Clinton’s watch.

I think the evidence is pretty clear that religous conservatives can care about more than one issue at a time, and actually make a difference instead of just giving lip service.

As for the interspecies hybridizations. Yeah you got me. So maybe you can write to the good folks who published Campbell’s Biology (Benjamin-Cummings) as to why they would list “Reproduction” (organisms producing their own kind) as a property of life.

I guess it could be argued that the hybrid is not theoretically the same kind as either parent?

You don’t even believe in the Geico cavemen, remember? The first humans looked like Adam and Eve, like us, right?

“Scientifically speaking, it is not alive because on its own it cannot reproduce new organisms (one of the characteristics of life).”

See, this is exactly what I mean about people opening their mouth without thinking first. A dog-fox hybrid can’t reproduce. It’s freaking sterile. Yet, they’re alive, right? Duh! No, says Laz, under the definition of life, sperm is dead and all the skin cells on my nose are all dead. Saying cells are alive is a favorite of of pro abortionist. Those fools!

And Tony, thank you. You made me laugh.

I prayed for you just now.

A zygote on the other hand… Well you know the rest

To quote the Geico caveman, “Next time do a little research.”

Not to mention the fact that you should follow your own advice and not reply with “knee jerk reactions” like: the whole single cell argument (most use the example of the millions of skin cells that are sloughed off on a daily basis)

A favorite of of pro-abortionists.

I already answered you but apparently it didn’t register. I’ll explain…

“That evangelical conservatives are foisting their religious beliefs upon others via the Bush administration? It’s a religious contention that the “soul” enters at conception, right?”

…are rhetorical questions. Do you understand now? Is this getting through to you at all now? No, probably not.

“If this something is “human” and it’s “alive” (possesses life), it is HUMAN LIFE.”

Your own sperm fits the definition you just provided. Every Sperm is Sacred {Monty Python’s Meaning of Life} So that’s what, 500 million human lives or whatever killed per shot? Try thinking before you open your mouth to speak. Give some thought to my posts instead of just replying with canned knee jerk reactions and manufactured moral outrage.

Why does an individual who kills a pregnant woman and whose baby also dies get charged with two murders?

A very good question… Though a consistent pro-abortionist would answer that it should only be one murder if she was planning on aborting her child.

First of all some observations:
*I respect your (and anyone’s) right to vote third party, and understand the thinking that would make you do so.
*I am sorry to make you angry with my opinion.
*I am not ashamed of my opinion, nor am I changing it.
*I do not get my opinions from TV.
*Ironically, your last sentence was exactly what my wife said to me the last time she made me take out the trash.

I’ll try not to anger you more, but it’s a matter of simple mathematics and logic. If you have x number of expected voters, more candidates = less votes per candidate. Since those who vote for candidate C (say Constitution Party) will likely be voters who were going to vote for candidate A (Republican Party), then each of their votes benefits candidate B (Democratic Party).

If candidate C draws voters who were expected to sit out the election, there is no harm done. But each voter (who planned to vote) he/she draws away from candidate A makes it that much more likely that candidate B will win.

Now if you can show me where that is BS, I’ll happily acknowledge it. I’ve been told before that this premise is wrong, but no one has shown me where my thinking is faulty.