bmp said:
uhmm, this article is complete bullshit. THIS is what democracy is. AND Is democracy in action. Maybe YOU dont agree with the policy, but others do, and it is rule by majority, so you have to let the people decide and vote. Good on Colorado for putting it to the people. More things like this that are "A waste of money and time" should be up for votes.

FearTheReaper said:

I think I love you. I TOTALLY want to abort your baby.

Zarth said:

Anything organically connected in the interior of a human body could probably be assumed to be "alive."

But that's not the point. Science has no definition for "life" that I'm aware of. The issue isn't a scientific one.

The issue is when, if ever, a fetus acquires enough "humanity" that we become morally accountable for what we do to it, and furthermore, when, if ever, a fetus's right to exist takes precedence over a woman's right to do what she will with her own body.

That's ethics, it's not science. Science has nothing to do with it.

And letting yourself argue over definitions is just playing the very game the Christian Right wants, because their position is stronger going by definitions. It's weaker going by ethics.

varukasalt said:
Ok...so all the "majority rules" crowd, how do 1 sperm + 1 egg (pre-embryo) outweigh the vote of several trillion cells (complete human that can survive on it's own without being implanted in another being)?

I spelled that out for ya so ya wouldn't get all confused.

it seems very crude to me considering...

I do not advocate it.

Subrosa said:
No, I'll back up the complete and utterness of it. He was saying that this wasn't a waste of time because "majority rules, dude!". While we both agree that that sentiment certainly doesn't apply here, it's also just flat wrong in general. The buck virtually never stops with the pure "democratic" will of the majority. It is always checked by the Constitution and the republican process that it sets up. There is no federal referendum system. The closest thing that comes to that is the process for amending the Constitution and even that is checked by both houses of congress AND those state's individual legislatures. Individual states might have more direct versions of democracy, but again that's checked by the federal constitution, the supremacy clause, the commerce clause, etc.

I mean, it's not really germaine or important, but the idea that "direct democracy" or "majority rules" is any kind of trump card in our governmental system is more than just a little wrong. It's really, really wrong.

Subrosa said:

I'm going to qualify this a bit because I was thinking of this from a more federal-centric perspective. First of all, it's true that there are spheres of state influence that are beyond federal control and a state could, theoretically, provide for the control of those areas through pure direct democracy. However, no state is (to my knowledge) without a constitution itself. Even setting aside the federal supremacy issues there, the direct will of the people is still going to be limited by their own state's constitution as well.

The closest thing I could come up with off the top of my head that approximated direct democracy was the referendum system in California, which is not only insanely dumb, but also a nightmare to parse through. Here, some referendums passed by popular vote become part of the state constitution. But even then they're limited by scope by the rest of the state and federal constitution.

I realize I'm probably talking to myself here. I'm fine with that.

varukasalt said:
Maybe if you had a uterus, you'd give a shit.
But since you don't, your opinion is totally irrelevant.

Thanks for playing, but...

Fail.

bambo said:

Maybe a tire fire?

bald_eagle said:
If the majority rules, shouldn't Gore be in his second term?

SockPuppet said:
That doesn't seem particularly complicated. Is it really that difficult? (Serious question.)