Pro-Lifers Love Life, Their Country, And Trump

Gee then why wont Democrats fund Childrens Health Care today?

Republicans want to pass it!

Gee then why wont Democrats fund Childrens Health Care today?

What's attached to it? 

Funding for Military people etc.

Funding for Military people etc.

They can pass a bill that makes sure the Military folks get paid, just like they did last time they shut the government down. 

What's attached to it?

Nothing. It just funds the government. There's literally nothing in the bill that Democrats object to. They situation is that they want to tack on a policy bill to a spending bill. And that policy bill isn't even written, so there's nothing to vote on anyway. They are holding up critical spending on American citizens to get a more favorable policy for non-citizens.

They are holding up critical spending on American citizens to get a more favorable policy for non-citizens.

Maybe instead of ramming through a tax bill in record time that the majority of Americans were against, they could of possibly worked on a budget that was supposed to be submitted months ago.

Yea, we see and know their priorities.

Are you against paying less taxes? Now about ramming through Bills, Hmm What was that Pelosi said? "Pass it then find out whats in it"? Gee recall that?

Obamacare took years to formulate and has become popular and accepted.

We'll see about the permanent tax break for Big Corporations that are sprinling crumbs to appease and tease

You quoting Pelosi?

BTW didnt YOU get a tax break?

What Tax Break did Democrats give ya this year?

Coinciding with all that how is your 401K doing in the last year? Other investments? Tax Breaks drive up the Dow Perhaps?

And the rich just keep getting richer.

Coinciding with all that how is your 401K doing in the last year? Other investments? Tax Breaks drive up the Dow Perhaps?

My tax break will be eaten up by the deductions that I lose.

WASHINGTON - Several million people unlucky enough to face big medical bills not covered by their insurance would lose a valuable and versatile deduction under the House GOP tax bill. Groups representing older people and patients are trying to save it.

A high Dow doesn't create jobs or drive the economy because it doesn't create consumer demand for goods and services. 

Create your own wealth if you're so envious.

The richest 10% are the economic parasites but you are blaming everyone else.

Funding for Military people etc.

So you love the idea of holding the health care of 9 million children hostage to the paychecks of 2 million people in uniform.  The political scumminess of that should make you sick but you actually revel in it.  

Nope, it's the Democrats saying F-You to children who won't be able to get medical coverage because they chose to advocate for illegal aliens over citizens.

Nope, it's the Democrats saying F-You to children who won't be able to get medical coverage

Are you seriously suggesting that now all the sudden republicans are in favor of CHIP? Jesus....you REALLY need to stay off the reich wing blogs.. LOL I tell ya what... You go back say, 3 weeks, and find me an article where the majority of republicans support CHIP...

*crickets*

you REALLY need to stay off the reich wing blogs

he pretty much paraphrased Mitch the GOP bitch who broadcast that live on every channel

Are you seriously suggesting that now all the sudden republicans are in favor of CHIP?

From a CNN article:

Though CHIP is popular on both sides of the political aisle

And:

Republicans grappled with how to fund it before the end of the year. The GOP passed another short-term solution Thursday that will get them through the middle of January.

The democrats are more concerned with protecting criminal aliens than they are our iwn citizens and children. 

money.cnn

The democrats are more concerned with protecting criminal aliens than they are our iwn citizens and children. 

Why do you continue to lie when the internet makes fact checking so easy? Do you think that we believe everything that you say just because you make that claim? Dreamers have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans.

News of individual DREAMers committing crimes contributed to the public perception that DREAMers are disproportionately crime prone and may influence President Trump’s decision to cancel or continue DACA. ⁴ In fact, DREAMers have lower incarceration rates than native-born Americans of the same age and education level.

cato

The right wing keeps pushing to get rid of legalized abortion. Not going to happen. And even if it did? How many babies are these people willing to adopt? 100? 1000? 10,000? Imagine their shock when they ask the government for help to raise these kids only to find out that their own damn party keeps cutting...

Housing for the poor

Education for the poor

Healthcare for the poor

Food for the poor........

It makes no sense at all.. The right wants to force women to have kids, then offer no support in any way at all. 

The right wants to force women to have kids, then offer no support in any way at all

You keep saying that's aren't true. Don't you get tired of it? 

You keep saying that's aren't true. Don't you get tired of it?

Are you saying that the right wing is now pro-choice? Pretty sure they aren't, as is evidenced by the article. 

Why is it not true?  Hell, if conservatives had their way every multimillion dollar special needs baby would come to fruition.

majority of abortions have nothing to do with any birth defects.  abortions are not even allowed at that stage of development.

why do people insist on spreading stupid chit like this?

why do people insist on spreading stupid chit like this?

Because your side refuses to acknowledge it.  Think about it - if you had your way abortion would be illegal with a few exceptions.  Women who don’t want their pregnancy will be doing everything they can to fit into one of those categories, or seeking a back alley abortion.  That means courts will be clogged with cases of women trying to prove they were raped even if it’s not true, possibly taking things to induce birth defects or demonstrate that their health is in jeopardy from the pregnancy.  By the time they have won their case, the fetus has grown much farther than it should have.  If they lose their bid, a future baby may have been made disabled in the process.  Moron conservatives have no ability to take their wants to their logical conclusions.

Why wont the Democrats vote today and pass the resolution to fund Childrens Health Care if they care so much..............?

Republicans want it passed.

Why wont the Democrats vote today and pass the resolution to fund Childrens Health Care if they care so much..............?

Again.. What is attached to it? There is your answer. And if you REALLY believe that repubs want to pass CHIP you are insane. It's nothing more than political talking points. Just like trump saying that dems don't want a DACA deal, while forgetting to mention that his retarded wall is attached to it. Or, like saying a car salesman doesn't want to sell you a car, (because they won't cut the price of the car in half). 

.

Trump clearly doesn't want his wall built.....see how easy that is? 

Not only did they want to fund CHIP but for another 6 years!

Passed the House!

Democrats AGAINST Boarder Security?

Democrats AGAINST Boarder Security?

Clearly not. During Obama's term was the first time in history that more illegal immigrants LEFT the country than came in. FACT. 

That was an Pres Obama Administration numbers game. When someone was turned back at the boarder they were counted as a deportation. Till then it wasnt.

They didnt come into the country...thats the point... Also, the left in droves...look it up..

Also, the left in droves..

Wasn't that because of the 2008 financial meltdown that ended easy credit, caused millions of bankruptcies and house foreclosures and brought new building to an almost standstill?

