As expected, it's really about not letting people have pleasure

[LynnInDenver]

I don't normally start political threads here, but I think it's important enough I'm gonna start one now.
http://www.salon.com/2012...birth_control/singleton/
Dan Savage, it's time to redefine the word Rick now.
--

"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor

[Rev Dark]

http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188
He is well deserving of all abuse heaped upon him.  For those of you familiar with Dan Savage's brilliant redefinition of his name - and the results of the recent caucus.
Ahem.
Romney squeezes out Santorum in Ohio.
I love how Rick the Frothy man-on-horse mix thinks that same sex marriage will lead to people marrying animals.  Yes; man-ass is a gateway ass to other asses in the animal kingdom.  Expect Ted Haggard to resurface attacked to Mr. Ed in the same way that Zeus was attached to Io.  What sort of mind makes that sort of leap (sadly he is not the only dipshit at the podium spouting such nonsense.)   The same sort of mind that buys into the Discovery Institute and 'teach the controversy' Intelligent Design movement.  Yep.  Creationist douche-canoe to go with his other dubious honors.
This man should not be allowed near string and he is dancing on the fringes of the Presidency?  Maybe he and Mitt can hook up (before the experience drives them to horses); the Magic Underwear and Batshit crazy ticket for 2012.

[Black Aeronaut]

..... Man, and people bitched about Obama-care being a step towards Big Government. "Hello, my name is Rick Santorum. If you make me President I will push to illegalize all condoms and eliminate your Fourth Amendment rights just to make sure no one is hiding any rubbers."

[Bob Schroeck]

Peggy was paused on a political commentary show last night after she finally got home, just long enough for me to hear from the other room something along these lines: "Santorum wants to reduce government until it can fit in a woman's vagina."
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[ECSNorway]

Now there's a thought. We need a Obama/Santorum ticket just so everyone can vote against them.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Foxboy]

As usual, since the '90s, US Presidential elections are a Turd Sandwich: "I don't really like my party's guy, but no way in hell am I voting for the moron/socialist/fascist/other political namecalling on the other side!"
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[CattyNebulart]

I could accept the pro-lifers if they where the least bit consistent, if life is so important then they should also take care of the kid after it is born if the parents are unable or unwilling. Shelter, food, healthcare, education and all that, but of course most pro-lifers are against that because it would cost money, and a lot of it.

I don't really see how the republican positions of Pro-Life and anti-Social Welfare are at all compatible with each other.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Black Aeronaut]

Catty, that's because the more reprehensible 'Pro-Lifers' take this attitude:

"So you went and opened your legs up for some dipshit and now you got a kid, huh? That's just great. I guess this means you need a job. Here's a news paper. Get cracking. Or better yet, why don't you do some real work and get in line with the rest of the wetbacks over there on the corner? There's ditches to be dug and that about all bitches like you are good for. That, and making more Lower-Class Americans."

[ECSNorway]

I, as a pro-lifer, have no objection to contraception.

It's the expectation that actions should be consequence-free that I have issues with.

Sexual activity is designed, biologically, to end in pregnancy. The fact that it's fun to perform is a biological imperative to encourage us to reproduce.

Taking reasonable and logical precautions to prevent that end in order to enable it to be used for recreation is one thing.

Expecting those precautions to be 100% effective is about as logical and reasonable as expecting flying in an airplane to be 100% safe.

Murdering a human being just because their existence inconveniences you is totally unacceptable.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[CattyNebulart]

ECSNorway, correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you against universal healthcare?

This means that the mother will have to pay for delivery, as well as the inconvenience of being pregnant. If she is living paycheck to paycheck as many people do that is going to be a significant chunk of change, plus very pregnant people usually can't work, especially if the job is one of the more physically demanding ones or if they need to walk to work. So a significant financial strain even before the kid is born.

