Well, I don't know. I hope you can see that our definitions are different.

I think we've made significant progress in the last 70 years in humanism, planetary environment and animal welfare. And I see that being completely stripped away by a man who not only he himself, but someone who is using the system to pander to his base for his own benefit, encouraging hatred over the fact that Obama had the nerve to be president while black.

And it's not just tRump, who wasn't even in the political picture when Obama was elected. But the Pubs were, and if you remember, they announced from the very beginning that they were going to do everything they could to disturb anything he tried to do as president. And they did. They sowed dissension and more or less silently supported the r****ts...

...but TRump, never one not to capitalize on an opportunity, seized on the vocal minority and gave them permission to be even more obnoxious. And they have been throughout his campaign, and his 44 months reign of stupidity and terror, undoing almost every modern advancement made in those last 70 years that appealed to me and many others, and seating lifetime appointments on the federal and Supreme Court benches that will continue to cause disarray for the next 30 or 40 years.

The lack of balance is definitely another symptom and result of a broken system. The biggest problem I see is the conservs being willing to return to the Dark Ages by strict interpretation of the Constitution, whereas I see the Constitution as a living document that must move on as people change - - a thought that is completely unacceptable to the right. The result, the consequence, is that things have become so polarized that nobody can talk to one another or allow for any compromises. It's pretty d********g down in the trenches.

Well, I guess we can agree on one thing, and that is that the system is broken.

But tRump's idea of fixing stuff with what I see as F*****m and Dictatorship it's completely abhorrent and unacceptable to me, and many of my ilk.

I'm a humanist and what today would be in favor of social democracy, and I have been such since my early teenage years. I've studied religion, history and politics for 60 more years and believe I've made an intelligent choice not to waiver. That doesn't mean that I haven't been criticized or denigrated for my beliefs, and that's okay, but I continue to assert my position. Surely, I'm not the only who feels this way, but all of us have a right to our own thoughts, philosophies and motivations.

How magnanimous of you to attempt to use patronizing as your argument. If you think that your condescension would it change my mind for one instant, you are sorely mistaken. I'm sure that others of your ilk believe that you've "nailed it", but those who know better can see through your feeble offering and understand that you've just issued a hollow objection.

Really ??? And what is your position regarding governmental financial assistance to feed low income and/or starving children, or to keep the family functioning; or governmental assistance to the USA populace who can't pay their rent or put food on the table because of this v***s that is going on to devastating results in the United States, in large part thanks to the tRumpster's recently admitted downplaying of the severity of the v***s and the p******c ??? You likely are able to infer my feelings on the matter just by the nature of my questions. So how's 'bout yerself ??? Be honest...

Well let's just hope that neither you nor anyone close to you ever has to face such a difficult decision. But if they ever do, if they were to look to you for support, I'd guess that you think it would be appropriate to insert yourself into their personal medical decision-making; for you to know all the intimate details of the situation before you could be supportive ??? Probably not, no, you'd rather make a law outlawing it out of hand because you think it's an a*********n. Oh do grow up !!!

Oh, now insulting. Well insult all you want, but you wouldn't post it if you didn't believe it, and since it comes from the bible, you're essentially quoting the bible. Logically, one follows the other.

If you're not religious, why would you quote the bible ??? Give me a break. Who are you trying to fool/trick/kid ??? You're not convincing me. Maybe yourself ???

Well deb, I am a human being too, and I think differently than you do. Such is life in the big city! From my perspective, the fact that you conflate the torturous decision to end a late-term pregnancy with "beating an infant bloody" just speaks to your level of indoctrination about the subject. They're not the same, and if you don't know it, you should. And if you do know it and try to use it as an example anyway, then you are being completely disingenuous in your attempt to discuss this very serious subject.

THAT'S your argument ??? Thank you very much, but I know exactly what I'm saying. What's the matter with you that you think I and others don't know ??? You presume that not thinking your way is automatically an error.

You mean this ???

Proverbs 6:16-19 (NKJV) “These six things the Lord h**es, Yes, seven are an a*********n to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.”

Well here's what I think Marty. You can quote the bible as much as you want, but if you don't admit that there are many precepts written in there that AREN'T followed, then you are lying to yourself and trying to lie to others who know better.Religious folk can't cherry-pick the rules they want to follow and then push them down anyone else's throat.

That said, I also believe that NOTHING in the hindu vedas, the buddhist tripitaka, the hebrew torah, the christian bible, the muslim koran, the book of mormon, the scientology dianetics, the pastafarian recipes, etc etc etc, ought to be the basis of anything codified into modern law.

If it's not YOUR body, YOU don't know, and it SHOULDN'T be any of YOUR business.

Just because it's become a hot-button topic with anti-a******nists doesn't mean that the statistics bear out the fact that it's almost always medically necessary. If you think it's a simple matter to be pregnant for many months, carrying a child that you can't deliver, and to have to make that decision, then you can't possibly understand why anyone would have the need to do it. It must be a heart-wrenching decision and something that should remain between the woman and her doctor.

Someone's religious precepts, fundamentalist laws and the government should be out of the loop. You need to realize that classifying it as an a*********n to humanity doesn't fit the facts. And regardless, it's ought not to be any of your business.

Yes that's very true. And it has been MY t***h since I was 13 years old and my older sister's best friend, someone whom I liked very much, died from a coat hanger a******n. I had a very rigid mother who believed that Peggy deserved to die because she wasn't "a good girl". So my decisions and beliefs about this subject, and others, are from personal experience, critical thinking and philosophical examination, not from any MSM or other propaganda. But it matters not to the Right/Wing/Cons/Reps who continue misunderstanding anything said, and twisting their erroneous interpretation to fit it into to their narrow views or meanings. As such, it remains virtually impossible to have a decent, rational, level-headed conversation with most of them. They think they're being glib or brilliant when in fact they are sabotaging any ability to discover what someone's true beliefs or real motivations are.

Talk about listening to propaganda. Good grief...hopeless.

Yeah Rose, we've had discourse on that topic before - - it serves no purpose. You and I will never agree until the end of time, which could be tomorrow or not for another 50,000 years, 65 million or or or...