Roe v Wade overturned????? Draft says so

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I guess that’s what annoys me about the really militant pro choicers, my body my choice types. At the very least it is definitely ending a potential life. It gets a little more involved for religious folks when they believe that fetus already has a soul. So yeah, everybody should get that it’s at least a little murdery.

 

I guess I’ve grown to accept it and rationalize it for two basic reasons. 1- That fetus/baby hasn’t experienced life so really has no clue what they are missing out on. In my mind that mitigates it a bit. And 2- I’m not that impressed with most people anyway. About the last thing we need are hundreds of thousands more in society who A) weren’t really wanted and B) whose parents couldn’t figure out a more proactive, less murdery way to prevent pregnancy. Ya, I can be kind of a d!(k.

 

This is where I am. I don't know at what point that "fetus" becomes "human" and I'm never going to know for certain. It's, at the very least, a potential life, if not yet a life. So it's never bothered me that some folks think it's murder, and that explains a lot of their motivation.

 

But that only goes for regular Americans. Politicians use abortion as a wedge issue, firing up people so much that they ignore all the other harmful stuff on their agenda. Because abortion has so polarized XX% of the voting population, they'll vote for any candidate who claims to be against it. They'll ignore that said candidate is a rapist, or intends to eliminate voting rights for the brown people, or take away marriage rights to same-sex couples, or any other of a number of important issues. These single-issue voters have thrown this country into the swamp.

 

I decided a long time ago I'm not allowing abortion - or any other single topic - to be a line in the sand. This would be a far better country if we all stopped letting this one topic guide how we vote.

[Lorewarn]

5 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I guess that’s what annoys me about the really militant pro choicers, my body my choice types. At the very least it is definitely ending a potential life. It gets a little more involved for religious folks when they believe that fetus already has a soul. So yeah, everybody should get that it’s at least a little murdery.

 

 

The religious folks (and by that I think we both mean specifically the right-wing Christian folks) always confused me on this one though. If you're very serious about your Christianity, and really care about abortion, there's a good chance that you believe the following:

 

1. Some version of the concept of original sin with a loose exception for children being blameless

2. Some version of fetuses having a soul

3. Some version of the 'narrow path' where most people who live are going to hell

 

And if you believe those three things, idk why you wouldn't be happy that all of these babies are aborted - those souls now have a 100% chance of going to heaven instead of a ~50-90% chance of going to hell if they would have lived and grown up and not been saved.

[Archy1221]

On 5/3/2022 at 1:25 PM, commando said:

are you suggesting they lied to the senate?

 

[JJ Husker]

1 minute ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

The religious folks (and by that I think we both mean specifically the right-wing Christian folks) always confused me on this one though. If you're very serious about your Christianity, and really care about abortion, there's a good chance that you believe the following:

 

1. Some version of the concept of original sin with a loose exception for children being blameless

2. Some version of fetuses having a soul

3. Some version of the 'narrow path' where most people who live are going to hell

 

And if you believe those three things, idk why you wouldn't be happy that all of these babies are aborted - those souls now have a 100% chance of going to heaven instead of a ~50-90% chance of going to hell if they would have lived and grown up and not been saved.

Well you loaded that one up with some assumptions.  50% to 90% chance of going to hell? Where/How did you come to that number?

 

My belief structure is fairly mainline Christian but I also think anyone/everyone has a pretty good shot at not ending up in hell. I don’t happen to believe the Christian way is required for non-Christians etc. I also don’t think basically good people will be punished for not believing certain things.

 

I do get your point about the unborn blameless getting a free pass to heaven though. I asked the pastor who taught my confirmation class that very question and he had the best answer. The official Lutheran church position (at that time anyway) was that unbaptized babies who die go to hell. I didn’t think that seemed right. He answered my question with “don’t you think God will do the right thing in all situations?”  I loved that answer and it helped me develop beliefs that probably aren’t 100% in line with any specific religion.

[Lorewarn]

12 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Well you loaded that one up with some assumptions.  50% to 90% chance of going to hell? Where/How did you come to that number?

 

 

As I've seen it, there's a correlation between how zealous a Christian someone is and how much focus/obsession they have on the afterlife, which lends to narrower and narrower beliefs in who makes it.

 

Similar psychological trait as the most die-hard fans of a sports team being the ones who care and get in a stink about bandwagon fans.

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

The Flat Earth folks are always recruiting new members...