Now once the kid is born it will usually require some care, but if the mother is unwilling or unable to care for it can just be left in a ditch as far as most pro-lifers seem to care. But lets say she does the proper thing and attempts to take care of the kid, if she hasn't been eating right, such as because she has trouble paying for food the kid will be at a significant disadvantage for the rest of their life, since during early development counts for a lot.

Now say the kid gets sick, can the mother visit the doctor? how is she going to pay for it without universal healthcare? Is it alright to let the kid die of natural causes now? No? Then who's going to pay for it?

I could continue spinning a story like this for several hours, but those are the consequences of forcing people to carry pregnancies to term. If you are going to use the power of government to force people to do that you should also use the power of government to help them with that. Also note in all of this it's just the mother, the father after-all does not have the same biological tie to the kid and so can get of consequence free. I don't really like your way of forcing people to take responsibility.

Lets make it a little more drastic and say that the father was a rapist, so he can't support the kid even if he wanted to because he is in jail. Is murdering the kid (in your words) acceptable in this case? If so why? And if not then why force the mother to take responsibility? Who pays the associated medical bills?

In my opinion during the first trimester it's fine to have an abortion, because the embryo is not yet a person but after that it needs a good reason for doing so, eg a medical one.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[robkelk]

Murdering a human being just because their existence inconveniences you is totally unacceptable.

I was about to ask "Does that include murder by neglect?", but I see Catty has already made the point I was going to...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ECSNorway]

Now once the kid is born it will usually require some care, but if the
mother is unwilling or unable to care for it can just be left in a ditch
as far as most pro-lifers seem to care.

Congratulations, Catty, you've just found yourself on the "this person's opinion is no longer valid in my eyes, on any matter" list, right next to Ayiekie.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[CattyNebulart]

Now once the kid is born it will usually require some care, but if the
mother is unwilling or unable to care for it can just be left in a ditch
as far as most pro-lifers seem to care.

Congratulations, Catty, you've just found yourself on the "this person's opinion is no longer valid in my eyes, on any matter" list, right next to Ayiekie.

Thank you. How about answering some of the questions I asked or at least clarifying the Pro-Life position as more than just a caricature I get from listening to some political rallies? I even gave a semi-concrete not all that unrealistic scenario for what it can mean in specific instances.

If it was the "bleeding heart liberals" that are predominantly pro-life I wouldn't see the disconnect between the two positions, but as it is I'm honestly puzzled by the pro-life camp. Now unfortunately I am (mostly) human and as such I tend to think in terms of stereotypes and caricatures, but I am willing to accept corrections.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Rev Dark]

Sexual activity is designed, biologically, to end in pregnancy. The fact
that it's fun to perform is a biological imperative to encourage us to
reproduce.

The above is an extremely simplified statement; to the point where it becomes incorrect.  Sexual Activity serves, at least for homo sapiens and several other species serves multiple purposes.  For many species it is a seasonal activity, ensuring reproduction only occurs when the resources exist to provide the mother and offspring the best chance of survival.
For humans, other primates, and several other species it has a strong element of social and societal bonding.  It is fun; but that fun is to encourage individuals or groups to stay together; which has strong survival advantages.  Many of our secondary sexual characteristics and far more open reproductive schedule derive from this.  The drive for societal bonding is just as important, if not more so to the survival of our species; and one of the reasons we have been so successful as a species.
So ECS, let's test the water on your pro-life stance?
Can a pregnancy be terminated if carrying to term will place the mother's life in danger?
Can a pregnancy as the result of rape or incest be terminated?
Can a pregnancy be terminated if the fetus is biologically non-viable?
At what point in development does it become 'a person'?  As soon as sperm and egg merge?  As a blastocyst?  At the point of external medical viability?
At what point should a murder charge be brought against a mother for failing to carry a pregnancy to term?
At what point should an assault charge be brought against the mother for activity determined to be detrimental to fetus development (Smoking, drinking, physical labor, chemotherapy, treatment of extant medial conditions, nutrition, etc.)?
At what point do laws governing the self defense and defense of others allow a third party to act in regards to 'person' with the restraint or the mother or assault of the physician?
Does your stance on birth control include 'morning after' pills?  To use your highly suspect airplane analogy - are ejection seats and parachutes viable mechanisms.  If not?  Please explain the airplane analogy in regards to both.
Curiously yours,
Shayne

