I don't think that is what dermdoc believes.

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I don't think that is what dermdoc believes.

---

I agree that he doesn't personally believe this, but it is the practical result.

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?

---

a fetus.

---

Which is Latin for "offspring." Very smart.

Macarthur said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.

---

Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.

---

No doubt there is an element to this. I read that a very high % of women that get abortions beyond the first trimester gave 'raising of funds' as one of the main reasons. Also, when you factor in that people of color get abortions at a far higher rate than whites, these types of laws (SHOCKER) disproportinally harm women of color.

---

So in order to disproportionally not harm women of color, we need to make sure women of color are able to kill their own children easier? Does that not sound like just the thing a white supremacist would want to do?

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.

---

Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.

---

No doubt there is an element to this. I read that a very high % of women that get abortions beyond the first trimester gave 'raising of funds' as one of the main reasons. Also, when you factor in that people of color get abortions at a far higher rate than whites, these types of laws (SHOCKER) disproportinally harm women of color.

---

So in order to disproportionally not harm women of color, we need to make sure women of color are able to kill their own children easier? Does that not sound like just the thing a white supremacist would want to do?

---

lol. No, the fact that it disproportionally harms women of color is an interesting side note within the context of what we've seen in the world the last several months.

The law itself (as you obvously know) has nothing to do with race specifically.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?

---

a fetus.

---

Which is Latin for "offspring." Very smart.

---

Do you think this is some sort of gotcha? I don't give a rat's ass what the origin of the word is.

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.

---

Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.

---

No doubt there is an element to this. I read that a very high % of women that get abortions beyond the first trimester gave 'raising of funds' as one of the main reasons. Also, when you factor in that people of color get abortions at a far higher rate than whites, these types of laws (SHOCKER) disproportinally harm women of color.

---

So in order to disproportionally not harm women of color, we need to make sure women of color are able to kill their own children easier? Does that not sound like just the thing a white supremacist would want to do?

---

lol. No, the fact that it disproportionally harms women of color is an interesting side note within the context of what we've seen in the world the last several months.

The law itself (as you obvously know) has nothing to do with race specifically.

---

you don't think white supremacists wish that black women would abort all of their children?

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.

---

Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.

---

No doubt there is an element to this. I read that a very high % of women that get abortions beyond the first trimester gave 'raising of funds' as one of the main reasons. Also, when you factor in that people of color get abortions at a far higher rate than whites, these types of laws (SHOCKER) disproportinally harm women of color.

---

So in order to disproportionally not harm women of color, we need to make sure women of color are able to kill their own children easier? Does that not sound like just the thing a white supremacist would want to do?

---

lol. No, the fact that it disproportionally harms women of color is an interesting side note within the context of what we've seen in the world the last several months.

The law itself (as you obvously know) has nothing to do with race specifically.

---

you don't think white supremacists wish that black women would abort all of their children?

---

I'm sure there are some of those idiots that would like that.

So what?

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.

---

Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.

---

Where have I said that? The chip on some people shoulders is pretty evident. We have already had the accusation that "rich repubs" will always be able to get an abortion. Still waiting on a link about "rich repubs" wanting this or even more so doing it.

And I knew someone would bring up race. Totally different thing granting all humans basic rights and giving the right for anybody to end a life. And if you in have to do a procedure to do it, then you are killing something, correct?

And potential means nothing to a poster. Think about that for a minute. That depresses me.

Just seem odd that people trying to lift up people of color want the same exact thing as those trying to eradicate them.

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?

---

a fetus.

---

Which is Latin for "offspring." Very smart.

---

Do you think this is some sort of gotcha? I don't give a rat's ass what the origin of the word is.

---

Ah, that clears things up. You are just absurdly wicked.

Repent.

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

"blessed are the poor, for they too shall be able to kill their unborn children"

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

This is where you draw the line? Someone pointing out the consequences of your statements?

