Ah, that terrible tension between understanding that the GOP loses because of their ridiculous positions and actually agreeing with their ridiculous positions.

All sexual intercourse which may result in the conception of an fetrilized fetus-person must be registered with the women's health and fetal-person safety department.

Please note, this department will not be run by women, because they're the last people you can trust to make decisions about having babies.

The Federal angle in effect. All your fetus belong to us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2934233.html

Jobs jobs jobs though. Morons

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ.../bl/singledout

Ok there is some humor in a politician wanting to cut political science spending. But this is austerity, things have to be cut so maybe it's just liberal whining.

Oh.

I am pro choice but I still acknowledge that being pro life is not a ridiculous position. Liberals try to cast the pro life position as if it were akin to pro slavery or pro forced female circumcision. That's a mistake. There will never be a time when we look back and say wow pro life is a stone aged position what were we thinking? The question of when is a person a person with rights will always be debatable and there will always be a high spiritual and emotional component to the debate. I mean we are talking about the creation of life and about babies. Neither side will ever have the clear moral high ground. I don't care if we are talking about 10 years into the future or 1000. If anything the sphere of rights tends to expand over time. When someone says once a human has it's own DNA it's a human how can I counter that? I think it's highly impractical and an infringement on the mother's rights over her own body to ban abortion but on a moral philosophical level the pro lifer's arguments are not tossed aside easily. If I were the GOP I would never give up on the issue just from a strategic standpoint.

The GOP needs to reverse on immigration, civil rights, and to stop being so hawkish if they want to gain more in the middle than they lose on the fringes.

Well, I look forward to the onerous regulations placed on fecund women once people realize what miscarriage rates are and then add in the times fertilization doesn't even lead to pregnancy.

So frustrating. Jesus, is it too much to ask to just govern the damn country. Some people need to be appointed to positions.

Fox News confirmed going liberal because



http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-fox-news.html

They can run from the base, but they can't hide.

My favorite part is how Fox got the Benghazi mouth-foam to critical levels in the first place. It's a right-wing Frankenstien's monster.

The best part of that article: The new, conservative alternative to Fox News!!

"Pro life" isn't pro life, it's only a euphemism.

If a person is for unfounded invasions, the death penalty, against stem cell research....they are not pro life, they are merely anti-abortion.

The vast majority of the GOP is not pro life. They're just anti-abortion and, generally speaking, anti-woman.

Better alternative: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30

You're stereotyping. Not everyone who thinks life begins at conception takes every republican position. Many people don't see it as a political issue but a spiritual or philosophical issue.

I don't think the republicans have marketed the pro life position very well. Of course among the repubs there are different reasons why individuals are anti abortion. The religious approach can be very divisive as it tends to sound anti-woman and really antiquated, like the women who have abortions are whores who should not be given a free pass on the wages of sin (in this case having to rear a child). The liberals have been fairly successful in framing abortion as a women's rights issue and religious based conservative arguments play right into that. What the repubs could do instead is try to reframe abortion as a sanctity of human life issue, more focused on universal values and on the rights of the fetus. As an issue within the ethics of science and technology, the republicans have an argument with a much broader appeal. Not only could they try to define what is human scientifically but they could say they are drawing a line in the sand against the slew of moral hazards awaiting us as we increase prowess in the science of genetics. I'm not saying they could turn a strong majority pro life with the right framing, but they could convert some and lessen the current polarizing effect of the issue.

No, they can't, not as anti-science as they are, at their core. This is almost LOL-worthy given the explicit specific cuts they're imposing on NSF.

And I'm not stereotyping...anti-abortion is not pro life, it is only anti abortion. Many of the the anti-abortion faction are very pro many other kinds of death. So no, they're not pro life.

A non-legislative, evidence based approach to sex and reproduction education reduces abortion. They don't want that.

Well people won't have sex if you don't tell them about!

oh man

On George S today, Ham Face is talking about how the GOP is actually winning because of something something something.

It takes two to tango on this one. Conservatives call pro-choicers people who are for the killing of babies. This is obv a charged topic, and so I doubt either side will be blameless in its use of rhetoric, but you cant have one without the other.

North Dakota over the cliff.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92P0UA20130326

No their position is in regards to killing a fetus and the rights they believe that fetus has to live. I don't see how anyone could say that a fetus is not being killed in an abortion. It's really about a woman's rights to kill a fetus that she is carrying vs. the rights of the fetus to live. Basically the courts have ruled that woman's right to kill her fetus trumps the right of the fetus to live when the fetus is not viable out of the womb. When the fetus is viable out of the womb, the situation changes drastically.

Obviously, scientists in North Dakota have conclusively learned that six week old fetuses are viable.

I don't think you want to go down the "viable fetus" route with the advent of artificial uterii.

We're 10-20 years away from incubating a baby without ever implanting the fertilized egg in a mother.

The research will happen in the context of saving premature babies (and operating on fetuses to correct defects as early as possible) but as we push that timeline back, we'll get to the point we don't need mothers to carry the babies.