I'm afraid you are right, Cashman. Al Franken etc. all over again.

There is a web site called intrade.com that predicts the outcomes of things - including elections. It has a very good track record. Intrade currently had the probability of a republican win at 57% and a democrat win at 45%. Weather reports also predict bad weather for the Tuesday elections which may also suppress democrat turnout.

Intrade also predicts a 67% probability of the republicans taking control of congress in the 2010 mid-term elections.

This is the hope and change I can believe in.

For those who think republicans can't win in Massachusetts, I might point you to the list of the previous governors.

People like Paul Celucci, Jane Swift, Mitt Romney, William Weld - all of them Republican. In fact, Weld was so popular that people wanted him to run for President but he decided not to put his family through that.

The formula for winning in MA is easy. Be a "pro-choice Republican". If you believe in individual liberties AND restricted government, you can win. Oh, and putting in a line like "we will reintroduce criminals to the joys of breaking rocks" doesn't hurt. It helped Weld get elected twice.

No Choice
 

A pro-choice Republican is an oximoron. If someone says they are a pro-choice Repulican they are a moron.

Cashman, may I respectfully disagree with you on this issue. The abortion issue is not a choice between right and wrong, but between right and right

It involves answering two questions, not one.

Question ! - Does a woman have the right to control her own body? To me, the answer is very clearly yes.

Question 2 - Does the unborn infant have the right to live? Again a clear and resounding yes.

Balancing these two rights is what the Supreme Court attempted to do in Roe v Wade. In essence it left the choice of the mother supreme in the first two trimesters, but gave the state the right to regulate abortion (act on the behalf of the infant) in the third trimester. Another way to understand it is that in the first two trimesters, the infant is not viable outside the womb and therefore the mother's rights trump the rights of the infant. In the third trimester, when the infant is capable of living outside of the womb, the state may choose to have the infants right to live take priority over the mother's rights.

I understand that this is a simplified explanation of the ruling in one of the, if not the most, contentious issues of our time. IMHO, the court did a good job of balancing these rights. I am am first and foremost a conservative who believes in conservation of our resources, limited government, respect for individual liberty and fiscal responsibility. Respecting individual liberty requires that I consider the rights of both the child and the mother.

Call me a moron
 

if you have to be that black & white about the issue.

I don't like abortion. I wish that there were none. I am against partial birth abortions and late term abortions except under the most dire circumstances.

Unless there is a medical emergency, I think that the first trimester is time enough to decide if you need an abortion or not.

I do not want government money used to fund abortion. If you can find money for a car or a TV or stereo, you can find money for an abortion.

I can imagine circumstances that may cause a woman to feel that abortion is her best or only option. As much as it bothers me, I would pass no law arbitrarily forbidding abortion. Let those who feel the need, deal with their God. I cannot judge them.

I am a conservative and a registered republican. All is not black & white.

I just pray that no child is aborted without long and careful thought.

Yoda

Wrong
 

Taking the life of a human being is wrong except in self defence.

Roe vs Wade is law not morality.

A baby or a human in developement deserves the right to life just like those of us who were not aborted.

Unfortunately, this is a very gray area. There are so many people shouting on various sides that it's hard to make sense sometimes.

You have people screaming that they don't want government to pay for an abortion (couple hundred dollars) and they'll be the same sones screaming that they don't want the government paying for the birth (several thousand) or welfare/assistance after the birth (which can be hundreds of thousands in a lifetime).

I had to clean up the mess from what is medically termed a "spontaneous abortion" - colloquially known as a miscarriage. My then-wife was in no shape to do it.

I simply can't force myself to believe that a clump of cells has the same rights as a born person. Don't get me wrong - there is the *potential* there, nobody can argue against that. Having been through the process twice (I have two daughters), you can't help but be affected by it. But what my ex-wife lost was not in the same category as my two girls (now 17 and 22).

I also speak from the experience of one who was adopted at birth.

And, if you think it through - that every fetus, every blastocyte, every fertilized egg has the *same* rights to life as one who has been born, you set a chilling precedent. Then you open the door for the 'miscarriage police' and charges of (at the very least) "negligent homicide" if a woman is deemed to not have taken care of herself enough during pregnancy.

That is *very* scary.

As it is, with more and better contraception (among other reasons) the abortion rate is going down and has been for some time now. This, to me, is A Good Thing.

I agree with you.

The question
 

Is and unborn fertilized potential human being going to be a person someday or not. That is the question.

If conception means "the Beginning" then that entity which "began"
has the right to live unless the Mother's life is at stake.

That is the point.(A mothers life. Incest. Rape.) There are exceptions. I personally could not have an abortion.

I am old enough that I personally can see gray areas where I used to view things in black and white.

I could not kill anything. I had to have my aged pet put to sleep last year and it was anguishing.

We cannot legislate a persons morality.

We have a daughter with Williams Syndrome. She is a person who we adore, enjoy, live with, love SO much. If I had a choice to have her or not have her? OF COURSE I would have her. Her life is one of our greatest treasures.

amen !!

YES -- why wouldn't the people of Massachusetts elect Scott Brown. It's about time a wonderful candidate like Scott Brown finally got through to run. The field of 'characters' for the last 10 years has been abysmal.

And it is stuff like this that keeps the GOP as a minority party. If we (and yes I am a pro choice Republician) want to be a "big tent" party, we have to get rid of these litmus tests. For the most part, the USA is with the GOP on the issues. It is this inane infighting that kills us.

Well said.