Yeah, I heard you the first time.

If you want to argue about who to blame for cherry-picked environmental issues that fit into the right-wing narrative. I suggest opening a new topic that can hold a 10-ton response from me.

My point here is simple... almost 3 million people died in the U.S. in 2018 and many of those deaths are caused by environmental issues (not limited to water supplies) that could be reduced through regulations that Republicans have traditionally opposed. Even if we take the political stab out of the statement and say it doesn't matter who is to blame, the fact remains that abortions are not the only method of "mass murder".

Thank you peg for injecting some santity into this discussion.

Since my wife is 6 foot tall and has a long uterus, our developing babies were harder to examine in the normal fashion, so she had an ultrasound on every check up. So I've SEEN what they look like in the early stages of development, that is when I could even find it.

No, they do not look like cute little babies and the heart beats don't even sound human. The doctor had to tell me that what I was hearing was a heartbeat. It sounded more like a washing machine.

I did too at first, but after really thinking about it I can totally see it.

Have a look at my post edit... I mentioned the war on drugs as an example of how making something illegal CAN make it more prevalent. In fact, the rise of pot farming in America, was triggered by Nixons clampdown on drugs coming in from Mexico. It was his ban on weed that created a thriving black market industry.

Yes, I think that is very possible. Do you have any guarantee that it won't?

How did the war on drugs work out? Did making weed illegal stop it from becoming the #1 cash crop in America? And that's just the fun stuff. Abortions are at the bottom of the desperation hole. The women that I know who got abortions were desperate to terminate, I think desperation can easily lead people across the legal line.

Not sure where you get that number from. The CDC says 1700 but it's still a big number. Far too big.

I can't speak for ALL the pro-choice people but MANY of them DO care which is WHY we keep fighting the so-called "pro-life" (pro-death) movement, which in our opinion is paving the way for even bigger numbers.


That's not really saying much. I mean, in just a few hours way more people will die from the pollution that Republicans refuse to control than babies killed in abortion clinics. It's all relative Rose.


I don't think so. The pro-choice platform isn't based on screaming about the murder of babies like the so-called "pro-life" platform is. So if any of them ARE unconcerned for human life... at least they aren't pretending to be.

In fact their platform is more focused on a woman's right to chose whether she can have an abortion or not, which is why I laughed when you put pro-choice in quotes. BTW, I put "pro-life" in quotes because I think their refusal to concern themselves with illegal abortions compromises that message.

IMO, the concern for life is more important than the concern for choice, so if I was to chose a side based on the platform messages alone, I would chose your side. But I've spent a lot of time looking into the issue and thinking about it objectively, so while I don't agree entirely with the pro-choice arguments that I hear, I am nevertheless convinced that banning abortions will lead to more abortions not less and THAT is the reason why I side with the pro-choice platform.

That depends on what those laws are... I still contend that banning abortions is the equivalent of turning our backs on the problem.

As far as donating to organizations that help the women and children... Absolutely! That's why I donate to PP.


It doesn't fly with me either but then again, I haven't heard a single pro-choice person ever make that statement.

It sounds like you didn't understand them correctly. You got the first part right, they focus primarily on pregnancy-related issues, hence the name "Planned Parenthood". But they also expand into other issues that are not pregnancy-related but still related to a woman's health, SUCH AS... STD tests, pelvic exams, mammograms, and birth control.

It sounds like you mistook those few examples for the entire catalog. But at least now you know that abortions are not the only thing PP does.

Call them again and ask specifically, if they will treat a woman's UTI (kidney infection if it spreads that far).

I agree, but unfortunately stating your moral position doesn't save the lives of unborn humans in the wombs of women who didn't get your message.

Yeah... Again, no easy answers for that. Sorry you had to experience that. I've already told my family to pull the plug if I ever become a vegetable.

Ah, so THAT's your concern... Aborting humans on the public dime. Got it.

Well, if that's your concern then by all means ban abortions. That way babies can be murdered all day and you never have to worry that tax dollars are covering any of it.

More like Simple-MINDED...
First of all, no dugh.
Secondly, telling people to be more careful doesn't mean they are going to listen.

That's like saying we can save the lives of all those school kids just by telling people not to shoot children. Yeah, it's a very simple idea isn't it? 'Think it'll work?

This exactly is why the more I talk to so-called "pro-life" people the more I realize how fake their concern for human life really is.

Well again, *IF* we are talking about euthanasia, we are talking about patients ASKING to be killed. BTW, euthanasia is not legal in the U.S., which is why I figured that's what 4430 was referring to, when he said "Now in some places they are making the decision to kill old folks!"

Otherwise, you DO pose an excellent question that underlies a moral dilemma that's plagued the healthcare industry for a long time. What happens when a patient is on life-support, his wishes are unknown and he no longer possess the capacity to speak for himself? There are no easy answers to that one. But then again, it's not the question I was answering.

First of all, what "research" are you referring to? Secondly, think about this for a second... If safe abortions performed by doctors in sterile clinics are legal why would anyone get a "back room" abortion?

So yeah, If the "specter of back room abortions" seems grossly overstated it's BECAUSE abortions are LEGAL. Ban abortions and that research will suddenly have data. It's really not hard to figure out.


Oh, OK... Just keep in mind that dismissing concerns as "scare tactics" can lead to real consequences.

Ya know, it's not even the ignorance that bothers me because that can be fixed, it's the "wilful" ignorance where people refuse to even consider the possibility because they are so hung up on winning the political fight which is apparently much more important than saving lives.

'Not the same thing Z... If I want to live and someone is taking my life anyway, then yeah, call it murder. But if I'm suffering so much that I would rather die and I ask someone to help me with that, it's called mercy.

If you tune into Trumps tweets and push your way past all the whining and bitching about the articles of impeachment you will find some chest beating about finally implementing the USMCA trade agreement.

Now back in September I did something I doubt any Trump supporter outside of Washington has done. I actually read it.

Then I posted this... NAFTA vs USMCA where I basically revealed the truth about the deal being nothing much more than the same deal Trump was calling a disaster, but with a shiny new label. In general, Trump won a small concession for dairy farmers but he lost the big "intellectual property" fight with Trudeau (who is apparently a better negotiator) and then there is the fixed wages proposed for the automotive industry that doesn't really secure a big win for anyone other than MAYBE the Mexican automotive workers.

The thread didn't even get past page one (LOL), probably because so few people actually care. But what happened in the months since then is that Pelosi refused to ratify the agreement as it was written because what little of the "disaster" Trump was able to renegotiate was so weak. Here's an extract from the Financial Times today...

Democrats successfully pushed for tighter labour standards, strengthened environmental protections and the removal of advantages for pharmaceutical companies in exchange for allowing a vote on USMCA in Congress. Ms Pelosi was able to extract enough concessions from Mr Trump for the deal to be endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the largest trade union federation.

Pelosi said the outcome is “infinitely better” than the original deal reached by Mr Trump.

https://www.ft.com/content/0cb01ba4-1b5e-11ea-9186-7348c2f183af

So, I expect Trump will be beating his chest about this "fabulous deal" that HE made for a while, but for anyone who actually pays attention to the details, USMCA is a story of how Trump's campaign trail attacks on NAFTA led him to an ass-kicking by Trudeau, Pelosi and the AFL-CIO. But hey, they let him keep the name-change, so at least he can pretend it's the amazing renegotiation he promised.