If America is indeed a center-right country, as measured against an old standard which we probably all agree is itself biased or at least out of date, then Ricochet as a group of people really is the center, and no offense, but that would mean that (say) half the people here are actually on the left.  Please keep that in mind the next time somebody gets indignant at being compared to pedigreed democrats: you all look the same to us.

IYKWIMAITTYD

More from that school of bureaucracy which insists that there is nothing political in accepting a whole raft of leftist nonsense in lieu of the very good evidence arranged for our ready inspection by nature or nature's God.  I blogged about Chaz Bono, and Largo, FL City Manager Steve (now Susan) Stanton.  

People become convinced of many things which are not true, but this does not obligate doctors to perform surgery in honor of such madness.

Hundreds or thousands of years from now, people will look back in shock and bewilderment.  They will not believe that they are descended from us.

There need not be a counterclaim.  The coroner's job is to establish facts, not try them.

Pedophilia is a well-defined term with a sensible definition.  Let's don't mix up issues.  This guy is a creep and a bastard, and a menace to your daughters.  A healthy society would fix the problem, AND YET, he's still not (at least by action) a pedophile.

See, we used to have a society wherein men not only bought the condom, they deep-sixed trash like this guy.

Progress!

Breitbart's accomplishments and influence are apparent to those who understand Alinsky--on either side.

Tell this Atlantic flak to do his own homework.  This is a trap.  All he's going to do is get you on the record as defining and therefore limiting the accomplishments and influence.  You will be the source material to be whittled down and managed.

Breitbart taught me that.

Well, it's all just organic waste if there's no Social Security number.

Pelosi is right to the extent that she walks in a path blazed by Rahe.  Pity that her excursions from it do not bring physical pain.

The Catholic Church has no excuse in this: they are supposed to be wise in the ways of not selling your soul.  Well, Obama has the deed, signed about a hundred years ago.

I very much agree with Jacob Foxx and CandE.  We don't need to replace every squish.  We just need to impress the ones who remain.

One of my favorite leadership lessons came from a fellow J.O. who came up out of the pit and said, "sometimes you just have to kill a chicken in front of the monkeys".

And it's okay to be one of the monkeys from time to time.  Just try not to be the chicken.

We have her to thank for ObamaCare.  She broke with Republicans and voted with Democrats for cloture on a critical motion, and lectured us all that there would be plenty of opportunities to defeat it later.

My guess is that somebody reminded her of that fact.

While I appreciate the reasoned responses, including my sparring partner's, I respectfully submit that this is a faulty analysis, but only because of the nature of the uncertainty.  It is not in question that in a generalized sense "the pill" can destroy "an embryo", right?  Likewise, in a generalized sense, "the fridge" can be worked through "a doorway".  But the example of moving furniture is about a specific refrigerator and a specific hallway, whereas the original claims about the possibility of destroying an embryo are (I think necessarily) non-specific.  If we were to climb aboard a tiny submarine and go to gemba, would perhaps be able to mount an argument about a specific embryo.  Until then, perhaps not.

Wrong again.  Possibility means that there is an element which is unknown to the observer.  The suspicion of the observer is irrelevant.  You are quibbling over what exactly is unknown, which is not the point.  Is this getting through to you?  It's possible.

I can pile suspicions and possibilities up all day long, but that is all covered with the statement that a thing is possible.  The only other option a priori is that it is not possible.

The point of this is to push the "responsibility" end of this process back to the decision-making end, where it belongs.  I am agnostic, but I don't need a burning bush to tell me that those who kill for convenience are a menace.

I urge you not to get all "up in a girl's vagina" on this argument, as it moves the conversation to what else got up in there and when, and why.  Which we have so far nicely avoided.  You'll not shame me out of a conversation by casting vague aspersions of furtive and perverted motives behind the conservative defense of life.

What's perverted is the permanent pursuit of supposedly consequence-free living no matter who has to die or go bankrupt to support it.

Nonsense.  If something

• is possible 

then all we have said is that it is not impossible.   We have failed to prove that it can never happen.

On the other hand, if one

• suspects that a thing
• may be
• possible,

then all we have said is that it is not impossible.  We have failed to prove that it can never happen.

Why are you even here, Grima?  Of course your problem is with his principles.  You don't like them, but here you are, a lion in a den of Daniels, using one of the most meretricious arguments in the liberal arsenal.  When confronted with positions you dislike, state that you don't care about that, really, and disparage the holder of that position by equating him with your own flea-bitten offerings.

Santorum ain't exactly blowing my skirt up, but he's not your Clinton and he's not your Obama.

In both of your points you presume that the founders were wrong to fear a mob mentality.  I therefore disagree with you twice for the same thing.  Now that's economical.