Fuck its silent in here.......

[Oleg]

Arizona.  The gift that keeps on giving.

[Gilgamesh]

Arizona.  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

[Quality Start Machine]

Arizona.  The gift that keeps on giving.

Hey, if LFork winds up with a pumpernickel bun in her oven, I'm giving that little bastard a basketball when he comes out.

It'll be my new retirement plan.

[PenPho]

Arizona.  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

Okay, despite my general policy of not posting in this thread, I'll bite (for the record, this is the first I've heard of this, despite being an Arizona resident).

I'm wondering what your specific problem is with this law...is it simply the idea that any government intervention in a woman's womb is wrong or that this individual rationale is bad?

Seems like the the potential fear is that women are going to start aborting fetuses if they feel like it's the wrong gender (the article states that there is no evidence to support that this is actually happening in the U.S) or race (I don't understand this part at all, but I'm not that good with letters and words) and the government is saying "that's not a valid reason to have an abortion and we should punish people who abort fetuses based on that rationale."

I mean, personal abortion stance aside, these would clearly be bad reasons to have an abortion, right? Even if they're not really happening?

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?

[Chuck to Chuck]

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?

I'll go with, "What is Both," Alex.

[PenPho]

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?

I'll go with, "What is Both," Alex.

You can't choose both in this context.

[Brownie]

Arizona.  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

Okay, despite my general policy of not posting in this thread, I'll bite (for the record, this is the first I've heard of this, despite being an Arizona resident).

I'm wondering what your specific problem is with this law...is it simply the idea that any government intervention in a woman's womb is wrong or that this individual rationale is bad?

Seems like the the potential fear is that women are going to start aborting fetuses if they feel like it's the wrong gender (the article states that there is no evidence to support that this is actually happening in the U.S) or race (I don't understand this part at all, but I'm not that good with letters and words) and the government is saying "that's not a valid reason to have an abortion and we should punish people who abort fetuses based on that rationale."

I mean, personal abortion stance aside, these would clearly be bad reasons to have an abortion, right? Even if they're not really happening?

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?

It's bad law because it's unenforceable.

If you do not think abortion is the killing of another human being, I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with it. If I could be convinced that it wasn't killing a human being, I think any reason to have an abortion (the baby was due around the Super Bowl and I wanted to keep the weekend free, just in case the Bears made it; I want a kid with blond hair; I was planning on going to Las Vegas later that year) should be a valid enough issue.

If you believe that abortion is the killing of another human being, I think you'd want a very narrow set of criteria that would justify it (the mother's health jeopardized by bringing baby to term, for example).

If you don't see abortion as anything beyond a medical procedure to remove "tissue mass," why would anyone care if it's rare?

[morpheus]

Arizona.  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

Okay, despite my general policy of not posting in this thread, I'll bite (for the record, this is the first I've heard of this, despite being an Arizona resident).

I'm wondering what your specific problem is with this law...is it simply the idea that any government intervention in a woman's womb is wrong or that this individual rationale is bad?

Seems like the the potential fear is that women are going to start aborting fetuses if they feel like it's the wrong gender (the article states that there is no evidence to support that this is actually happening in the U.S) or race (I don't understand this part at all, but I'm not that good with letters and words) and the government is saying "that's not a valid reason to have an abortion and we should punish people who abort fetuses based on that rationale."

I mean, personal abortion stance aside, these would clearly be bad reasons to have an abortion, right? Even if they're not really happening?

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?

It's bad law because it's unenforceable.

If you do not think abortion is the killing of another human being, I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with it. If I could be convinced that it wasn't killing a human being, I think any reason to have an abortion (the baby was due around the Super Bowl and I wanted to keep the weekend free, just in case the Bears made it; I want a kid with blond hair; I was planning on going to Las Vegas later that year) should be a valid enough issue.

If you believe that abortion is the killing of another human being, I think you'd want a very narrow set of criteria that would justify it (the mother's health jeopardized by bringing baby to term, for example).

If you don't see abortion as anything beyond a medical procedure to remove "tissue mass," why would anyone care if it's rare?

Yes.  The idea that the reason ("She's having an abortion because the baby's gonna be colored!") is as important or more important than the action itself ("She's having an abortion!") makes for bad law.  See: hate crime laws.

[Chuck to Chuck]

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?

I'll go with, "What is Both," Alex.

You can't choose both in this context.

Oleg can't hate the law for both reasons?

I think it's a stupid law for the reasons Morph and Teej outlined.

[Gilgamesh]

Arizona.  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

Okay, despite my general policy of not posting in this thread, I'll bite (for the record, this is the first I've heard of this, despite being an Arizona resident).

I'm wondering what your specific problem is with this law...is it simply the idea that any government intervention in a woman's womb is wrong or that this individual rationale is bad?

