[QUOTE=davar55;316041]
There is no unborn baby, it is not a baby until birth. There is no
mother or father until the woman decides to go to term. So only
the woman's rights are involved.
[/QUOTE]

I'm relatively sure that most women and mothers would disagree with you on this one.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;316101]I'm relatively sure that most women and mothers would disagree with you on this one.[/QUOTE]I suspect that many fathers-to-be would agree with them.

"There is no unborn baby, it is not a baby until birth. There is no
mother or father until the woman decides to go to term. So only
the woman's rights are involved."

[QUOTE=Dubslow;316101]I'm relatively sure that most women and mothers would disagree with you on this one.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xilman;316144]I suspect that many fathers-to-be would agree with them.[/QUOTE]

I would say that as soon as the prospective mother decides she wants
a baby, it is very real to her, even before conception. But it takes birth
(natural or otherwise) for that baby to be truly manifested, and IMV
not until then does it gain the status of independent human being with
all the rights and eventual responsibilities that entails. It is in that
sense, not the existential one, that I said there are no parents until
the mother makes her decision. Of course, most pregnancies are
probably chosen and desired, in which case the decision to go to term
is hardly a decision at all.

I'll just leave this here:
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/wacky-ways-white-house-could-won-111713651.html[/url]
(the second half is better than the first):max::judge:
:iceberg:

Never forget the Diebold Effect. As long as hidden-source, proprietary software records, counts, or tabulates votes, there's no telling how the results will relate to the actual votes cast.

[QUOTE]“I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.”
― [URL="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/138332.Joseph_Stalin"]Joseph Stalin[/URL][/QUOTE]I have also seen this as, "It is only necessary that the people know that there has been an election. Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

EDIT: YAY! This comment ended up in the right thread! I had the sudden thought that I might have posted in the Atheism thread by accident. :razz:

[QUOTE=kladner;316235]I have also seen this as, "It is only necessary that the people know that there has been an election. Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."[/QUOTE]
Yes indeed, and also: who decides when those who are busy counting votes have done enough work and should stop (Katherine Harris, Florida, 2000).

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;316203]I'll just leave this here:
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/wacky-ways-white-house-could-won-111713651.html[/url]
(the second half is better than the first):max::judge:
:iceberg:[/QUOTE]

well there are a few ways to Tie:

WA+OR+CA+CO+NM+MN+WI+IL+MI+FL+DC+MD+DE+NJ+CT+RI+MA+NY+NH+VT+ME+HI= NV+ID+UT+AZ+MT+WY+ND+SD+NE+KS+OK+TX+IA+MO+AR+LA+IN+OH+KY+TN+MS+AL+GA+SC+NC+VA+WV+PA+AK

and since 1 has 4 on one side and 4 have 4 on the other I can come to at least 8 ways to tie just on states with 4 switching around. admittedly that pales in comparison with the 2^51 ways the election can go just by choosing between the 2 sides.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;316288]well there are a few ways to Tie:[/QUOTE]But, there are certain 'givens' already assumed to be known. If California went to Romney everyone should start watching for the 4 horsemen. Same thing if the incumbent were to take Oklahoma.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;316323]But, there are certain 'givens' already assumed to be known. If California went to Romney everyone should start watching for the 4 horsemen. Same thing if the incumbent were to take Oklahoma.[/QUOTE]

Ain't it da truth!

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;316323]But, there are certain 'givens' already assumed to be known.[/QUOTE]

As the saying goes, "assume" makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me".

Is this data known? Or only assumed to be known?

[QUOTE=chalsall;316358]As the saying goes, "assume" makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me".

Is this data known? Or only assumed to be known?[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.270towin.com/states/California[/url]

"Past performance does not guarantee or imply future results..."