Contrary to media propaganda, the majority (97%) of illegal immigrants do not work on farms.  

Which prevented us from prosecuting them for re-entry.

So which was the smarter policy, turning them back without documenting,

or arresting them, documenting them and then deporting them?

Dems want a full budget passed, no more CRs

When was the last time a Federal Budget was passed?

2008? 

No 2015,

by non binding resolution, all GOP votes except Rand and Cruz.

The dysfunction has to end,

and if the GOP can't end it with full control of each branch of the government we are 

doomed to more BS

I would have to have a bed and breakfast to worry about boarder security.

Democrats AGAINST Boarder Security?

The wall is a partisan boondoggle that will never be built. Tell Trump and the Kochs to pay for it.

You should reacquaint yourself with facts once. The border wall is not popular with the American people. Trump is trying to put DREAMers in jeopardy to get his border wall of idiocy.

As was the case throughout the presidential campaign, more Americans continue to oppose (62%) than favor (35%) building a wall along the entire U.S. border with Mexico. And while President Donald Trump has said the U.S. would make Mexico pay for the wall, the public is broadly skeptical: 70% think the U.S. would ultimately pay for the wall, compared with just 16% who think Mexico would pay for it.

DACA is very popular,

A large majority of Americans supports maintaining the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, a new poll found.

The  CBS News poll , released Sunday, shows 70 percent of Americans favor allowing those who benefit from the program, often known as “Dreamers,” to stay in the country. Congress has in recent days met to work on a long-term fix for the program.

keeps cutting...

Housing for the poor

Education for the poor

Healthcare for the poor

Food for the poor........

Pack of lies, provide evidence.

Pack of lies, provide evidence.

Fine, show us the last time REPUBLICAN'S proposed increasing welfare? We'll wait. 

Show the Cuts?

Show the Cuts?

So you cannot back up what you said, got it. 

NOT your body, NOT your decision....butt out where you don't belong!

Exactly. This really has nothing to do with children. It's about control. Many on the right still stick to that, "wife stays home, pumps out kids, raises kids, keeps the house clean..." BS. In other words, they think women should be subservient to men. This is just their way of saying, "women shouldn't be allowed to make decisions unless a man says they can".... Like I said, it's all about control. 

If women really want to control their bodies, they should try harder to not getting pregnant.

they should try harder to not getting pregnant.

Takes two to tango... 

Takes two to tango...

Indeed but women have the knowledge, power, and ability to control when or if they wish to become pregnant. I'm sure you've heard of birth control pills and Planned Parenthood. If a woman won't or can't use them, abstinence is another option. 

Indeed but women have the knowledge, power, and ability to control when or if they wish to become pregnant.

So, men cannot put on a condom? Control goes both ways.  

I'm sure you've heard of birth control pills and Planned Parenthood. If a woman won't or can't use them, abstinence is another option. 

How many PP's are there in Kentucky? 1.....for the whole state. Abstinence? Really? How did that work for Bristol Palin? 

Perhaps some cheap and easily accessed contraceptives?

In Italy contraceptives and condoms are available 24/7 outside of pharmacies in vending machines.

Oddly, yes.

When Trump started talking about abortion in the 9th month I did a spit take with my coffee. What an absolute moron who doesn't understand the law or the supreme court ruling at all. To use the rare practice only used when it's to save the life of the mother is a bogus claim against abortion and beyond dishonest. 92% of all abortions occur prior to 12 weeks, a tiny fraction of 1% occur after viability and even rarer to be at 36 weeks since it's is only used to save the life of the mother.

To use the rare practice only used when it's to save the life of the mother is a bogus claim

That's a completely bogus claim.

You should read the Casey decision and subsequent cases. You seem totally unfamiliar with abortion law.

Although it's interesting how many "pro-choice" people consistently rely on blatant misrepresentations. Reality is too ugly for them I guess, so they spout fictions to justify their position. 

You seem totally unfamiliar with abortion law.

"For 13 years, since 2003, federal law has prohibited physicians from performing D&X procedures, aka partial birth abortions, at any point in a pregnancy. Almost a decade ago, in 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the ban as constitutional."

Very few U.S. women abort after 20 weeks pregnancy. Even with late-term abortion allowed in some parts of the country and under certain circumstances, nearly all abortions performed in the U.S. happen before the end of the second trimester.

According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from 2012, 65.8 percent of abortions took place within the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and 91.4 percent occurred within the first 13 weeks. Just 7.2 percent of abortions were performed between 14 and 20 weeks gestation, which means just 1.3 percent of abortions took place at or after 21 weeks pregnancy.

While abortion opponents push the idea that women get late-term abortions because they change their minds last minute, or just can't be bothered to do it sooner—that they use late-term abortion "as birth control"—getting a surgical abortion is a serious, invasive, and expensive procedure, especially the later in pregnancy it takes place. Pregnancy itself is also quite difficult on women's bodies, and disruptive to their day-to-day lives. To believe there are women routinely putting their bodies through months of unwanted pregnancy, shelling out thousands of dollars, and undergoing serious surgery rather than use condoms or get an IUD or get an earlier abortion or whatever requires believing not just that most women are immoral or irresponsible but also, and simultaneously, wealthy, stupid, and masochistic."

reason

deral law has prohibited physicians from performing D&X procedures, aka partial birth abortions, at any point in a pregnancy. Almost a decade ago, in 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the ban as constitutional.

What do you imagine this refutes?

You falsely claimed that a woman can't get an abortion during her ninth month and now cite a case that says it's okay to forbid one TYPE of late term abortion, because others are available. The partial birth abortion ban only prohibited late term abortions where a living baby was vaginally delivered and then killed. The more common type of late term abortions are still, of course, legal. 

Carhar t is about regulating a method of abortion, not outlawing abortions for women in their final month. 

This supports my point.

o rding to  U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data  from 2012, 65.8 percent of abortions took place within the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and 91.4 percent occurred within the first 13 weeks.

Do you think this relevant to something? Did I ever claim that late term abortions weren't the exception? I didn't. You falsely claimed a woman can only get a late term abortion if her life was in danger.  These statistics don't support your false claim. 

These statistics don't support your false claim.

"just 1.3 percent of abortions took place at or after 21 weeks pregnancy."