[Dartz]

So. We have a bunch of babies the state forces people to have, but which the state won't take care of. I have found a modest proposal that may solve the problem to the benefit of both parties.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Foxboy]

Ah. Good old Swift. And satire that will constantly be misconstrued as an honest statement.
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[Bob Schroeck]

I hate to add fuel to the fire, but it's always been self-evident to me that the further back into pregnancy you postulate the beginning of personhood (and thus the point where abortion becomes murder), the more post-birth non-human creatures will qualify for personhood by whatever objective measurements and requirements you attempt to define. Thus, until someone can plop a soul onto the table for objective measurement of its own, and say "This is what makes us different from every other animal on the planet", it also seems self-evident to me that this is ultimately a case of a religious belief attempting to elbow its way into law. Outside of throwing separation of church and state out the window, as so many conservative Christian groups would like to do, I think that the best we can do is make a good-faith determination of when a fetus becomes a sapient being, and limit abortion to before that point by a generous margin. Otherwise we get to a point where we have to include worms and amoeba as "murderable" entities unless we invoke magic spooky reasons why not to.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[CattyNebulart]

That's an interesting way to look at the problem, but humans have always been a special case in law. The problem is that the simple ways of formulating such a cutoff is that depending on the measurement the smartest monkey is smarter than the dumbest human, and so you are looking at a massive legal headache if you try to solve this logically.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Black Aeronaut]

What about a compromise?

Now, this is probably gonna evoke cries about Big Brother Is Watching You... but if so many people are up in arms about it, then I see the following as being a reasonable and rationale compromise.

First off, accidents happen. We all know this. A few of my brothers were 'accidents'. And at times they can come at the worst possible moment. Therefore, it can be said that denying someone the right to abortion in cases such as these is walking the moral boundary, as is carrying the child to term and trying to care for it with insufficient means.

The trade off would be a sort of point system. One strike against you per abortion. Three Strikes.

Now, depending on the situation, getting an abortion won't always gain you a Strike. Such examples would be rape victims, life-threatening conditions, or even a biologically non-viable fetus.

Strikes WILL count against teens that have consensual sex. Even if they used contraceptives - if they're using them then they should know the risks.

To further clear up moral ambiguity, Strikes can be divided into two classes. A 'Class A' Strike is the nastier sort. This is given to mothers who are healthy, are pregnant through consensual sex, the fetus is biologically viable, and they have the means to care for the child. In other words, they have no excuse save that it would be 'inconvenient'. Three of these and you face prosecution.

A 'Class B' will be given to people who have everything under a 'Class A' applicable... except they DO NOT have the means to care for the child. Three of these will result in the Government getting involved in a non-judicial manner. Why? Three abortions, each time because you can't care for the child? Something is seriously wrong with that picture and that person most likely needs some kind of help. They could be prostitutes, battered housewives, or any number of things. Bottom line is that it's a red flag and they need help.

Also, the male parent gets a Strike as well, whether or not he's in support of the abortion. Why so stringent? Because if he's sleeping with a woman then he knows the risks as well. He needs to be held responsible for that - even if the woman gets the abortion against his wishes (she could just give the child over to him to care for and leave him if she doesn't want to take care of the child).

I know that this is kinda invading into the lives of other people, but let's face it - we're already there if we're considering making abortions outright unlawful.

Thoughts?

[Rev Dark]

Sorry BA, it is neither reasonable, nor rational; the effort is there, but it is deeply, fatally flawed on multiple levels.
Process of Democracy - specifically in law is that the law is applied equally to everyone.  So your proposal can be interpreted two ways.

