I was a physics major for a few years in college. I quickly changed majors when I realized most of the modern physics courses weren't science related.

"AKs, pit bulls, Harleys, tats, and NRA brochures scattered around the trailer house."

That's one messy house! How do you scatter tattoos around?

"What's the point of becoming a citizen if non-citizens can even vote?"

Legal permanent residents, like my wife, who follow the law and pay taxes, are treated like second class citizens. Not only are they denied being allowed to vote for the people who govern them and decide how much they get poached in taxes, they're also restricted in how long they can travel outside the country each year without losing (or risk losing) their status as legal American permanent resident. That means, as a married couple, we have fewer rights than other couples when it comes to voting power and traveling together abroad, even though I'm a natural born citizen.

It's not easy to become a naturalized citizen. The process takes years. Nor is it an easy choice, when becoming a citizen entails automatically losing your citizenship in the country where you were born, grew up and still have extended family in.

I really can't see any valid justification for banning LEGAL permanent residents from voting in local and state elections. As long as they're in the country legally, one's status as a U.S. citizen should have absolutely no bearing on their status and rights as a resident of a state or locality.

I hope this clears up some of the ignorance and stupidity on display in this thread, but I'm not holding my breath...

In related news, the sun sets in the west and Clay Aiken is gay.

The NH state run liquor stores along the border are chock full of cars with MA plates.

Must be hard to walk through the aisles of those stores...

"I bet that the real reason the school won't change is that they don't want the parents shifting the responsibility for their child's allergy from them to the school."

Interestingly, I heard a business owner making the exact same argument yesterday, only it was about choosing whether or not to make the workplace a "gun free zone", in that the business could be held liable if they posted that but failed to prevent an incident involving a gun on their premises.

"some of these allergies are so dangerous that just being in a place where it's in the air is dangerous ... IF the allergy is on the level of that of some people I know, then it's not about that. It's about AIR."

If it's so serious the kid can't even be in the same building without it being a danger, then he probably shouldn't be there, or any other public place, without having protection such as emergency medication, or in the most extreme cases wearing a protective suit/gas mask or bubble. More than likely, this kid's allergies aren't that extreme, since he's been going to a school that isn't "peanut free" and hasn't had any major allergy-related incidents, or even minor ones, according to the parent's complaints.

She said her son is forced to eat his lunch in "an office with cinder block walls"

I don't see any problem with this, as long as the office is sanitary. It shows the school is being responsible and separating the kid from what they know could be deadly to him.

"and has been victimized at school. "He's been bullied; he's been picked up; he's been beaten up … had his medicine stolen," Williams said."

That's not cool, obviously, but it happens to kids in every school regardless of whether they have a peanuts allergy. If the school is failing to address this issue, then they should be going after them because of that.

"but you see she's using DEAD PEOPLE to make money"

Which makes her different from every news organization, commentators and other bloggers, in respect to this incident, how?

The universe is infinite, both spatially and temporally. Anybody who says otherwise is a charlatan.

Good job, Steve!

Damn Obama for selectively slashing funding with his line item veto...!

Wait a minute...

#12: The same is true for the post-natal baby, and SIDS.

Condi vs Hillary in '08!

This is great news. Justin Bieber's career is officially over!

You're right, discussion gets surreal when words are not used according to definition.

Or according to narrow, outdated definitions that don't take into account the realities of a post-1978 world.

An unimplanted in vitro product survives only by artificial means, it is not viable.

Unlike a prematurely aborted fetus, a healthy in vitro product can be gestated to term naturally by implanting it in a womb. Therefore it is viable.

Perhaps you should look into the definition and etymology of individual also.

Perhaps you should update your definitions to the 21st century.

The Empire Never Ended

When you promote in vitro fertilization or extreme fetal survivability due to technology as the metric by which the typical abortion should be measured.

Who's arguing that? Not me.

BTW, check your use of "viable" when referring to in vitro, in particular, and second trimester abortion.

Already did. My point is the in vitro that hasn't been implanted yet is probably more "viable" today than a fetus removed during the second trimester.

Also, neither a nonviable blastocyst nor fetus is considered an individual.

Got to love these surreal arguments.

That technology is capable inducing fertilization or influencing viability at the extremes is not indicative of policy.

Considering its been going on for decades, routinely creating and destroying viable human individuals, at what point does it become indicative of policy?

The doctor in this case disputes the gestational age of the fetuses/infants that were killed. He's obviously in deep... uh, trouble for having unlicensed physicians on staff, breaking all kinds of codes, etc, but why is snipping the spinal cord after its removed any more shocking than doing it before its removed?

#106: By that logic, a human egg fertilized in vitro is viable, in that it has a realistic shot to make to the next stages of human development, whether its being nurtured by the biological mother or somebody else.

The only valid argument for elective abortion is that nobody should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy once it becomes known. It's completely irrelevant to the question of whether a fetus is a human being or a person, or at least it should be.

#25: In many places you would be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life for doing so.

It goes to the question of what exactly is "viable". Both a newborn infant and a fertilized egg will die if left to their own devices, so you could say neither is "viable" in the absence of a willing and able "mother" to take on the burden of nurturing it. Since both are outside the womb and do not involve unwanted pregnancy, it begs the question why only one is recognized as something that others have an obligation to sustain its life, and the other is not.

Ugh. What's up with this annoying coachella ad that takes over the full window of your browser? I can't even get adblock to block it.

#100: those are outside the womb, and they are technically viable, in that they can be placed into a womb (other than the biological mother's) and still continue to develop to their next stage of life.