Part of this depends on how many lefties vote on the GOP ballot since the Dems are wanting to punish their primary voters in NH this time around.

Life without parole should be life without parole. What a waste of time for the state to have to respond to each of these desperate attempts to undo the verdict.

>complete those projects ahead of time.

Not sure how often that happens in reality. Building ahead of time creates risk. Populations rise and fall. Get it wrong and you waste a lot of money. The more likely case is that those kids are getting bussed to a distant location for a good number of years while city hall debates or ignores the problem. Hope they like getting up early. Water and sewer might be better at this, although we still dump overflow in the river for Lowell to have in their drinking water, so I'm skeptical.

​

>Don't build any car parking; the train is for people that aren't driving.

This mindset is great. Supporters can't convince enough people that commuter rail won't be a waste of money and your tagline is "it's not for you!" If you make it just for the handful of people that buy into new housing in that somewhat isolated section of the city, it's never getting built. There's no point having a train station for such a small area. People complain that the parking garages are too far from Main St, they're not walking any significant distance to get a train station, and no one is going to trust that a bicycle will still be there when they get back. Busses would just lengthen the already long amount of time it would take to travel all the way to Boston, ignoring any addition subway or bus time you'd need on that end.

​

>If a park-and-ride option is desired, use an infill station next to the Pheasant Lane Mall.

Why would people who live closer to downtown want to drive all the way to the Pheasant? They wouldn't. That's not how our society functions. If you omit a parking lot, people will leave cars anywhere they fit. Then you'd have parking bans, upsetting the locals, mass hysteria. You have to account for parking. Even the thought of having multiple train stops in Nashua is reaching. It's a long trip all the way to Boston, every stop is going to make it a little less viable for commuting. It's also not an area people will walk to and even if you wanted to risk locking up a bike or taking it with you, that area is deadly for cyclists.

>They simply choose not to do so to benefit cars, like most cities and towns in the country.

That's our culture. What's Nashua supposed to do? Ignore it? Like I said, then you'd have a bunch of cars that you purposely didn't plan for. Big cities might be able to get away with that somewhat, but not places like Nashua. Motor vehicles are the only practical option for most people.

But it's only 272 days until Christmas.

Traffic is a major concern for that area. There's a lot of through traffic trying to get over the river, adding in local residential traffic and possibly even commuter rail traffic is just not going to happen without major changes. Whether that's severing Bridge/Canal St from the bridges and making it local traffic only or making both Bridge/Canal and East Hollis St one-ways.. something is needed.

Then there's the lack of schools in the area, a lack of recreation options (parks), it's not pedestrian or cyclist compatible. Who knows what the underground utilities are like... water and sewer.

If commuter rail does happen, they might want to consider access from the south, perhaps using Alds St somehow so the vehicle traffic isn't added to the bridge and local traffic on Canal/Bridge & East Hollis.

>no school should have the right to ban literature and impose religious beliefs or practices.

Why not? It's a free country. Parents should be able to raise their children as they wish. This is a huge reason why people turn on the public school system. Public schools want to take on the role of parent. They don't even think they need to inform the parents of everything that involves their children. If the public schools become unpopular, it's their own damn fault.

How is that a reply to my comment? The number of truck runs doesn't change the fact that residential areas have been creeping in on what has always been an industrial area. The rail yard is right near there too, if you needed any more indication of what the area is.

That area has been industrial for a long time. Residential uses creeped up on it. Not saying I'm for or against.

>It can't be murder only in one situation, but not in another, correct?

If you kill someone in self defense, is that murder? You have the thinking skills of a rock.

Context matters. Saying it's okay because they don't feel pain, a rare disorder involving not feeling paid is relevant despite being rare since it's directly on point.

Like I said in the first quote, bringing up a thing that isn't about it.. that's a situation where something isn't on point.

One of these things is not like the other.

That's not an answer.

Don't want to be murdered? Then don't get murdered. Period.

Amazing insight.