• The first is that the blastocyst.fetus is a person.  This fails in that, based on you plan, not all all treated equally.  Some are protected (following the third strike) while others are not.  This breaks Process of Democracy.  It also does not answer any questions as to the rights of any fetus being carried to term by an individual.  I will address this point further later as it is very important.
• The second is that you are punishing women for their reproductive choices.  This is just misogynistic;  I know you mention the role of men later, a point I will be coming back to. 
  
• Neither of these points addresses 'morning after pills' and similar after fertilization contraception.  Are these mechanisms Class A strikes, Class B strikes, foul balls or another baseball analogy?
  

Strikes WILL count against teens that have consensual sex. Even if they
used contraceptives - if they're using them then they should know the
risks.

So you are treating teens like kids in regards to voting, drinking, and crime, but take special exception for their reproductive behavior?  That is just creepy.  You are also making the rather egregious assumption that they are informed and know the risks.  There is a woefully large percentage of the American youth population that has been let down by their educators in regards to sex ed.  Why not go with contraceptive implants that are removed when the individual reaches age of authority?

Also, the male parent gets a Strike as well, whether or not he's in support of the abortion.

Which requires forcing a paternity test on all abortions.

Why so stringent? Because if he's sleeping with a woman then he knows
the risks as well. He needs to be held responsible for that - even if
the woman gets the abortion against his wishes (she could just give the
child over to him to care for and leave him if she doesn't want to take
care of the child).

This breaks down in practice.  You are holding an individual responsible for things that they have no control over.  If you are punishing the male parent, they should have choice in the matter; being able to force the pregnancy to term - which is again, creepy in the extreme.  I will assume that your class B strikes also apply to the father?Practical considerations - National Abortion Database?  Monitored at the state or federal level?

To further clear up moral ambiguity, Strikes can be divided into two
classes. A 'Class A' Strike is the nastier sort. This is given to
mothers who are healthy, are pregnant through consensual sex, the fetus
is biologically viable, and they have the means to care for the child.
In other words, they have no excuse save that it would be
'inconvenient'. Three of these and you face prosecution.

So how do you judge means?  Again this goes against Process of Democracy.  Income?  Number of extant children?  Marital Status?  Psychological Profile?  Employment?  Education?  Any or all of the above?  Whatever mechanism you use, you will have to be able to apply it consistently for every case.  I should also note that every single abortion would have to be subject to judicial review; as your three strikes law would necessarily have to have some sort of sanction for those reaching the third strike - chemical of physical sterilization, imprisonment, etc.  Oh and all miscarriages and stillbirths will also have to subject to examination and review to ensure that they were not deliberate attempts by one or more parties to be artificially induced.

Your proposal also does not really address whether or not the blastocyst/fetus/baby is a person under the law; or at what point they become a person under the law.  From your description it is black or white.  Abortion is abortion if carried out three days after using plan B or at nine months.  Personhood under the law is hugely important in this debate is hugely important because of the implications to the mother.  For example, if a fetus is a person under law, then any behavior by the mother, such as drinking, recreational drug use, or even medical treatment for existing or developing condition - anything that put the fetus at risk could be subject to legal sanctions.  Children are removed from abusive households - how would such things be handled similarly for equivalent actions during pregnancy.  Is the woman taken into custody for the duration?

Abortion is a difficult topic; there is no right answer, or best answer, all we can hope for is the least worst answer.

Shayne

[Black Aeronaut]

Sorry BA, it is neither reasonable, nor rational; the effort is there, but it is deeply, fatally flawed on multiple levels.
Process of Democracy - specifically in law is that the law is applied equally to everyone.  So your proposal can be interpreted two ways.

• The first is that the blastocyst.fetus is a person.  This fails in that, based on you plan, not all all treated equally.  Some are protected (following the third strike) while others are not.  This breaks Process of Democracy.  It also does not answer any questions as to the rights of any fetus being carried to term by an individual.  I will address this point further later as it is very important.
• The second is that you are punishing women for their reproductive choices.  This is just misogynistic;  I know you mention the role of men later, a point I will be coming back to. 
  