@knapplc,  the following isn't directed at you or anyone else in this discussion.  I don't do personal attacks just because someone disagrees with me. But I'll use your statement above to bounce my thoughts off of.  This issue is very personal to me.  I understand the argument on both sides and that the weight of the issue falls unfairly on the woman due to the biology of it all.  However, I am unashamedly pro-life  not because of the politics of it, but because of the morality of it  - that regardless of one's religion or not being religious at all - there is a ethical component to this discussion.  There are many non-religious pro-lifers out there who agree with those who are motivated by faith, that we must protect the innocent ones among us those without a voice. From a faith perspective that includes the unborn but also the disadvantaged in this world.   I don't like getting into long debates on this kind of emotional issue - they don't seem to accomplish much and we end up closing our mind to the many good things our 'opponent' might say about this or another unrelated topic.  Example: I agree with many liberals on this board that Trump was one of the worst possible presidents we ever could have elected. If I closed my mind to them because we differ on abortion, then I close myself from having common ground on other issues where things could get done.  That is what has happened in congress - people differ on one or two issues and they make that a canyon between them so they cannot form common ground to get other things done. Partisans' rules.  Please forgive me for this long response. 

 

Seems to me that science supports the notion that the 'fetus' with its own DNA separate from the mother or father, is a unique individual.  Since Roe, science has come a long way in supporting the 'personhood' of the child in the womb.  Its own DNA, heartbeat, genetic codes, etc - it is just developing and growing - just like children outside of the womb.  The real flat earthers are those who deny the science and who prefer expedience and convenience and self induced ignorance by looking away from the science of life.    These 3 articles - the first being an OPED expresses these points better than I can.    The first article has 2 important quotes at the end - one by a former abortionist and one by a pro-choice Clinton advisor.  

 

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2018/12/12/science-conclusive-fetus-baby-iowa-fetal-heartbeat-law-abortion/2286938002/

Quote

 

The Register's Rekha Basu argues in a recent column that calling a fetus a "baby" is somehow a construct of religion and rhetoric, rather than "established science."

The scientific evidence, however, overwhelmingly concludes just the opposite: The preborn child in her mother's womb — she's not just a "fetus," she's a baby.

Many Iowans like me learned middle-school science through textbooks from publishers like McGraw-Hill. Today, those same science textbooks reveal near universal agreement that our human lives begin long before we're born, even before we're considered "viable" to survive outside the womb.

In McGraw-Hill's textbook, "Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th ed.," for example, biology professor Bruce M. Carlson of the University of Michigan, writes, "The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."

In other words, you and I begin our lives not when we're born, but when we're conceived.

Another textbook, "Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd ed.," from publisher Wiley-Liss, asserts that fertilization is the "critical landmark" when a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed. Yet, the text explains, "life is a continuous process" throughout the pregnancy. 

As Harvard University Medical School professor Micheline Matthews-Ross testified before a 1981 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception … and that this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of life" (New York Times, April 26, 1981). 

In other words, Matthews-Ross was saying, a baby is a baby — from fertilization, to heartbeat, to birth. Yes, the baby of five weeks in the womb differs from the newborn, but so does the toddler differ from the teen. Scientifically, we pass through different stages as we grow, but we don't pass from person to non-person, or vice versa. 

At that same 1981 government hearing, Dr. Watson A. Bowes of the University of Colorado Medical School asserted: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter — the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political or economic goals."

After examining the evidence, the Senate subcommittee reported: "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological and scientific writings." (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981)

The 37 years of scientific advancement since that subcommittee hearing have only confirmed its findings. Children survive premature birth today at younger and younger ages, demonstrating how arbitrary it is to argue life doesn't begin until a baby is "viable." And today's 3-D ultrasounds give us astonishing, heartwarming pictures, revealing that the little child in her mother's womb — she's a baby. 

"[It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," testified professor Jerome LeJuene of the University of Descartes. "It is plain experimental evidence."

Even many abortion advocates have come to grips with this scientific reality. Naomi Wolf, a Clinton advisor and abortion supporter, wrote in The New Republic: "Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. … The death of a fetus is a real death."

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who co-founded the abortion advocacy group NARAL and personally presided over 60,000 abortions, later confessed in the film "The Silent Scream" that "Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us." 

 

 

The liberal Atlantic Magazine had this article and how science is supporting more and more the pro-life message:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/pro-life-pro-science/549308/

Quote

 

Scientific progress is remaking the debate around abortion. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, the case that led the way to legal abortion, it pegged most fetuses’ chance of viable life outside the womb at 28 weeks; after that point, it ruled, states could reasonably restrict women’s access to the procedure. Now, with new medical techniques, doctors are debating whether that threshold should be closer to 22 weeks. Like McGuire, today’s prospective moms and dads can learn more about their baby earlier into a pregnancy than their parents or grandparents. And like McGuire, when they see their fetus on an ultrasound, they may see humanizing qualities like smiles or claps, even if most scientists see random muscle movements.