Only 7 States allow late term abortions. In the other 43 States it is banned after viability. To use late term abortion as an excuse to ban all abortions from conception on is dishonest and ridiculous as they are a tiny fraction of abortions. If you want to go to those 7 States that allow late term abortions and fight for bans to prevent anything past viability, then by all means, do so. But don't be dishonest in the debate trotting out late term abortion as if that's the norm and the reason all abortion should be banned.

 If you want to go to those 7 States that allow late term abortions and fight for bans to prevent anything past viability, then by all means, do so. But don't be dishonest in the debate trotting out late term abortion as if that's the norm and the reason all abortion should be banned.

First, what the fuck are you talking about? YOU claimed falsely, that a woman in her ninth month can't get an abortion unless her life is in danger.   YOU bring up a topic and than blame me for proving you are wrong? What's wrong with you?

In the other 43 States it is banned after viability.

Again, no its not. You don't understand the Supreme Court's ruling if you think that's the case. It's unconstitutional for a state to ban abortion after viability, even with an exception for the life of the mother. I don't know what abortion propaganda source you got that from, but read the actual cases. What you are claiming is simply wrong. 

It's truly amazing how little abortion rights supporters actually know about how broadly the Court has defined the right to an abortion.  

I don't know what abortion propaganda source you got that from

• 43 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
  • 17 states impose prohibitions at fetal viability.
  • 2 states impose prohibitions in the third trimester.
  • 24 states impose prohibitions after a certain number of weeks; 17 of these states ban abortion at about 20 weeks post-fertilization or its equivalent of 22 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period on the grounds that the fetus can feel pain at that point in gestation.
• The circumstances under which later abortions are permitted vary from state to state.
  • 19 states permit later abortions to preserve the life or health of the woman.
  • 20 states unconstitutionally ban later abortions, except those performed to save the life or physical health of the woman.
  • 4 states unconstitutionally limit later abortions to those performed to save the life of the woman.
• Some states require the involvement of a second physician when a later-term abortion is performed.
  • 14 states require that a second physician attend the procedure to treat a fetus if it is born alive in all or some circumstances.
  • 9 states unconstitutionally require that a second physician certify that the abortion is medically necessary in all or some circumstances.

Although the vast majority of states restrict later-term abortions, many of these restrictions have been struck down. Most often, courts have voided the limitations because they do not contain a health exception; contain an unacceptably narrow health exception; or do not permit a physician to determine viability in each individual case, but rather rely on a rigid construct based on specific weeks of gestation or trimester. Nonetheless, statutes conflicting with the Supreme Court’s requirements remain on the books in some states.

guttmacher

My point remains, only a tiny fraction of abortions are performed after viability making their use dishonest when trying to overturn legal abortion altogether.

 43 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.

• 17 states impose prohibitions at fetal viability.

Numerous states still outlaw sodomy between men. Does that mean gay men in those states will go to jail? Of course not, because "laws on the books" are meaningless.

What matters is the Constitutional standard, and the  Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a woman's right to an abortion cannot be restricted at viability, or any point, even with a narrow exception for life of the mother. A woman can have an abortion at any time, so as long a doctor (who has a pecuniary interest in performing the abortion) believes it's in her best interest, whether physically or mentally.

My point remains, only a tiny fraction of abortions are performed after viability know from abortionists testimony in Congress, that any pregnancy is dangerous, an abortion can be legally performed at any time during the pregnancy.

Your claimed abortion , in the ninth month, only happened to save the life of the mother. That's patently false.

Moreover, thousands of abortions are performed each year post viability.

Numerous states still outlaw sodomy between men. Does that mean gay men in those states will go to jail?

I've heard sodomy is against the law in jail.

Then stop doing it.

There is no benefit from it

I doubt the men and women who engage in it would agree

and plenty of health risks from it.

Not if it's done in a safe and responsible manner.  But your point is a good argument for continued education on the matter.

I've heard sodomy is against the law in jail.

Tell that to correctional institutions' staffs and inmates. It's very common.  Don't bend down to pick up the soap isn't an old wive's tale.

Sodomy should still be against the law everywhere. There is no benefit from it and plenty of health risks from it.

By that "logic," we should also ban alcohol, tobacco, and fast foods altogether. After all, they have no benefits and plenty of health risks, right? 

Sodomy should still be against the law everywhere

butt

what wood Gomorrah say...

That's a completely bogus claim.

Your sort says that a lot about facts and truth and never show any evidence for it.  It's almost as if you've never spent any time in either realm.

Sodomy should still be against the law everywhere. There is no benefit from it and plenty of health risks from it.

Why don't you keep your mind on your own business and stop trying to push your views into the lives of others.

You're a little behind the times. Lawerence v. Texas.

Lawrence v. Texas , 539 U.S. 558 (2003) ^[1] is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court . The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas in a 6–3 decision and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states , making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. The Court, with a five-justice majority, overturned its previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case Bowers v. Hardwick , where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy .

used to save the life of the mother.

Wrong, it's done all the time, with this same lameass excuse

Can you put your proof where your mouth is?

There's no room in there what with all the bullshit.   

Wrong, it's done all the time, with this same lameass excuse

Why do you think that we would ever ask your permission for anything?

A crowd of more than 100,000 is expected to congregate in Washington on Friday for the 45th annual March for Life, the world’s largest annual pro-life demonstration. The theme of this year’s march is “Love Saves Lives.”

Well, if it's anything like the last few right wing get together/trump rallies, you can expect about 50 people. 

Hmm maybe conservatives have jobs to go to?

Hmm maybe conservatives have jobs to go to?

LOL yea, that's funny stuff.....with 9 of the 10 poorest states in the country being RED states... Lazy fucks. 

Hmm maybe conservatives have jobs to go to?

Not if this forum is any evidence for that.  

Liberals believe in strong empowered women to speak their minds and stand up for their beliefs- unless of course those beliefs run against liberal dogma.

Conservatives believe that women should be seen and not heard.. Bet you are wishing Stormy Daniels got that memo. 

Is that why McCain picked Palin for his running mate? How about all the women who are GOP governors and in Congress?

Sounds more like liberals think women shouldn't be heard if they don't toe the liberal line.

Nope, he picked her because she was half way descent looking. She is dumber than a sack full of hammers and a quitter to boot. By the way... How did she help McCain's campaign? Oh wait. 

Gee using YOUR Analogy how did that work for Mondale then?

Is that why McCain picked Palin for his running mate?

A decision I suspect that he never reminisces about except to rue it.  I wonder if it has contributed to his medical condition. Poor man. 