• Neither of these points addresses 'morning after pills' and similar after fertilization contraception.  Are these mechanisms Class A strikes, Class B strikes, foul balls or another baseball analogy?
  

Okay, so will get to Point 1 later.  Point 2... Whoah.  So it doesn't strike you as irresponsible at all that a woman that is fully capable of taking care of a child decides to get an abortion instead of carrying the child to term and putting it up for adoption?  You see, that's what really sickens me - that someone will get an abortion instead of putting the child up for adoption.  And it's not like a woman would lose her job over a pregnancy - unless I'm mistaken don't most states have laws about that sort of thing?
As for Point Three... further on down.

Strikes WILL count against teens that have consensual sex. Even if they
used contraceptives - if they're using them then they should know the
risks.

So you are treating teens like kids in regards
to voting, drinking, and crime, but take special exception for their
reproductive behavior?  That is just creepy.

No.  What's creepy is what you say next...

You are also making the
rather egregious assumption that they are informed and know the risks. 
There is a woefully large percentage of the American youth population
that has been let down by their educators in regards to sex ed.

That parents and educators both fail to teach their kids that there are serious consequences for having sex?  THAT is creepy.  And I'm not even gonna touch that whole contraceptive implant thing.
However, upon further reflection, I can see your point.  These things will have to be investigated carefully, and in the cases where one party honestly didn't know the consequences, they'll get a pass.

Also, the male parent gets a Strike as well, whether or not he's in support of the abortion.

Which requires forcing a paternity test on all abortions.

Not like there hasn't ever been legal precedent for paternity tests before.  Although we can say that another man may claim responsibility if he chooses to.

Why so stringent? Because if he's sleeping with a woman then he knows
the risks as well. He needs to be held responsible for that - even if
the woman gets the abortion against his wishes (she could just give the
child over to him to care for and leave him if she doesn't want to take
care of the child).

This breaks down in practice.  You are
holding an individual responsible for things that they have no control
over.  If you are punishing the male parent, they should have choice in
the matter; being able to force the pregnancy to term - which is again,
creepy in the extreme.  I will assume that your class B strikes also
apply to the father?

Look, a man does have a degree of absolute control over this issue.  That control is, "Do I or do I not stick my dick up inside this woman?"  (For crying out loud, even super-star rappers sing this... "Eighteen years!  Eighteen years!  She got one o' yo kids fo' eighteen years!"  Different point there, but still: consequences.)  Sure, the two may be looking to just have a fun little fling, and sure, accidents do happen... but when an accident happens you have to accept the consequences.  It's no different from any other right/privilege.  Drive your car and hit a pedestrian?  It's an accident, but you're stuck with the consequences.

Practical considerations - National Abortion Database?  Monitored at the state or federal level?

*Blinks*  Good question.  I'd say state level so each state can put their own spin on it.

To further clear up moral ambiguity, Strikes can be divided into two
classes. A 'Class A' Strike is the nastier sort. This is given to
mothers who are healthy, are pregnant through consensual sex, the fetus
is biologically viable, and they have the means to care for the child.
In other words, they have no excuse save that it would be
'inconvenient'. Three of these and you face prosecution.

So
how do you judge means?  Again this goes against Process of Democracy. 
Income?  Number of extant children?  Marital Status?  Psychological
Profile?  Employment?  Education?  Any or all of the above?  Whatever
mechanism you use, you will have to be able to apply it consistently for
every case.  I should also note that every single abortion would have
to be subject to judicial review; as your three strikes law would
necessarily have to have some sort of sanction for those reaching the
third strike - chemical of physical sterilization, imprisonment, etc. 
Oh and all miscarriages and stillbirths will also have to subject to
examination and review to ensure that they were not deliberate attempts
by one or more parties to be artificially induced.