These advances fundamentally shift the moral intuition around abortion. New technology makes it easier to apprehend the humanity of a growing child and imagine a fetus as a creature with moral status. Over the last several decades, pro-life leaders have increasingly recognized this and rallied the power of scientific evidence to promote their cause. They have built new institutions to produce, track, and distribute scientifically crafted information on abortion. They hungrily follow new research in embryology. They celebrate progress in neonatology as a means to save young lives. New science is “instilling a sense of awe that we never really had before at any point in human history,” McGuire said. “We didn’t know any of this.”

 

 

 

 

https://www.mccl.org/post/2017/12/20/the-unborn-is-a-human-being-what-science-tells-us-about-unborn-children

 

Quote

 

Before we can know how to treat unborn children (an ethical question), we must know what they are biologically. This is a question of science.

Here's what science tells us about the unborn.

Why the unborn is a human being

When a sperm successfully fertilizes an oocyte (egg), a new cell, called a zygote, is generated by their union. The zygote represents the first stage in the life of a human being. This individual, if all goes well, develops through the embryonic (first eight weeks) and fetal (eight weeks until birth) periods and then through infancy, childhood, and adolescence before reaching adulthood.

Four characteristics of the unborn human (the zygote, embryo, or fetus) are important:

Distinct. The unborn has a DNA and body distinct from her mother and father. She develops her own arms, legs, brain, nervous system, heart, and so forth.

Living. The unborn meets the biological criteria for life. She grows by reproducing cells. She turns nutrients into energy through metabolism. And she can respond to stimuli.

Human. The unborn has a human genetic signature. She is also the offspring of human parents, and humans can only beget other humans.

Organism. The unborn is an organism (rather than a mere organ or tissue)—an individual whose parts work together for the good of the whole. Guided by a complete genetic code (46 chromosomes), she needs only the proper environment and nutrition to develop herself through the different stages of life as a member of the species.

These facts about the unborn are established by the science of embryology and developmental biology. They are confirmed by embryology texts, scientific journals, and other relevant authorities.

"Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote," explains the textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. "This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization," notes Langman's Medical Embryology, "a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

The scientific evidence, then, shows that the unborn is a living individual of the species Homo sapiens, the same kind of being as us, only at an earlier stage of development. Each of us was once a zygote, embryo, and fetus, just as we were once infants, toddlers, and adolescents.

 

 

[TGHusker]

37 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

This is where I am. I don't know at what point that "fetus" becomes "human" and I'm never going to know for certain. It's, at the very least, a potential life, if not yet a life. So it's never bothered me that some folks think it's murder, and that explains a lot of their motivation.

 

But that only goes for regular Americans. Politicians use abortion as a wedge issue, firing up people so much that they ignore all the other harmful stuff on their agenda. Because abortion has so polarized XX% of the voting population, they'll vote for any candidate who claims to be against it. They'll ignore that said candidate is a rapist, or intends to eliminate voting rights for the brown people, or take away marriage rights to same-sex couples, or any other of a number of important issues. These single-issue voters have thrown this country into the swamp.

 

I decided a long time ago I'm not allowing abortion - or any other single topic - to be a line in the sand. This would be a far better country if we all stopped letting this one topic guide how we vote.

Knapp, I agree with the bold 100%.  As I mentioned in my post directly above, this one issue divides people from coloaborating on other issues that they could resolve together.  Then, maybe, the politicians could find a correct solution to this problem that our society could live with.  But too much it is a red meat wedge issue that just divides us. 

[knapplc]

22 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

@knapplc,  the following isn't directed at you or anyone else in this discussion. 

 

We all agree the science of "when is a life a life" is ever-evolving, and I think we can agree that we can find scientists and doctors who will state it is or isn't a life at any stage in development.

 

But that's not why I poked fun at the placard-carrying protestors. It's that those same placard-carrying protestors aren't pro-life, they're anti-abortion. In certain circumstances those folks will pull a trigger and end a life. There are pro-choice people bombing Russian soldiers in Ukraine right now. Sometimes taking a life is justified, and sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.

 

Where I think those placard-carrying protestors deserve some scorn is in their decision to harass and hurt hurting people. Women who choose abortion are not there because they want to be. It's a shameful and harsh choice, and one that some people will regret the rest of their lives. Who are the placard-carriers to rub salt in that wound? Where is the understanding? That really bothers me.

 

What also bothers me are stories like this. Abortion is evil and must be stopped - until I need one. And that one abortion can be forgiven.

 

---

“The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion”

 

In the spring of 2000, I collected the following anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe. The stories are presented in the providers’ own words, with minor editing for grammar, clarity, and brevity. Names have been omitted to protect privacy.