Rmando,

First let me clarify that I am an independent for the record. 

Second, I don't have an issue with women gathering to support their beliefs. I realize for them this is not based on anything other than their faith and not science, and I am fine with that. 

What I am not fine with is their agenda. Their goal is to take away choice, which is forcing their beliefs on others. I don't force my beliefs on people and I would like the same back in return. 

I am a women who never had an abortion. I am also the mother of twin girls. I fought to have them from 16 weeks on as I was having preterm labor. I knew there was no chance of life at 16 weeks because the threshold of viability is 23 weeks.. meaning that they can live outside the body. And for the record, I wouldn't ever even consider an abortion at 16 weeks, since I know that there is enough of a neurological system to feel pain, and I would never hurt anything, especially a developing baby. I am not glib about abortion. Most women I know are the same way.

I realize for them this is not based on anything other than their faith and not science,

I am not sure why you would say that? 

Because the science proves otherwise. 

I am sorry...science proves what?

That a zygot or fetus is not a human?  They are humans...not potential humans.

I have to disagree that women are pro-life based on faith only.  I think women make their decisions either based on faith, science, and right to life.

If it was science, then there would be no issue with abortions done in the first 12 weeks, since that is when the body will miscarry. Is the body commiting murder? I think not. Does that fetus feel anything before the miscarriage? No it does not. That is straight up biology. Without a proper brain and nervous system, it is still a group of cells that will grow into a person. 

And sunshine, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am just stating the facts as I know them as a biology teacher, and a mom who had to fight to keep her pregnancy. 

oh, I know that.

We have all been discussing abortions are entire lives.  We need to be rational about it.  Not just emotional.  Women are not slaves to anyone.  You may think that I am pro-life but I am not.

But, we can't wrap it up with a little pink bow and not be honest about the facts.  

Women who are pro-lifers come from all different walks of life.  You may be surprised.  Many just don't want to speak because of the fear of being ridiculed.  

I don't understand why a human zygote is more worthy than 16 week old human fetus.  Human life begins at conception and that is a fact.

Abortion terminates a life....not just a bunch of cells equal to spit.

Science proves what?

That an Embryo or zygote isnt a human life? Their Belief? A Scientist believes such?

Isnt a lot of Science based  on belief? Or Theory? Have they ever been wrong?

Vote ya Up.

more worthy

correction: less worthy

First of all I don't assume anything about anyone until they tell me something. So, no I didn't know you were pro-choice

I don't understand why a human zygote is more worthy than 16 week old human fetus.  Human life begins at conception and that is a fact.

Because the zygote your own body would expel for any number of reasons. It does not feel. A 16 week old fetus feels. That is a very critical part of being. 

Is the body commiting murder?

Of course, making abortion a crime would logically and legally mean that every spontaneous abortion would be a potential crime and every pregnancy a potential future crime scene.  I actually believe that's were the anti-choice (which is also anti-woman*) movement would like this to go:  every pregnancy being monitored by some kind of police state apparatus.  

* I believe anti-choice women are "Handmaids" by choice and want to force all women into the cult.  

Liberals believe in strong empowered women to speak their minds and stand up for their beliefs

...whether that belief is to choose to have a baby or not. No liberal is trying to convince women to get abortions, no one is "pro-abortion", they are merely pro-choice. Conservatives believe women are simply too weak to be able to make an informed decision for their own body and so want the government to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

How about forcing men and women to fund abortions for any reason with their tax dollars? It is now the official policy of the DNC to repeal the Hyde Amendment. This is from Hillarys Twitter feed:

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton
The Hyde Amendment restricts the reproductive rights of low-income women—disproportionately women of color. We need to repeal it now.
12:07 PM · Jun 10, 2016

How about forcing men and women to fund abortions for any reason with their tax dollars?

My tax dollars get used to drop bombs from drones on civilians, I wish I could have a say on where and how every tax dollar is spent, but I don't. Personally, I don't have a problem with the Hyde amendment. I do have a problem with the attempt to completely defund the reimbursement payments to Planned Parenthood for other services they provide like cancer screenings and annual checkups for low income Americans.

Doesnt Planned Parenthood get paid for those screenings through insurance?

Doesnt Planned Parenthood get paid for those screenings through insurance?

Some, yes. Others, for low income Americans with no insurance, they do free screenings which the government reimburses them for. And ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. 

Poor with No Insurance?

How can that be under ObamaCare?

"Poor and uninsured"

How can that now be possible under Trump?

How about forcing men and women to fund abortions for any reason with their tax dollars?

If we let everyone's moral opinions govern what taxes pay for then pacifists would have a case for no military spending or at least being exempt from paying taxes to support a military.  That worn-out old rag of an argument is as bogus as it gets. 

When Human Life Begins
American College of Pediatricians – March 2017
ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

acpeds

nothing said about a potential human life

The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature.

That's like saying the blueprints for a house are the same as the house itself. If someone burns some blueprints, can he be charged with arson?

stupid analogy.

and you are a doctor or scientist?

Or A 2x4 of Lumber or Human?

stupid analogy.

Why? DNA is merely a blueprint for what the zygote will become, it isn't a fully functioning built tiny human with brain function. It's not a tiny person, it's the plans for a human, not a human itself.

yes it is a human....a zygote is a human species.

if you value the human species the same as a house, well what can one say?  

Is it a Human Zygote?

yes it is

and you are a doctor or scientist?

Clearly you are not, especially if you cite the American College of Pediatricians. The ACP? Really? 

if you value the human species the same as a house, well what can one say?

A house has value. A single cell? Not so much. And it's intellectually dishonest to equate a cell to an actual developed and born individual.

Life is not personhood Cancer is life. Is it a person?

Does a cancer cell eventually grow into an adult human being? A fertilized  human egg does. Or just more Cancer cells?

personhood I believe is a legal term.  

personhood I believe is a legal term.

That I am not sure of.. but I am sure that 12 week old fetus is not a person. 

But is it Human?

It's DNA is human. I have never said anything different. 

The question was about life. Eventually all cells that grow, become something. Sometimes something good like a baby, sometimes something bad like a tumor. 

And this whole discussion has digressed. The original question was about being pro choice or pro life. 

personhood I believe is a legal term.

It does not apply to an embryo or fetus.