Seems like the the potential fear is that women are going to start aborting fetuses if they feel like it's the wrong gender (the article states that there is no evidence to support that this is actually happening in the U.S) or race (I don't understand this part at all, but I'm not that good with letters and words) and the government is saying "that's not a valid reason to have an abortion and we should punish people who abort fetuses based on that rationale."

I mean, personal abortion stance aside, these would clearly be bad reasons to have an abortion, right? Even if they're not really happening?

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?

It's bad law because it's unenforceable.

If you do not think abortion is the killing of another human being, I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with it. If I could be convinced that it wasn't killing a human being, I think any reason to have an abortion (the baby was due around the Super Bowl and I wanted to keep the weekend free, just in case the Bears made it; I want a kid with blond hair; I was planning on going to Las Vegas later that year) should be a valid enough issue.

If you believe that abortion is the killing of another human being, I think you'd want a very narrow set of criteria that would justify it (the mother's health jeopardized by bringing baby to term, for example).

If you don't see abortion as anything beyond a medical procedure to remove "tissue mass," why would anyone care if it's rare?

Yes.  The idea that the reason ("She's having an abortion because the baby's gonna be colored!") is as important or more important than the action itself ("She's having an abortion!") makes for bad law.  See: hate crime laws.

THIS.

[Gilgamesh]

I found this quote in a separate article to be more damning of Arizona than the bone-headed law itself.

"This legislation really is needed," said Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix. "Sex-selection abortions are happening in this country, and it is time we address it head-on."

Truly, the honorable state senator has found the cure for all of Arizona's ailments.

[Gilgamesh]

Arizona.  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

Okay, despite my general policy of not posting in this thread, I'll bite (for the record, this is the first I've heard of this, despite being an Arizona resident).

I'm wondering what your specific problem is with this law...is it simply the idea that any government intervention in a woman's womb is wrong or that this individual rationale is bad?

Seems like the the potential fear is that women are going to start aborting fetuses if they feel like it's the wrong gender (the article states that there is no evidence to support that this is actually happening in the U.S) or race (I don't understand this part at all, but I'm not that good with letters and words) and the government is saying "that's not a valid reason to have an abortion and we should punish people who abort fetuses based on that rationale."

I mean, personal abortion stance aside, these would clearly be bad reasons to have an abortion, right? Even if they're not really happening?

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?

I think the issue is that conservative legislators want to appear to be tough on abortion without having to do the heavy lifting of passing a law that challenges the 14th amendment right and subsequently defending it in court.

To me this just raises the question of why pro-lifers (which is just as silly and stupid as saying pro-choicers) vote for Republicans on abortion-related issues.  Since Roe, there have been 5 GOP presidents, spanning 24 years or so in the White House, and yet, abortion remains.  Has it become just a hobbyhorse Republicans ride when they want to rile the base?

[Bort]

Arizona.  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

Okay, despite my general policy of not posting in this thread, I'll bite (for the record, this is the first I've heard of this, despite being an Arizona resident).

I'm wondering what your specific problem is with this law...is it simply the idea that any government intervention in a woman's womb is wrong or that this individual rationale is bad?

Seems like the the potential fear is that women are going to start aborting fetuses if they feel like it's the wrong gender (the article states that there is no evidence to support that this is actually happening in the U.S) or race (I don't understand this part at all, but I'm not that good with letters and words) and the government is saying "that's not a valid reason to have an abortion and we should punish people who abort fetuses based on that rationale."

I mean, personal abortion stance aside, these would clearly be bad reasons to have an abortion, right? Even if they're not really happening?

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?

I think the issue is that conservative legislators want to appear to be tough on abortion without having to do the heavy lifting of passing a law that challenges the 14th amendment right and subsequently defending it in court.

To me this just raises the question of why pro-lifers (which is just as silly and stupid as saying pro-choicers) vote for Republicans on abortion-related issues.  Since Roe, there have been 5 GOP presidents, spanning 24 years or so in the White House, and yet, abortion remains.  Has it become just a hobbyhorse Republicans ride when they want to rile the base?

Become?

[Yeti]

I just heard an ad on WSCR today for this website: http://illinoisisbroke.com/

Here I find out that I shouldn't be paying state income taxes.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I just heard an ad on WSCR today for this website: http://illinoisisbroke.com/

Here I find out that I shouldn't be paying state income taxes.

Illinois has 13 Million residents. Only 5% – or about 700,000 of them - are enrolled in the State's pension programs. That means the remaining 95% must pay higher taxes to pay for retirement benefits for that are far more generous than their own and that benefit just 5% of the population. Does that seem fair to you?

Does that seem like a fundamental misrepresentation of what a pension is to you?