 

“I have done several abortions on women who have regularly picketed my clinics, including a 16 year old schoolgirl who came back to picket the day after her abortion, about three years ago. During her whole stay at the clinic, we felt that she was not quite right, but there were no real warning bells. She insisted that the abortion was her idea and assured us that all was OK. She went through the procedure very smoothly and was discharged with no problems. A quite routine operation. Next morning she was with her mother and several school mates in front of the clinic with the usual anti posters and chants. It appears that she got the abortion she needed and still displayed the appropriate anti views expected of her by her parents, teachers, and peers.” (Physician, Australia)

 

“I’ve had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, ‘You’re not going to tell them, are you!?’ When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn’t want this to interfere with it.” (Physician, Texas)

 

“In 1990, in the Boston area, Operation Rescue and other groups were regularly blockading the clinics, and many of us went every Saturday morning for months to help women and staff get in. As a result, we knew many of the ‘antis’ by face. One morning, a woman who had been a regular ‘sidewalk counselor’ went into the clinic with a young woman who looked like she was 16-17, and obviously her daughter. When the mother came out about an hour later, I had to go up and ask her if her daughter’s situation had caused her to change her mind. ‘I don’t expect you to understand my daughter’s situation!’ she angrily replied. The following Saturday, she was back, pleading with women entering the clinic not to ‘murder their babies.'” (Clinic escort, Massachusetts)

 

“We too have seen our share of anti-choice women, ones the counselors usually grit their teeth over. Just last week a woman announced loudly enough for all to hear in the recovery room, that she thought abortion should be illegal. Amazingly, this was her second abortion within the last few months, having gotten pregnant again within a month of the first abortion. The nurse handled it by talking about all the carnage that went on before abortion was legalized and how fortunate she was to be receiving safe, professional care. However, this young woman continued to insist it was wrong and should be made illegal. Finally the nurse said, ‘Well, I guess we won’t be seeing you here again, not that you’re not welcome.’ Later on, another patient who had overheard this exchange thanked the nurse for her remarks.” (Clinic Administrator, Alberta)

 

---

 

There are a few dozen more accounts like this at the link, and a number of examples of those placard-carrying protestors harassing patients and trying to drive clinics and clinicians to financial ruin. It's disgusting.

 

And that's not to mention the politicians who think nothing of running on anti-abortion hysteria who pay for their mistresses' abortions.

 

I've seen too much from those placard-carrying people outside clinics. We'll have to agree to disagree on how fair it is to lump them in with flat-earthers.

[Scarlet]

I hope nobody here has loved one's with these conditions in the near future.  I also hope nobody's loved ones get raped and inseminated and has to carry the rapist's spawn fullterm.  Of course, most here would have the means to travel to another state to do what you all know you would do, virtue signaling not withstanding.  Otherwise a coat hanger and vacuum might work.  

[TGHusker]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

We all agree the science of "when is a life a life" is ever-evolving, and I think we can agree that we can find scientists and doctors who will state it is or isn't a life at any stage in development.

 

But that's not why I poked fun at the placard-carrying protestors. It's that those same placard-carrying protestors aren't pro-life, they're anti-abortion. In certain circumstances those folks will pull a trigger and end a life. There are pro-choice people bombing Russian soldiers in Ukraine right now. Sometimes taking a life is justified, and sometimes it's the lesser of two evils.

 

Where I think those placard-carrying protestors deserve some scorn is in their decision to harass and hurt hurting people. Women who choose abortion are not there because they want to be. It's a shameful and harsh choice, and one that some people will regret the rest of their lives. Who are the placard-carriers to rub salt in that wound? Where is the understanding? That really bothers me.

 

What also bothers me are stories like this. Abortion is evil and must be stopped - until I need one. And that one abortion can be forgiven.

 

 

---

“The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion”

 

In the spring of 2000, I collected the following anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe. The stories are presented in the providers’ own words, with minor editing for grammar, clarity, and brevity. Names have been omitted to protect privacy.