The American College of Pediatricians is a rightwing propaganda group. 

en.wikipedia

It's analogous to  Rand Paul's creation of his own ophthalmology association so he could give himself the designation of "ophthalmologist" without actually taking the American Academy of Ophthalmology's rigorous board exams.  There are a lot of these official sounding but entirely fake "medical" groups formed in order to fool people into thinking they're just like the real medical associations, in this case for example the American Academy of Pediatrics which is an academic institution, publishes a major pediatric journal and sets standards for pediatric practice, or the American Board of Pediatrics which handles the board examination process and which provides documentation for those who pass that exam the credential to be called "pediatrician."  Unlike this bogus "college" it does not make philosophical pronouncements on when life begins which is not within the purview of medicine or even medical ethics.  The only people who think this point means anything are moralists.   This whole bogus "beginning of life" argument betrays at its root basic ignorance of biology in the first place.  If it's taken to its extreme, it could be argued that since every sperm is a living cell, then all the  sperm but that one which fail to hit their target are murdered by the one which does.  

Here's a bit of trivia: The founder of the ACP is a homophobe who founded the ACP to protest the adoptions by gay couples. It also only has 500 members, as opposed to the American Academy of Pediatrics 64,000 members. The ACP is also known to be willfully misleading and has been designated a hate group. And this is the group that some pro-lifers want to refer to? That  speaks volumes about them.

I should have used "septic tank" rather than "group" to describe the ACP.

I should have used "septic tank" rather than "group" to describe the ACP.

That's ok. I know you were just trying to be nice.

That IS so me.

The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States.[1] The group was founded in 2002 by a group of pediatricians, including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 

en.wikipedia

There are a lot of these official sounding but entirely fake "medical" groups formed in order to fool people into thinking they're just like the real medical associations, in this case for example the American Academy of Pediatrics which is an academic institution, publishes a major pediatric journal and sets standards for pediatric practice, or the American Board of Pediatrics which handles the board examination process and which provides documentation for those who pass that exam the credential to be called "pediatrician."  Unlike this bogus "college

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

I am tired of your trolling.  Unless you can respond with an actual fact to support any of your dribble...stop talking to me now.

After presenting the bogus rightwing lie spewing ACP as a legitimate medical association you come clean about it  being a rightwing cesspool and accuse me of "bullchit" (why do you think misspelling the word makes it something else?).  This is what we mean by the basic rightwing tactic of projection and it results in all that bullShit you fling blowing right back in your face. 

Knock it off with the non comments and the insults, implied or direct. If you have nothing of substance to say, please leave the discussion. 

it is a professional and legit group of pediatricians no matter how many times you repeat your nonsense

Atheist happens to be correct. The ACP is a group, but they are hardly a legitimate one, and certainly no where near as legitimate, credible, or academic as the AAP. 

Not even a little.

but they are hardly a legitimate one,

in your opinion...which changes nothing

it is a professional and legit group of pediatricians no matter how many times you repeat your nonsense

Now that's some "bullchit."  Laughable "bullchit" but still pure "bullchit." It has a measly  500 members and doesn't even require that they be physicians much less pediatricians and even describes itself as conservative social advocacy group rather than a professional one.  It came into existence as a reaction to adoption by homosexual couples so that tells us just how extremely twisted it is.  

in your opinion...which changes nothing

In the opinion of the AAP and other far more credible organizations. It's your opinion which changes nothing.

It has a measly 500 members

Compared to the AAP 66,000 members.

and doesn't even require that they be physicians much less pediatricians

They neither have quantity nor quality of membership.

and even describes itself as conservative social advocacy group rather than a professional one. It came into existence as a reaction to adoption by homosexual couples so that tells us just how extremely twisted it is.

If that doesn't scream bias and lack of credibility, I don't know what does. But it also speaks volumes about individuals who support or reference such an organization. That's like using David Barton and the Wallbuilders as a "legitimate" or 'credible" historical source.

"Males may have the advantage of lifelong fertility, but as they grow older, the rate of genetic mutations passed on via their sperm cells increases significantly—putting their children at increased risk for psychiatric disorders, especially autism and schizophrenia."

scientificamerican

If some want to impose their will on women forcing them to carry pregnancy to term, should we start mandatory sterilization of men over a certain age? If your opinion is the government should have rights over a woman's reproductive process shouldn't that apply to men as well? Maybe then some men will get the point. If you want to take away a woman's right to choose then take away a mans right to choose. Snip, snip, snip...

Gee cant the sperm of an 18 year old carry a genetic mutation also?

Snip all 18 year old males just because someone may have a sperm that could carry a genetic mutation................

See how your logic sounds? Lets get rid of a sperm because one may be carrying a Genetic Mutation! Castration before Puberty! Well there goes procreation...............

Lets get rid of a sperm

I;m trying

where is that paper towel roll ?

Gee cant the sperm of an 18 year old carry a genetic mutation also?

Yes it can, but not at the rate of older men.

 By starting families in their thirties, forties and beyond, men could be increasing the chances that their children will develop autism, schizophrenia and other diseases often linked to new mutations. “The older we are as fathers, the more likely we will pass on our mutations,” says lead author Kári Stefánsson, chief executive of deCODE Genetics in Reykjavik. “The more mutations we pass on, the more likely that one of them is going to be deleterious.

Fathers passed on nearly four times as many new mutations as mothers: on average, 55 versus 14. The father’s age also accounted for nearly all of the variation in the number of new mutations in a child’s genome, with the number of new mutations being passed on rising exponentially with paternal age. A 36-year-old will pass on twice as many mutations to his child as a man of 20, and a 70-year-old eight times as many, Stefánsson’s team estimates.

nature

I sent you a tissue...........

Age may increase the odds. Never denied that. But are not the odds there since puberty?

 But are not the odds there since puberty?

asked and answered 

odds at puberty are not the same as the much higher odds at advanced age.

geez.........

I sent you a tissue...........

Why is it moist? 

the older a women gets the chances of a down syndrome child developing increases also, shall we force them to have a hysterectomy at age 40?

shall we force them to have a hysterectomy at age 40?

You obviously missed my point. If you decided the government should have control over one genders reproductive organs, you have to do the same for the other, otherwise you're a hypocrite and a sexist. Conservatives are already suggesting that women, from the moment of conception, must now submit to the federal government telling them what they can or can't do with their bodies. And just like back when abortion was illegal women will make their own choices, there's just greater risk of harm to the women making one of the most difficult decisions of their lives.

And just like back when abortion was illegal women will make their own choices,

Yes.  My 23 year old mother died of a self induced abortion when I was less than a year old in 1957.