... At least we can agree that abortion is not something to be taken lightly.
As I mentioned before, this involves government getting involved to an uncomfortable level.  Yes, this means that the government is going to put you under a microscope.  But this is no different than when you're applying for state welfare and they ask to see paystubs and bank statements.  Also, this would be why I feel it would be better if applied at the state level, because the living standards/cost of living in Texas are hella different from other places like... say, California?  Also, each state can work out its own punitive measure.  I won't take any stance on what that measure is.

We can also eliminate the need for the state getting involved like a welfare service does by going the other way: force a woman to carry to term, and then put the child up for adoption through the state system.  This would also eliminate the 'Class B' strikes altogether.  Which method squicks you less, Rev?

Your
proposal also does not really address whether or not the
blastocyst/fetus/baby is a person under the law; or at what point they
become a person under the law.  From your description it is black or
white.  Abortion is abortion if carried out three days after using plan B
or at nine months.  Personhood under the law is hugely important in
this debate is hugely important because of the implications to the
mother.  For example, if a fetus is a person under law, then any
behavior by the mother, such as drinking, recreational drug use, or even
medical treatment for existing or developing condition - anything that
put the fetus at risk could be subject to legal sanctions.  Children are
removed from abusive households - how would such things be handled
similarly for equivalent actions during pregnancy.  Is the woman taken
into custody for the duration?

That's because I wasn't really intending to deal with that aspect of the law.  Let someone else define what the legal definition of abortion is.  This is just to deal with that definition once it gets sorted out.  (To be honest, I don't know if there actually is a standing legal definition of what abortion is - until you brought that point up I thought there was.)  But, for the record, let me say that I would tacitly lump in day-after pills with contraceptives.

Abortion is a difficult topic; there is no right answer, or best answer, all we can hope for is the least worst answer.

Indeed.  No matter how you deal with abortion law, it's gonna be extreme in one way or the other.

If everyone has the right to abort when they damn well please?  You're killing babies!  Evil! 
Make abortion illegal?  You're nixing people's rights! Evil!  Get the
government/people involved in other peoples' affairs?  Evil! ... but probably a lot less so than the other two options.

[CattyNebulart]

You see, that's what really sickens me - that someone will get an abortion instead of putting the child up for adoption.  And it's not like a woman would lose her job over a pregnancy - unless I'm mistaken don't most states have laws about that sort of thing?

In the civilised world yes, but not in large parts of the USA. Though 4 months of maternity leave is federally mandated, it does not apply to small companies, and it only applies if the woman has been working there for a year.

From Wikipedia: "In the United States, since 1978, employers are legally bound to provide the same insurance, leave pay, and additional support that would be bestowed upon any employee with medical leave or disability. This only applies to companies with 15 or more employees (including part-time and temporary workers)."

I also have issues with putting that many kids up for adoption because the current system couldn't handle it, that can be fixed but that will cost money, and a lot of it. I also think it's cruel to the kid, but that is subjective. Plus there is the whole fact that it is an inconvenience and risk to the mother.

Also I don't get the whole taking responsibility argument. You wouldn't argue that skydivers should take responsibility and jump without parachutes would you? And even if you would who would suggest a compromise of each jump with a parachute counting as a strike? Getting an abortion is taking responsibility.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[SilverFang01]

Do I wish abortion was not necessary? Yes. But I believe it is the
height of arrogance to think that I know better than an expectant mother
about the terrible decision she might have to take, especially when it
is this society to blame for the lack of comprehensive sex education and
the willingness to spend more on weapons or the courting of a false
image of God that so many seem so willing to pursue, than on
bio-sciences, or science in general or society's betterment.

[Black Aeronaut]

Uhm, no. Kindly leave the God-talk and War-talk out of this one. This sucker's got plenty enough explosive potential as it is. If you do wish to discuss the impact of religion on government and/or spending decisions, then please do so in another thread. I'll be more than happy to pitch my two cents there.