Not the long threads with a lot of support full of hatred towards transexuals?
Should Christians tell transgender females that they are, indeed, female?
Virginia Catholic Bishop: 'No One' Is Transgender

Not the long thread with a lot of support praising the Taliban?
Unpopular opinion: We (Catholics) need to be more like the taliban

Not the long thread looking to lie about religious objections to a very successful and safe vaccine?
Religious objections to the vaccine

Not the long thread praising God for killing enemies of Isreal?
When Yahweh killed the first-born of the enemy of Israel.

And that's just from the front page recent threads.
Since you don't like it when I speculate on your statements, I will leave that exercise to the reader on why you drew the line at me pointing out that your statement will disproportionally impact the poor.

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

That's a reach. But you already knew that before posting.

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

This article is very relevant:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02343-7

Joe Boudain said:

---

Just seem odd that people trying to lift up people of color want the same exact thing as those trying to eradicate them.

---

No, one wants black people to be gone. The other wants women to have authority over their body.

Joe Boudain said:

---

"blessed are the poor, for they too shall be able to kill their unborn children"

---

This is just silly and disingenuous.

Dilettante said:

---

First, I don't think it's right to judge the validity of a thought process based on how much you like the conclusions. We do it anyway, of course, but "this is how you end up with eugenics" is not the type of claim that has the potential to convince me I've said something wrong.

Second, I don't think what I wrote has very much to do with eugenics. I just don't see the connection. You're right that subjectivity has scary potentials. But that's the world we live in, as far as I can tell.

Second point first blood part 2, I'm not against everything covered by the term eugenics. I think the ban on incest is a eugenic policy, and I support it. I'm also a big fan of trying to correct genetic diseases in individuals, and of embryo screening for IVF. I'm not a fan of some other things which fall under the eugenics umbrella.

---

Expound on graph one please because I am critiquing the process (to my understanding of it): you evaluate worth based on your ability to empathize, no? Or something's ability to demonstrate a requisite level of intelligence or functioning? Is that not the process per your last few paragraphs?

Since you don't see the connection to eugenics, what gives you comfort that you have the ability to adequately discern what does and doesn't have value? I mean I'm sure a sociopath would say the same thing (just can't empathize with others) yet you're not a sociopath. However you feel the ability to confidently express what is and isn't of worth based on arbitrary standards (brain activity at a certain level, ability to be independent, etc.). Where does that come from? And where does it lead?

Banning incest doesn't fall under the traditional eugenics umbrella. Tying quality of life to worthiness to live definitely does though, as you're not the person living the life. What gives you the confidence to say that someone with a genetic disease has no desire to be born and live with it? I know people who died in their 40s and 50s from ALS that had families and children and enjoyed their life, despite how it ended. I think (and hope) life experience will change your outlook on this. There is more to living than not having health problems or being unwanted by a parent.

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

---

Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

---

Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks

---

And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.

I don't get it, do you only approve of government-implemented assistance? This is an extremely disingenuous statement that always gets trotted out. Christians do and have since the beginning helped the poor and suffering. Churches, Non-profits, etc. do Gods work every day. Between that and the base standard of living in America today, it's just an awful argument.

But we're not working with the same base assumptions here. The real question is if its murder or not. I think it is, so in my eyes your argument is that the suffering poor should be able to murder an unborn child for a better life for themselves. You ostensibly don't think it's murder, so the argument makes sense to you.

We're all talking past each other.

File5 said:

---

I don't get it, do you only approve of government-implemented assistance? This is an extremely disingenuous statement that always gets trotted out. Christians do and have since the beginning helped the poor and suffering. Churches, Non-profits, etc. do Gods work every day. Between that and the base standard of living in America today, it's just an awful argument.

But we're not working with the same base assumptions here. The real question is if its murder or not. I think it is, so in my eyes your argument is that the suffering poor should be able to murder an unborn child for a better life for themselves. You ostensibly don't think it's murder, so the argument makes sense to you.

We're all talking past each other.

---

I don't think a fetus has personhood. So no, abortion is not murder to me. And while you can say churches provide support, etc, the simple fact is that the support does not match the need. Not even close. It never has and is not able to. Charity is almost always inversely available to the need. So, yes, there absolutely will have to be significant government assistance if you want to actually support and help these children once they are born.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

---

Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks

---

And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.