You'll never convince anyone by using language like "clump of cells", which you didn't even spell correctly. Why waste people time posting replies that? Desperate for karma or something?

English not your first language?

>If you approve of one kind of abortion when the womans life is in danger, you don't actually think it's murder.

Didn't say I approved of it, did I? You were using a very weak debating tactic. It's like people that bring up disabled people or children in a discussion that isn't about them, just to try to divert the flow.

>This is a pointless argument because you are clearly biased against anyone that is LGBTQ and wants to be happy.

Pointing out that there are associated costs to society and the fact that people were not terribly eager to change their beliefs if not for efforts like Pride and activist judges forcing it.. that shows a bias?

>Someday I hope you can heal and learn to live and let live.

Dispassionate observation is not a bad thing and doesn't define a person.

By replying, I see that as you wanting to have a discussion. Otherwise, why would you? Feel free to fuck off at anytime.

They are forcing their beliefs to take priority of the beliefs of others, which is where I began. These is a cost to society, which we all bare. The courts are clogged with divorce cases and family bickering, child custody disputes and so on. Employers bear the costs of benefits, etc. Again, I don't care about the right vs wrong argument here, I was merely contradicting this warped view that only the right forces their beliefs on others. That's clearly not the case.

Like I linked elsewhere in here, convenience/lifestyle-choice is the vast majority of abortions. You're referring to the extremely small percentage of cases. I'm not.

>I’m not religious

Ahh, so you're just using religion as an appeal. Nice.

>But why are you so deadset on making sure nobody else gets one?

I'm generally anti-murder. I'm weird like that.

>There’s no way to determine who’s right and who’s wrong and for that reason alone, we cannot codify laws preventing people from getting abortions.

Given an unknown, the ethical choice is to do the least harm. Ending a life is clearly more harmful than allowing the reproductive process to continue.

I love it when pro-abortion folks suddenly become religious in a debate. Now that's a sign of an argument that has no logical defense. Suddenly one must act on faith! Sorry, no sale there. Tell God I said hi if you see Him.

>I mean, its likely, but not 100%. Is the woman who is being made to donate to the potential person live? Certainly. So it should be her decision.

By your logic, the chances of the woman surviving the abortion are not 100%, therefore we shouldn't allow her to have one.

>You think people should be forced to share blood or undergo the reorganization or organs, tissue, risk permanent death or disability for something they don't want?

What force is occurring? Reproduction is a natural process. Giving blood, donating or receiving organs and such are not natural processes. Those are medical procedures. Two very different things. It's the opposite of force, it's doing nothing.

>But the main point you’re missing is that in the eye of the law, a fetus is not a person.

The law used to regard certain people as not being people. The law is not infallible. That's why we have the ability to change it.

>And people aren’t getting abortions out of “convenience.” Often it is a matter or life or death because pregnancy literally puts a mothers life at risk.

Not easy to dig up data on this one, but I did find this with their sources linked at the bottom:

https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

The vast majority are due to lifestyle decisions (convenience).

>As far as your last comment goes, a fetus has no capacity to feel pain until 24 weeks

There are grown adults with conditions that prevent them from feeling pain. Can we terminate them?

>There is simply no guarantee the fetus will be born alive. So the only real person in this situation is the women who is growing the fetus.

That's absurd. This is some "Schrodinger's cat" type of logic. We do know that abortion will end the life. Without any unethical medical intervention, a live birth is the likely outcome.

> Her decision should be the only one relevant.

Not if you're going to argue bodily autonomy. There are two bodies. You can't dismiss one simply because they can't consent.

>no person is entitled to the use of someone else’s body to maintain their own life.

You also aren't entitled to end someone else's life for the sake of your own convenience. This isn't a case of taking an organ or marrow or anything like that. Those are medical procedures. The reproductive process is not a medical procedure, it's a natural process.

>permanent physical trauma caused by pregnancy

Pales in comparison to having your life terminated.