Laura,

"Why do you think you have a right to dictate a woman's medical choices???"

I'm talking about the father's reproductive rights.

Why shouldn't he have an opportunity to have a say on the matter?

Liberals have some odd logic when it comes to divvying up civil rights among all effected parties.

Sy,

OK...I'm sure something can worked out.

Snoofy,

"Figures that Nullifidian can't even conceive of a woman's body her own private property."

It is ironic how women talk about men exerting authority over their bodies and forcing them into complying, when that is essentially what the woman is doing to her child when she decides to end its life.

Laura,

"If the government mandated men get vasectomies until they could provide for a baby they would have a conniption fit but they see no problem dictating what a woman can do and can't do with her body".

I do believe if a man is willing to sign an affidavit willing to be the legal guardian, the courts should block the woman from killing his child and hand over the child when it is born.

As far as vasectomies, maybe you're onto something?

Some serial "baby-makers" impregnating women and not taking responsibility...well...don't be so sure I would have a "conniption fit".

I think conservatives consider abortion a slippery slope to be watched.

Personally I doubt most conservatives would want to see legalized abortion totally banned.

But most do want restrictions. This particular case is about making sure women take this serious.

Sort of like requiring meat eaters to watch an animal be killed in order to buy a pound of ground beef. It's easy to forget just where your pack of ground beef came from or live in denial.

Where does it all end?

Could abortion lead to justified infanticide?

Or how easily will it be to move into a society of designer children casually aborting children considered undesirable.

This isn't just like pulling a tooth.

This is killing a human being simply for the convenience of not being stuck with a baby you don't want.

Danni,

Stay on topic.

Abortion.

Don't extrapolate as a defense.

Actually it's ironic conservatives oppose abortion.

I mean...the majority of abortions are low income women who will likely give birth to people who will live off the government much of their lives.

Lest anyone think otherwise, while I do think abortion is the killing of a human being, I would not suggest abortion should be illegal.

It is morally wrong but a necessary evil.

Just like capital punishment.

I see it's place in society so long as the person is truly guilty. Our courts aren't perfect but nothing is.

At least with capital punishment the right person is paying the price for bad decisions, unlike abortion.

Laura,

"No dear it's a potential life."

Then why do they have to kill it before removing it?

Hans,

"Not since the 1973 SCOTUS decision legalizing abortion."

A court decision?

Are you serious?

You know....flagging my comment funny is sort of morbid.

There is nothing funny about abortion.

Snoofy,

People like Snoofy amaze me.

Abortions result in someone dying.

Laura,

"You don't care about the unborn Boaz."

Interesting use of the word, "unborn".

You are admitting this is something that left alone would ultimately be "born".

It is a life. Just not yet born.

Personally, I think the defining difference between pro-choice and pro-life is whether one uploads and believes in the Sanctity of Life.

I've said time and again I would feel better about pro-choice philosophy if it included the idea the piece of meat being removed is actually a life but that.... the woman reserves the right to control her body. That would make sense. Still morally wrong but makes sense.

But that's not how its played. Pro-choice folks say it's not even a life. In my opinion that's just a way to deal with the knowledge they are killing their own child. Once you admit that, it's a whole new game.

Dan,

"Pretending the blame is equal all around is an ostrich move."

Did I exactly say equal or did I say both sides contributed in their owns ways, direct and indirect?

I like the word acquiescent (it's fun to say).

Dan,

Bill Clinton's surplus was due to the dot.com boom.

Dan,

"They voted against, en masse."

I'm talking about leaders, not voters.

I'm talking about the people who actually have the power to make changes that might benefit all American citizens.

Talk...talk...talk...

My whole point is both republican and democrat leaders are at fault and only working together do they stand a chance of doing anything without someone else deliberately sabotaging their efforts using passive aggressive techniques and downright attacks.

Both republicans and democrats have good ideas and blind spots.

Frankly....as voters we're sort of dumb...really.

I mean...every 4 years we still think our candidate will stem the tide of resistance.

At least Trump has sustained the economy and the stock market.

Do you think things would be going as well with Hillary at the helm?

Trump has inspired public confidence in our economy.

Would Hillary have been able?

Well...my wife wants me getting Christmas boxes out of the attic.

Time to do some work.

Dan,

Look back at the big news stories involving economic scandals and failures (that came to light) since the 80's.

Nothing short of mass collusion among high stack players (both republican and democrat) and agencies responsible for oversight (run by both republicans and democrats) and benefactors who played dumb (again both republican and democrat) were required for things to reach such critical stages.

Dan,

If I've seen one commonality among all politicians, it's this.

Everything is someone else's fault

Dan,

"By whom? Authors of the last three have been Trump, Dubya, and Dubya; before that, Reagan."

And the democrats are acquiescent.

Talk...talk...talk...

Dan,

I agree the tax code is rigged too.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an overhaul.

I don't believe either party is totally at fault or capable of solving things.

What is needed is the one thing we can't have.

Bipartisan agreement to address problems without concern who gets the credit.

It's not the nature of the beast.

I'm afraid nothing short of a complete collapse and rising from the ashes doing it better next time will result in a fairer system (at least for awhile).

Yes...republicans have contributed tremendously and has a lot to do with my not voting for them after Reagan until Trump.

At this point we're using debt to postpone the inevitable.

Just my opinion.

I'm not a republican apologist.

I just don't see democrats being able to do what needs to be done.

And more free stuff isn't it.

Dan,

I agree government spending is crazy.

You don't know what Hillary would have done.

Dan,

Consumer debt is on the rise as well as the rich's percentage of global wealth.

Do the math.

Speak,

Talk talk talk.

You can be sure neither the republicans nor the democrats will do a damn thing for the working struggling middle class.

We grease the wheels.

Lazy democrats see the middle class as not really deserving of their hard earned money and the rich see the middle class as uppity poor who are fodder for their consumption.

Neither give the middle class the least bit of respect.

Hillary was no less beholden and supportive of the rich than anyone else. Open your eyes.

It's takes deep pockets to get elected.

Speak,

"Rigged for those rich"

I can agree with that.

But you haven't been seeing rich democrats doing anything about it, have you.

Speak,

"When you're on top of a rigged game, and change can only be bad for you."

Rigged for who?

Are you under the impression the only people who vote republican are the rich and white extremists?

Maybe if Democrats weren't turning into anti-Christian zealots and making fun of rural America they'd get more support.

Just for starters.