---

This is backwards. Just because it will occur doesn't mean the government should make it easy to cover up.

So there's the chasm we must cross. When is it murder?, Don't know how to convince you of my view, and you definitely can't convince me of yours.

As this is the R & P forum, I believe God looks on abortion as an abomination. Of course I don't expect that to have an effect on you, and the argument goes to intent - if you don't think it's murder, how can God hold you accountable? I suppose I'm playing it safe here, Pascals Theorem applied to babies.

As for your charity comments, don't know what to tell you but that more government is not the answer to all the world's ills. Your comments undermine all the work that Christians do every day with the tap of a few keys. Maybe if government didn't try to solve everything with our dollars, we could us those dollars to do more things in our own communities.

I disagree with your statement about inverse proportion, but it's kind of interesting - I think needs go up proportionally to government involvement via the entitlement state - ergo, the more government involvement, the greater the charity required to address the issues caused BY the government.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

---

Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks

---

And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.

---

This is backwards. Just because it will occur doesn't mean the government should make it easy to cover up.

---

Legal abortion doesn't make it easier to cover up. That's a weird argument. Are you going to argue that legal guns makes it easier to cover up as well?

File5 said:

---

So there's the chasm we must cross. When is it murder?, Don't know how to convince you of my view, and you definitely can't convince me of yours.

As this is the R & P forum, I believe God looks on abortion as an abomination. Of course I don't expect that to have an effect on you, and the argument goes to intent - if you don't think it's murder, how can God hold you accountable? I suppose I'm playing it safe here, Pascals Theorem applied to babies.

As for your charity comments, don't know what to tell you but that more government is not the answer to all the world's ills. Your comments undermine all the work that Christians do every day with the tap of a few keys. Maybe if government didn't try to solve everything with our dollars, we could us those dollars to do more things in our own communities.

I disagree with your statement about inverse proportion, but it's kind of interesting - I think needs go up proportionally to government involvement via the entitlement state - ergo, the more government involvement, the greater the charity required to address the issues caused BY the government.

---

There's a reason FDR won so easily 4 times. And it wasn't because farmers and workers in the 1930s were lazy.

Sapper Redux said:

---

I don't think a fetus has personhood.

---

why not?

honest question.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

I don't think a fetus has personhood.

---

why not?

honest question.

---

Because it's not a physically or mentally developed person capable of any independent survival. A fetus is alive in the same sense that any other cell in our body is alive (including the sperm and egg) and we accord cells no special rights because they aren't capable of holding or fulfilling rights. My problem with the idea that "life begins at conception" is that as a scientific position it's a mess. There's no "moment" of conception, it's a rather long process, nor is life magically formed from non-living material. Instead, it's when two cells go from 23 unique chromosomes (no sperm and no egg are carrying exact copies of the parent's DNA) to 46 unique chromosomes. To reduce personhood to a set of DNA seems especially problematic (why not the sperm and egg?) and remarkably reductive.

Now, when a fetus reaches a point of viability, I'd say the calculus changes. Though there's still the life of the mother to consider, and must be given at least equal weight to the child, such that abortion may be justified after viability in rare cases.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.

---

Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.

And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.

This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.

God bless

---

Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."

Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.

It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.

I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.

---

I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.

And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?

This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.

Now I am done.

And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,

I need some time out and grandkid play time.

---

This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.

---

Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks

---

And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.

---

This is backwards. Just because it will occur doesn't mean the government should make it easy to cover up.

---

Legal abortion doesn't make it easier to cover up. That's a weird argument. Are you going to argue that legal guns makes it easier to cover up as well?

---

I've been through foster training with multiple organizations and volunteer for / raise funds for a trafficking org. I'm very comfortable saying PP is a helpful tool for abusers. If you're abusing your twelve year old and she gets pregnant the obvious evidence disappears.

If you kill her it's a hell of a lot harder to cover up.