My 23 year old mother died of a self induced abortion when I was less than a year old in 1957.

I am sorry to hear that mocowgirl. My condolences. But it's examples like that which highlight the necessity of always having legal, safe abortions available for women to utilize if they so choose. It's sad that there are those who would prefer to remove that option and right. I have actually heard someone once say that women who die or suffer complications from abortions (either self induced or otherwise) deserve it. Such misogynistic contempt for women is appalling.

the older a women gets the chances of a down syndrome child developing increases also, shall we force them to have a hysterectomy at age 40?

If a woman wants to have a hysterectomy or tubal ligation, they should be able to, regardless of age. However, some doctors will refuse to perform such procedures, especially on younger women and/or childless women either because they think a woman will change their mind or out fear of being sued if they do change their mind.

There are also risks from legal abortions, especially after 8 weeks.

There are risks to any medical procedure. Heck, there are risks from just taking Tylenol. Abortion is generally a safe procedure, and is probably less risky than enduring a pregnancy. Abortions in early stages of pregnancy can be done pharmacologically, reducing the need and associated risks with a more invasive procedure.

A single death because abortion is legal or illegal is not reason enough to change laws one way or another.

Agreed. The current general laws seem satisfactory. However, when abortion was illegal, the morbidity and mortality rate from (back alley or self induced) abortion was much higher. That's part of the reason why abortion became legal and medically regulated.

I have never heard anyone say something so horrible on this topic, but if it were said it would be appalling.

I've heard it, albeit rarely. Appalling is an understatement. Regardless of one's stance on abortion, wishing ill will or harm against a woman who wants or has an abortion is beyond the pale. Such vitriol is just not necessary.

BTW Cos, I haven't seen you around in a while? How are things? All is well I hope?

Not at all. Especially not for having a different opinion on an already touchy subject. Wishing people death should be left to the lowest of "people", like mass/multiple murderers, rapists, child murderers, pedophiles and traitors in time of war (for example).

Agreed.

Thanks. I took a break. Too much foulness and it was getting to me. I wish more here were like you. People should be able to disagree without calling other people an "X", "Y", or "Z" for having a different opinion. But some only have insults instead of an argument that can withstand scrutiny.

Oh, I have my moments. Especially when people tell me Babylon 5 is better than DS9.

I have been fine though, and can only hope you have been as well.

Yes, thank you.

True. But with Tylenol it is because most don't know how dangerous it is. If it were created today it would likely require a prescription. The difference between a safe dose and a lethal, or life threatening dose, is just 2 pills. I won't touch that stuff because of how bad it is. I worked at a pharmacy before and am well aware of the 10,000 +/- cases of overdoses every year.

The bottle does have instruction for taking the proper doses. But then, not everyone is compliant with instruction. Or they don't realize one should not take certain other medications (or alcohol) with Tylenol, such as Nyquil, which also contains acetaminophen. Personally, I prefer Ibuprofen over Tylenol.

The earlier the better.

Agreed. Less risky that way.

Agreed. 13 weeks is fine. Up to 20 weeks is up to the state. The only laws I have trouble with is where a couple states allow abortion at 24-26 weeks for any reason. I think that's pushing it.

Up to the point of viability (approx. 23 weeks) is reasonable. After that, states generally have certain restrictions in effect.

But it is a state issue for now so it is out of our hands. But most of the laws are reasonable, even if a couple states seem to be on the fringes.

Indeed. I don't think most people generally have an issue with the current laws and state restrictions. Although, more die-hard pro-lifers would prefer no abortions at all.

Higher, yes. But not as high as some advocates wanted people to believe.

It was still higher, which is not better.

It's hard to find data for many years, but in 1972 there were 39 deaths due to "back alley" or "self induced" abortions.

Back then, abortion was illegal, and safe access to it was probably non-existent or very limited, especially for lower income individuals. It's part of the reason why PP was started.

People should be able to disagree without calling other people an "X",  "Y", or "Z" for having a different opinion. But some only have insults instead of an argument that can withstand scrutiny.

Indeed. For some, that is their only reason for being here. They are not one bit interested on discussion or anyone else's opinion on anything that is different than their own. Trying to shout down others with their insults and hostile vitriol is their only purpose for being here. While they think they are being clever in what they are truly here for, they are as obvious as a boil on their face. 

Yet we still get along fine.

Yeah, but I do have to channel my inner Spock from time to time, LOL

But it helps that I don't shove my beliefs of a superior space opera that is B5 onto you.

Or vice versa.

Both shows are great.

No argument there.

DS9 is less serialized, which makes watching a single episode more enjoyable and some can even be skipped over, whereas I have to watch all B5 episodes in order to really enjoy it

The Dominion War story arcs did require more regular watching in order. Although, there were a few stand alone episodes thrown in. I think you really had to pay attention to B5 when season 2 started. A shame there was never a theatrical release of B5. Perhaps a reboot, like they did with Star Trek?

I agree. I feel the same at times. The stench of unadulterated hate voiced here by those few here sometimes makes my Spirit wane. But, I will be here long after they are gone. Others that thought the same as they do are no longer here, and they will find the same for themselves. So I don't let them get the best of me anymore. They are not worth it. 

And that's a big part of the problem with acetaminophen. Most don't read the instructions or know they should refrain from taking alcohol or other drugs with the same medication.

Chalk one up to stupidity.

IT's only the fringe states that don't ask questions or push legislation that closes down clinics. Boths sides of the extreme in state law are bad.

I think all states have some type of restriction in effect. A few or less stringent than most others.

There are some that don't think there should be any laws or restrictions too. They'd be the die-hard pro-choicers. Both are a small fringe. But there are more that are against any kind of abortion being legal vs those that think it should be allowed up until the water breaks.

It's safe to say that most people, regardless of their stance on abortion, accept or reluctantly agree with current laws and restrictions. They seem to become verbal about it when changes to those laws are put in motion.

Part of the problem then was also the state of medical knowledge and procedures.

Both of which were much more limited than they are today. 

True. But that was only for the last 3 seasons and as you say, there were still some standalone episodes.

But what an exciting 3 seasons. And the series finale was quite satisfactory too. Almost as good as the finale to TNG. DS9 really picked up steam with the start of season 3 and the introduction of the Defiant. 

There was a lot of lore in season 1, and a couple episodes that would pay off later on. But as a whole, most in season 1 could be skipped if one has already seen the show.

