Snoofy, you kind of went off on a rant, but in it you did direct a question to me along the gist of "ending an ectopic pregnancy is ending a life", and that should cause some form of moral dilemma for me. At least I felt that was the intent, perhaps it was the intent to infer this could cause a coding issue for the doctor to record the procedure.

Addressing the first possible intent, my personal take on abortion is that it does end a life and that should be acknowledged. It's also my personal take that life and conscious life are different(to me), and that does allow for compassionate abortions. Daily life is not a collection of black and white issues and experiences, and while I found it incredibly unfortunate to end a life to ensure the safety of the mother, I feel strongly that an abortion in that case should be acceptable. So there is no moral dilemma there for me.

I believe that since you asked the question others have addressed that there shouldn't be a coding issue for ectopic vs abortion. If there is an legal ambiguity then it should be of the highest order to address in the law.

#25 - HOLY S****. A post on this site that it reminiscent of the quality of discourse this site had back in the day when I first joined. Thanks for bringing a bit of sanity Sentinel.

#18 you all want this SOOOOOO badly to be unclear, but it's not.

even in legalese it's pretty plain language that treating an ectopic pregnancy will not be considered an abortion, and doesn't need to be reported as one.

Twist it around all you like, it's what the doctors that vote left are doing by pretending they're afraid of this, but it's political theater and pretty disgusting.

this is why having "loose" application of immigration laws and sanctuary cities is bad. It keeps these people in a limbo of being a sub class working for slave wages. The left needs to move away from supporting flaunting immigration laws, and the right needs a sensible and humane way of enforcing them and be willing to negotiate to account for the realities in place. As we stand now though, we are using people as political footballs and expecting them to accept under the table slave wages.

#44 I thought the argument though was that the citizenry would be useless against the military even with AR-15 type weapons, so that's why we didn't need them. Now you claim rocks and fireworks are enough. I'm gonna need you to pick one of those statements.

Rocks and fireworks are enough
or
Even with AR-15's people don't stand a chance

A lot of tyranny, dictator, secession talk...

Who wants to revisit the 2nd amendment and who NEEDS an AR-15 like weapon discussions now?

The democrats don't have to get rid of LGBTQ from their party to be successful. They only have to be semi-moderate in regards to it. Instead right now it's an all or nothing litmus test, and that is what is pushing people away. Being just a bit less dogmatic on their TQ stances, Kamala probably would have won.

"I have made it very clear.
1 )This does not bother me.
2 ) It will eventually work itself out."

It's interesting that it doesn't bother you. A core tenet in the lefts platform is protecting right especially historically minimalized groups. Here though you have two groups that meet the criteria, so for the left it's a circular firing squad. You can't back on minimalized group without impacting the other. The only answer is that one group, trans or women, aren't going to get everything they want.

Your response there, Is it doesn't bother me... and it'll work itself out.

In any other circumstance, you'd be all in on the side of the the group that is pushing for their rights. It's not clear cut here though so you claim disinterest, and claim sexual fetish for anyone that does want to weigh in on the topic. smh

Yet you're the one who keeps barking about. Have you considered discussing this from a fairness perspective and not a sexualized fantasy perspective?

Or would you rather keep throwing rocks at yourself, and yelping about it?

What is your bizarre fascination with making this a hidden sexual fascination? This is a matter of sporting and fairness.

Your insistence that it has to be more than that for me seems more like projection on your part at this point honestly.

How does "I have family that competes in women's sports" translate to you that this topic makes me question my sexuality.

It's comments like that, that really show you're the one with the sick viewpoint on this subject. Seek some ------- help man, not everyone views life through questioning their sexuality. You need help.

It would have to be linked as it is what allows the tool into the mix. I do think those stats are misused. I don't think lumping in suicides with violent acts is correct. I would also compare acts of violence in general with the world, and not gun violence alone.

Hopefully I answered your question?

replace right with left, and you're describing yourself Danni.

"Your entire agenda here is denying that a woman can be born anything but female. That's it."

yes.

A man can become a trans woman, a trans woman is not the same thing as a woman. Close neighbors, but they are not in the same house.

men =/= women. They are different.

Are you claiming that black people are different? Please tell us how black people are a different thing than white people. Should be interesting.

To answer your question snoofy, exactly because of the Testosterone I'd put them in the mens category too for competition.

None of this is a perfect solution. But it allows everyone to play/compete, while not interfering with the rights of girls/women.

At least this way everyone gets to participate

Trans athletes should compete in the mens/boys. Exercising their rights shouldn't restrict women's rights. They have a right to compete, not saying they don't. They don't have a right to women's sports though.

#22 Yes racist, if you can't see it, I can't help you there.

So women should adapt? Or die off? Because they should have to adapt to men, that want to play in their sports, and if they don't we'll just not have women in women's sports?

Is that really the argument you want to go with? Mysogynistic and Racist, that's certainly one approach.

What a weak deflection, I and I'm sure others aren't jealous.

And is that the line you and the left uses to choose what's important? If people have shown a large interest in something in the past? Not right and wrong? That's interesting.

Even given that bar, I've been interested in women's sports for the majority of my life as I have family members, female, that compete. One at the national level.

Also, why would protecting women's sports been an issue for the general public to "care" about? It wasn't something that was at risk. So other than enjoying them, and knowing they existed for women to enjoy.

Why do you care about climate change you didn't care about it before we knew that CO2 was rising? You only care now that we see negative effects. Sounds pretty dumb right? So do you.

A decent compromise might be then they can compete, but not displace someone from the Podium, qualifying positions, etc...

And you'll quickly see it's not a great compromise. A great compromise is that everyone refers to them as a female, uses their pronouns, etc... but if they want to compete, it's against the boys.

If we are going to have a mixed biology event. Then have it in the boys group, not the girls. Gender doesn't matter, so why does it HAVE to be the girls that make concession?

I really need to proof read more.

* Made up scenario
** being told it doesn't happen, they are increasingly...

I never said Trans people don't exist. I have been told here numerous times that this doesn't happen, and it's a made scenario used to exclude people.

But they do exist AND despite being told they are increasingly winning more and more womens events... I keep seeing more and more events one by Transgender competitors.

So what's your actual point there Donnerboy? Because I think you were looking to land a zinger and whiffed badly

Did that thing that never happens, happen again?

Did that thing that never happens, happen again?