 

“I have done several abortions on women who have regularly picketed my clinics, including a 16 year old schoolgirl who came back to picket the day after her abortion, about three years ago. During her whole stay at the clinic, we felt that she was not quite right, but there were no real warning bells. She insisted that the abortion was her idea and assured us that all was OK. She went through the procedure very smoothly and was discharged with no problems. A quite routine operation. Next morning she was with her mother and several school mates in front of the clinic with the usual anti posters and chants. It appears that she got the abortion she needed and still displayed the appropriate anti views expected of her by her parents, teachers, and peers.” (Physician, Australia)

 

“I’ve had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, ‘You’re not going to tell them, are you!?’ When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn’t want this to interfere with it.” (Physician, Texas)

 

“In 1990, in the Boston area, Operation Rescue and other groups were regularly blockading the clinics, and many of us went every Saturday morning for months to help women and staff get in. As a result, we knew many of the ‘antis’ by face. One morning, a woman who had been a regular ‘sidewalk counselor’ went into the clinic with a young woman who looked like she was 16-17, and obviously her daughter. When the mother came out about an hour later, I had to go up and ask her if her daughter’s situation had caused her to change her mind. ‘I don’t expect you to understand my daughter’s situation!’ she angrily replied. The following Saturday, she was back, pleading with women entering the clinic not to ‘murder their babies.'” (Clinic escort, Massachusetts)

 

“We too have seen our share of anti-choice women, ones the counselors usually grit their teeth over. Just last week a woman announced loudly enough for all to hear in the recovery room, that she thought abortion should be illegal. Amazingly, this was her second abortion within the last few months, having gotten pregnant again within a month of the first abortion. The nurse handled it by talking about all the carnage that went on before abortion was legalized and how fortunate she was to be receiving safe, professional care. However, this young woman continued to insist it was wrong and should be made illegal. Finally the nurse said, ‘Well, I guess we won’t be seeing you here again, not that you’re not welcome.’ Later on, another patient who had overheard this exchange thanked the nurse for her remarks.” (Clinic Administrator, Alberta)

 

 

---

 

There are a few dozen more accounts like this at the link, and a number of examples of those placard-carrying protestors harassing patients and trying to drive clinics and clinicians to financial ruin. It's disgusting.

 

And that's not to mention the politicians who think nothing of running on anti-abortion hysteria who pay for their mistresses' abortions.

 

I've seen too much from those placard-carrying people outside clinics. We'll have to agree to disagree on how fair it is to lump them in with flat-earthers.

Thanks Knapp.  I agree 100%.  I've been at prolife rallies and at a few abortion clinics.  Always with civil, thoughtful, &  caring people.  But as in any case, some nut jobs show up and make everyone else look like 'flat earthers' - there I used your words now that I understand the intent.   And also there are those other kind you speak of - the hypocrites.  When the pressure is on, they show their real values.   And don't get me started on the politicians who just use the pro-life movement as a stepping stone and never really believed in the cause. That has been the problem with the GOP and the prolife movement.  Because the GOP was the only side giving the pro-life movement a voice politically, the PL crowed went that way.  The GOP establishment, however, never cared for 'social conservatives' and saw them as a necessary 'evil'.  However, I sincerely believe that if the Dems found a way to open their tent up a bit to pro-lifers, a large contingent of PL voters would head their way because of the other 'life' (life after birth) issues the Dems are strong on.  That is why I can no longer support the GOP on one issue alone.  There are  many other issues where the GOP is too weak or it just doesn't care.  

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I've been at prolife rallies and at a few abortion clinics.  Always with civil, thoughtful, &  caring people. 

 

And I want to be clear I know there are dedicated, caring people on the Pro-Life side, whose hearts are in the right place and who aren't shouting horrible things at the women entering clinics. Those are not the people I'm gigging. You know (and have likely met) the people I made that flat-earth comment about.

[Archy1221]

36 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

I hope nobody here has loved one's with these conditions in the near future.  I also hope nobody's loved ones get raped and inseminated and has to carry the rapist's spawn fullterm.  Of course, most here would have the means to travel to another state to do what you all know you would do, virtue signaling not withstanding.  Otherwise a coat hanger and vacuum might work.  

No one is in danger of not being treated for those conditions in the near future or later.  That’s pure hyperbole.

 

as far as coat hangers and vacuums go, what about is that don’t own a vacuum.   

[JJ Husker]

20 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

No one is in danger of not being treated for those conditions in the near future or later.  That’s pure hyperbole.

 

So you’ve read each individual state’s laws that ban or propose to ban abortion and you know for a fact that they have clearly detailed which specific cases abortions will be allowed as exceptions to the law?

 

I know you haven’t and I’m also quite certain many of the places that ban or propose to ban abortions don’t really care about those little details. So much for hyperbole.

[teachercd]

33 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

No one is in danger of not being treated for those conditions in the near future or later.  That’s pure hyperbole.

 

as far as coat hangers and vacuums go, what about is that don’t own a vacuum.   

Yes, these stats are bad debating 101 and are even thrown out before the debate starts by most debaters because they are so bad.

 

 

[commando]

i wonder what the stock of the "morning after pill" is going to look like in a few weeks?  or did the politicians already buy that up?