Didn't season 1 have the episode where Cmdr Sinclair and Garibaldi discover B4? That really played into the lore later on. Ugh, time travel.

Same with DS9.

A DS9 movie may not have worked. Unlike the end of TNG, where the crew was still together, the DS9 crew scattered. Sisko was with the Prophets. O'Brien headed back to Earth. Worf became an ambassador. You still had Kira, Bashir, and Dax on DS9. But they are not enough to handle an entire movie. I didn't see DS9 playing out to be a movie, especially since the Dominion War ended and Cardassia was not a threat to Bajor or anyone else anymore.

TNG had a few movies. Sure, DS9 finished its story and said what it wanted to, but so did TNG.

TNG still had the Enterprise and crew continuing their mission. So a movie seemed much easier to do. Kind of like a long episode. Although, Generations was a little weak. A lone and obsolete Bird-of-Prey takes down the Enterprise D, the friggin' flagship of the Federation? Seriously? They only did that because they wanted to show a saucer separation and landing. First Contact was awesome.

A reboot would be nice.

If the story is good.

Unfortunately the fan base isn't large or loud enough to truly carry it.

Which is too bad really.

Unlike Star Trek, which can go on forever,

One can only hope.

even after Enterprise damaged its perception for many.

Overall, Enterprise was good as a whole. But they did drop the ball significantly in a couple of ways. The show really hit its stride in the 4th season with some really great episodes connecting to the rest of the Trek legacy (not counting the finale). But by then, it was too little, too late. However, Capt. Archer's speech was quite emotional and inspirational and was the moment the seed of the Federation was planted. Ambassador Soval being the first to applaud Archer was a nice touch.

It would have been great if it continued on in spin-offs, like a finished Crusades, or covering the Telepath War, or if Legend of the Rangers wasn't as cheesy as it was. The lost Tales I think was a nice addition too. But now there are too many lost main characters, and the love of the show isn't what it once was.

Those were the times. The 90's was kind of like a sci-fi Renaissance. 

paulocoelhoblog

I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain.

Go get pregnant and have a baby.

Well said, Pat, and so very true.

Fear is ones worst enemy. 

I think It's Texas and Ohio that are on the two opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to restrictions, or lack thereof. The majority of states have it between 13 and 20 weeks without going out of their way to close clinics, but I could be wrong.

I think Ohio still has some restrictions, although they might be lax about it. I'm not really sure and I'm too lazy at the moment to actually look it up.

And those are who the laws should be made for, not the small minorities, regardless of their position.

Each fringe can clamor about how they want or think the law should be. It's the current law that is relevant and is generally satisfactory to both sides.

It's bad enough that the Miasma theory was allowed to persist and hold back progress for 2200+ years,

The lack of scientific curiosity and/or advancement is what held us back.

but luckily it seems progress isn't held back as was was in the past.

Good thing too. Otherwise, we'd still be in the Dark Ages.

Now we only have to worry about progress moving too fast for our morality to keep up, Lobbyists preventing or perverting research, and time travelers trying to profit off our gullibility.

In some ways, progress still seems slow in some areas. I detect a certain anti-science cultural vibe. Although, I hope I am wrong about that.

Yup, and Signs And Portents introduced the great enemy to come. 

Is that the one where Warren Keffer was killed by the Shadows?

I think even Bashir left to take a teaching or research job. So it would have been hard for a movie to really get a plot working, but if they can make Star Trek Nemesis then they could make a DS9 movie lol

No, he stayed on DS9 and started dating Ezri. O'Brien took the teaching job at Starfleet Academy. After all, someone needed to teach those kids the difference between a warp coil and a self sealing stem bolt.

First Contact was awesome.

Now that was a TNG movie done right. Good story, good villain, high stakes.

We got screwed not seeing Wolf 359 in all its glory, so the cube battle was some great fan service.

At least we got a glimpse to  Wolf 359 battle in the DS9 pilot episode. What a way to start a series.

As for Enterprise D, it was taken down because the Bird of Prey was able to get past its shields. I find that more plausible than the folly that was Nemesis.

You would think someone would have thought to cycle the shield frequency. That would have rendered the Klingon attack futile. But then, we wouldn't get the saucer crash landing or the Enterprise E in 1st Contact. But ok, let's say the Ent-D's shields were useless. This is the Ent-D, the ship that single handedly stood up against a Borg Cube and survived. It's armed with 10 Phaser arrays and 3 photon torpedo tubes. All they did was fire phasers once at the BoP in a short burst. The Enterprise could have easily unleashed a phaser barrage and a spread of torpedoes on the (uncloaked) BoP, much like they did against the Borg Cube. Instead, the Enterprise was literally blown out of the sky like a Grissom-class bitch! Now that's unplausible folly! 

I still haven't given Discovery a shot yet. But I will be adding that on my list of shows to catch up on.

Neither have I. I can't see paying to stream Trek. I caught a few bits and pieces. Let's just say my initial reaction is less than pleased. But I'll reserve judgement.

The first and fourth seasons were great. I really liked how they knew they had to start acting like a prequel and expand on the Kingons looking the way they did, the creation of Section 31, ect ect. But it was too late to revitalize the show.

The first couple of season should have focused on exploration, much like TOS trek did. New worlds, new civilizations and all that. I hated the Temporal Cold War subplot. Although, showing the relationship between the Andorians, Vulcans, and Tellarites, and seeing how they would eventually put aside their differences thanks to human diplomacy (mainly by Capt. Archer) and join to form the Federation was very good. Let's face it, Weyoun, I mean Brunt, I mean Shran, yes Shran, was an awesome character. LOL

So true. Today they seem too reliant on CGI and barely can come up with a good story.

There is something to be said for practical model effects.  Look back to TOS: they didn't have much of a budget for flashy effects. Instead, they had to come up with some strong stories, which they did: The Doomsday Machine, Amok Time, Trouble with Tribbles, ect. to name a few. Of course, they had a few, shall we say, weaker stories. Spock's Brain anyone? 

BSG reboot being one of the few exceptions to the decline in good sci-fi since the '90s.

Indeed. That's a reboot done right. Although, I still have a certain nostalgic fondness for the original BSG. Adama was Admiral "cool under fire." The BSG reboot characters were perfect. And having Six around in that red dress certainly didn't hurt. 

the older a women gets the chances of a down syndrome child developing increases also, shall we force them to have a hysterectomy at age 40?

No we should force all women to carry all pregnancies to term, no matter what the condition of the fetus is.....right? 

