If this is the main reason why you vote, then you should not be allowed to vote. While all life is valuable, we don't even take care of those we already have. There are so many children in foster homes and homeless in our streets. With the economy Bush and the Republicans (I honestly do not think 1.5 years of a Democrat Congress have been given enough time to start fixing anything since these problems were in place before they got there) are leaving us with, we will see more homeless and impoverished children, and we will not have the resources to take care of them.

I wish there were no abortions in the world, but I think as a country, we should be focusing more on protecting the lives and rights of impoverished children over fetuses.

Hey, Bob - can I use that logic to undo that whole "universal suffrage" thing that you apparently don't care for?

Hey, Bob - can I use that logic to undo that whole "universal suffrage" thing that you apparently don't care for?

Really? If it's so easy, why don't you. Regardless, the conclusion you reach based on my statements shows an underlying fallacy, so I have little faith that any logical "thinking" on your part would lead to a cohesive argument.

Really?

You would deny Beth the right to vote based on her position on an issue.

From that I conclude you do not support universal suffrage. You support some form of conditional suffrage. I didn't draw the conclusion any farther than that.

How is that marred by an underlying fallacy?

I didn't suggest that undoing universal suffrage would be easy. I just suggested that you apparently don't support it.

Hey, I *know* I'm an unthinking right-wing knuckle-dragging myrmidon too stupid to reproduce. Several lefty bloggers told me so, and they live in a reality-based community, so therefore it must be true.

Apparently you agree.