What Rights ate Essential, Republicans vs. Democrats.

Excellent meme, Tom.

I criticize people who make ineffective (yes, just imo) memes in which simply replacing a name, etc., results in a technically different meme, but the message is the same, but aimed in a different direction. Usually those are just childish hit piece memes.

Not this one! It's right on target in terms if clearly stating what matters to which party. And switching up anything in it absolutely will not have the effect I described. Honestly, I wish I could meme like this. Well done!

Same.

Amazingly, strip clubs are *not* essential. We've got thousands upon thousands of *dancers* who will now be unable to pay their *tuition* for college. Good grief, let's have some dayum compassion!

They both look pretty essential to me...

https://youtu.be/c4KNd0Yv6d0

Well, if you are a Dem you think I am criticizing Trump, whereas, if you are an R you think I am criticizing Whitmer.

I think given the photo you chose of Whitmer, its obvious what you are doing. Gaslighting.

They both said exactly that. Have you ever googled Donald Trump images? They do not have a single nice photo, however Nancy Pelosi images are all smiling and pleasant.

I think you are probably being intellectually dishonest, but that's fine.

In what way? It wiuld be intellectually dishonest to not admit they each said what is posted.

No, that's what a resin doll looks like - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/12-week-photo/

https://youtu.be/c4KNd0Yv6d0

Dusty

We need all the healthcare workers we can get right now. It is all hands on deck for this.

"for this" you mean Coronavirus...not abortions

Any medical service! Can't have women dying of cervical cancer just because we pulled all the staff onto Rona damage control.

Abortion is not treatment for cervical cancer, but I understand your confusion, you're a moron after all

And yes actually, cancer related surgeries were postponed as a result of Coronavirus.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/18/coronavirus-crisis-delays-cancer-surgeries-for-over-1000-nyc-patients/

Once again, reading is just too hard for you.

Do you know what abortion is treatment for?
Ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal if not dealt with promptly.

Do you think if you had fallopian tubes and a fetus was about to burst in one and kill you, you'd be like "I couldn't possibly have an abortion and save my life, I'll just have to accept my fate and that it was my fault for getting pregnant"?

Wow. You'd condemn 100,000 women to death?
That doesn't even include the number of other women with nonviable pregnancies.

Ok.

I'm no condemning them to do death. You are holding them out as THE reason we need abortion. So using your logic you would limiting abortions to only situations like ectopic pregnancy, right?

Now let's watch you backtrack

To deny them abortion IS to condemn them to death.

I didn't say it was the only reason, but those arguing that there are no circumstances in which abortion is ethical seem to be conveniently ignoring nonviable pregnancies.

I never said, "deny women who have ectopic pregnancy abortion". I pointed out that it's a statistically irrelevant number, roughly 1% of all pregnancies, and less than 17% of reported abortions. .

You are holding out this number as the reason to support wide spread abortion. It's a false concern. Which is evidenced by your lack of commitment to limiting abortions only in cases like ectopic pregnancy or something similar. In reality you support wide spread access to abortion, but your being intellectually dishonest around that.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all, I believe all women should have access to abortion.

I'm curious about how the people who think abortion is never justifiable because life is so precious justify their attitude when it involves condemning a proportion of women to death.

'Statistically irrelevant'? You're talking about the needless loss of women's lives.

I'm not holding out that number to support widespread abortion, there are plenty of other good reasons alongside saving women's lives.

Precisely, you believe all women should have access to abortion, but by highlighting ectopic pregnancy you're trying to justify something for ALL by using an incredibly small subset of abortions. It's a faux moral high ground. You're not concerned with saving lives, every abortion results in the termination of a life. That's intellectual dishonesty.

No, I said there are many reasons.

I specifically mentioned ectopic pregnancy because I've seen people express that abortion is never acceptable and I'm curious about what their opinion is on nonviable pregnancies.

You've made it clear that you're not anti-abortion regardless of the circumstances.

JRB, what reason for an abortion would you consider unreasonable? What cut off date would you think reasonable?