Uh, BTW, where did the Big Bang come from?.........................(cue crickets sound here...lol!).

The honest answer is, no one knows.

Oh, and crickets, well, they were made by God.

That's nice. Prove it! By that token, where did your god come from?

I liked Babylon 5 a lot. Deep Space 9 was ok but my 2nd least favorite of the Star Trek series of shows.

B5 was good. DS9 was better. TNG was probably the best of the trek series. Although, I do have a certain fondness for TOS.

I liked Babylon 5 a lot

Well, we agree on somethings

No, it's the one where Mr Morden asks everyone "What do you want".

Oh right. Vir had the best reply to that question. 

LOL I love the running gag with the Self Sealing Stem bolts, almost as much as Morn being too talkative.

Well, according to Quark, Morn did tell the funniest joke in the universe.

And the first to give a real back story and motivation behind their Commander/Captain.

What really makes that so great is we see how Sisko evolved as a person over the years, from being a bitter, angry man to accepting his position as the Bajoran Emissary, to even considering Bajor to be home. Great character development. Although, you could tell Sisko really wanted to punch Capt. Picard when they discussed his assignment to DS9.

True. But they rarely used the firepire they could bring to bare. They tried to use their brains first to solve their problems too often. There were a few exceptions of course.

Yeah, and look where that got them. It's like the Enterprise didn't even try. I will say this for Capt. Kirk, he would have been quicker on the phasers.

I think the first season tried to do that, while slowly adding familiar names and places. They found themselves needing repairs too often to truly go where no one had gone before though.

The NX Ent did seem fragile at times. But it could take a pounding too. Not bad for a ship without shields.

Maybe a couple episode arc would have been fine, but they used season 2 and 3 on seasonal arcs which slowed the series down and took it to a weird place.

I think it should have been avoided altogether. It only detracted from the show.

I liked how the Aldorian was a bitter rival and slowly became Archer's greatest supporter. The pairing and personalities of the two was one of the best parts of the series.

In terms of chemistry, Shran was to Archer that Q was to Picard. They may not have liked each other at times, but they stole the show when they were together.

they would often reuse digital effects footage. Like the Klingon ships being reused multiple times in the films.

They were still budget conscious I guess.

The worst is when they just flipped the image of a BoP being blown up.

That was probably the most obvious reuse. "Hey, I got a little Undiscovered Country in my Generations."

The original had to do it without the aid of a big budget, CG, and a preexisting fanbase. That makes their achievement all the better.

The show, and its legacy today, only exists because of the fans.

Red Dress or Seven's uniform, sci-fi creators know what we like and never fail to deliver.

Indeed. It was a variation of the  "Theiss Titillation Theory": The sexiness of an outfit is directly proportional to the perceived possibility that a vital piece of it might fall off . In those cases, skintight or sexy costumes (especially Seven's) had the same effect. It didn't hurt that Six and Seven (I'm noticing a pattern here) are uber hot to begin with. Maybe in a new sci-fi series, there will be a sexy female character named Eight?

But Amazing Fantasy #15 isn't really proof that Spider-Man is real or had a beginning/origin story. So we might be at an impasse on this issue* lol

Hey, getting bitten by a radioactive spider and gaining superpowers is more plausible than god's origins. I'm tempted to roll around in toxic waste just so I can get super powers. LOL

He's a self-creating creator. Which seems to violate at least 1 of the laws of thermodynamics. I just can't figure which on

It does seem quite convenient.

But not as high as some advocates wanted people to believe. It's hard to find data for many years, but in 1972 there were 39 deaths due to "back alley" or "self induced" abortions.

Allow me to educate you on the reason that you cannot find data on women who have died via self-induced or back alley abortions, it is because abortion is rarely listed as  the cause of death.  

My mother's cause of death was listed as kidney failure.

For anyone interested in the history of abortion in the US from the time it was legal then illegal and now legal again, there is a very good article at the link below.

theatlantic

Far from foisting a radical departure on an unready nation, the Supreme Court was responding to a decade-long buildup of popular sentiment for change. The movement was spearheaded by doctors who saw firsthand the carnage created by illegal abortion (more than 5,000 deaths a year, mostly of black and Hispanic women), and whose hands were now firmly tied by the hospital committees they themselves had created. They were joined by civil-liberties lawyers, who brought to their briefs a keen understanding of criminalization's discriminatory effects; and by grassroots activists in the reborn women's movement, who by the end of the 1960s were resisting the law, forming such groups as the Society for Humane Abortion, in California, which denounced restrictions as insulting and humiliating to women, and Jane, in Chicago, which began as an abortion-referral service and ended by training its members to perform abortions themselves.

LEGALIZING abortion was a public-health triumph that for pregnant women ranked with the advent of antisepsis and antibiotics. In 1971, the year after decriminalization, the maternal-mortality rate in New York State dropped 45 percent. Today, however, the inequality of access that helped to bring illegality to an end is once again on the increase. More than 80 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion providers, and some whole states have only one or two. The Supreme Court has allowed states to erect barriers to abortion -- denial of public funds for poor women's abortions, parental consent and notification requirements, mandatory delays, "counseling sessions." Anti-abortion zealots have committed arson, assault, and murder in their campaign against abortion clinics. A new generation of doctors, who have never seen a woman die from a septic abortion or been haunted by the suicide of a patient denied help, are increasingly reluctant to terminate pregnancies.

Reagan suggests that the abortion debate is really an ideological struggle over the position of women. How free should they be to have sexual experiences, in or out of marriage, without paying the price of pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood? How much right should they have to consult their own needs, interests, and well-being with respect to childbearing or anything else? How subordinate should they be to men, how deeply embedded in the family, how firmly controlled by national or racial objectives? 

Great article.  

It is hard for me to take any question from you seriously because you describe yourself as an atheist.  I mean, where did everything come from, Mr. Atheist?  Your likely answer:  The Big Bang.   Oh, okay..........

You are confused. The Big Bang is a theory... God is a myth. You should look up the difference between the two. While you are at it? Prove that god created everything.. Thanks.

Prove he/she/it didn't create everything.

A logical fallacy. Prove that everything wasn't created fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes! The onus of proof lies on the one making the affirmative claim. 

You cannot prove that something DOESN'T exist. You know that. But if you really want to go down that road. Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. Bigfoot? Loch Ness Monster? Aliens from Pluto? 

Aliens from Pluto?

Everyone knows aliens from Pluto exist. They're called