I forgot this state is filled with psycho conservative Christians. Ohio is losing its swing state reputation, and good lord, this procedure doesn’t even exist:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-bill-orders-doctors-reimplant-085424596.html

A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature requires doctors to “reimplant an ectopic pregnancy” into a woman’s uterus – a procedure that does not exist in medical science – or face charges of “abortion murder”.

This is the second time practising obstetricians and gynecologists have tried to tell the Ohio legislators that the idea is currently medically impossible.

The move comes amid a wave of increasingly severe anti-abortion bills introduced across much of the country as conservative Republican politicians seek to ban abortion and force a legal showdown on abortion with the supreme court.

Ohio’s move on ectopic pregnancies – where an embryo implants on the mother’s fallopian tube rather than her uterus rendering the pregnancy unviable – is one of the most extreme bills to date.

“I don’t believe I’m typing this again but, that’s impossible,” wrote Ohio obstetrician and gynecologist Dr David Hackney on Twitter. “We’ll all be going to jail,” he said.

An ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening condition, which can kill a woman if the embryonic tissue grows unchecked.

In addition to ordering doctors to do the impossible or face criminal charges, House Bill 413 bans abortion outright and defines a fertilized egg as an “unborn child”.

It also appears to punish doctors, women and children as young as 13 with “abortion murder” if they “perform or have an abortion”. This crime is punishable by life in prison. Another new crime, “aggravated abortion murder”, is punishable by death, according to the bill.

The bill is sponsored by representatives Candice Keller and Ron Hood, and co-sponsored by 19 members of Ohio’s 99-member House.

Mike Gonidakis, the president of the anti-abortion group Ohio Right to Life, declined to comment on the bill, and said he was still reading the legislation because, it’s “approximately 700 pages long”. He said his office is “taking off the rest of the week for Thanksgiving”.

The Guardian also contacted the Susan B Anthony List, a national anti-abortion organization. The organization did not reply to a request for comment.

Keller, Hood and eight of the bill’s 19 co-sponsors did not reply to requests for comment. The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association also did not reply to a request for comment.

Ohio passed a six-week abortion ban last summer. The “heartbeat bill”, as supporters called it, banned abortion before most women know they are pregnant. Reproductive rights groups immediately sued, and the bill never went into effect. Abortion is legal in all 50 US states.

In May, researcher Dr David Grossman argued reimplanting a fertilized egg or embryo is “pure science fiction” in a Twitter thread that went viral in May, when the bill was first introduced.

“There is no procedure to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy,” said Dr Chris Zahn, vice-president of practice activities at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. “It is not possible to move an ectopic pregnancy from a fallopian tube, or anywhere else it might have implanted, to the uterus,” he said.

“Reimplantation is not physiologically possible. Women with ectopic pregnancies are at risk for catastrophic hemorrhage and death in the setting of an ectopic pregnancy, and treating the ectopic pregnancy can certainly save a mom’s life,” said Zahn.

________

Ohio, where if you aren’t a straight white conservative male, then you ought to be controlled by one, especially of you’re a woman.

Disgusting.

Treating women like breeding stock.

Christian Taliban right here in Ohio.

This procedure seems a bit of a stretch but I am glad to see the focus changing from death to life in this country.

We have been a culture of death for far too long.

Its time we return to being a culture of life and self responsibility.

I'll just leave this here for all to consider a bit more in-depth:

And I leave my entire post for all to consider a bit more in-depth.

I'd posit that we live in a culture that writes laws which eschew science and common sense. Laws that turn medical procedures into criminal acts. Laws that specifically appeal to ignorance, outrage and superstition.

Oh, let us give thanks and be grateful that we have such people in our midst.

[/purple]

Even I think this part of the bill is asinine.



I can't agree with this part either unless there are exceptions for the mothers health.



OK this part I agree with, and I am glad to see it.



OK The prison term I don't have a problem with either (as long as the bill is amended to allow exceptions for the mothers health)The punishable by death part is also asinine and should never be passed.

The way this is written even I think it should fail and never see the light of day.

...I'm still trying to figure out why a woman would co-sponsor that bill.

She sounds... love..ly....

I'd say your ideas of science have 2 sides with many questions still to be resolved.

I'd say your ideas supporting the deaths of our unborn citizens while crying for illegals to flood our borders is not common and is certainly not sense.

So much for the party that promotes "individual" freedom.

Perhaps slaughtering tens of millions of innocent future citizens is an "individual" freedom no one should have.

I am glad our state is considering life instead of death. Abortion stops a beating heart.

There is only one side to this fact: an ectopic pregnancy cannot be moved to a woman's uterus, and to leave it in place is a death sentence for the woman.

Choose life, you science/facts-averse hypocrite.

_________________________


And the rest of your sad diatribe
Makes me think that cheap booze you imbibe.
Here's a hint: try less beverage
If you want more leverage
Exerted, the next time you scribe.

pffft.

Our government is run by idiots.

There are already too many uneducated, unloved, easily manipulated idiots in this world as it is, and christians want more... I wonder why? Unborn means not yet a person, citizen, or life. Stop the nonsense.

Because idiots vote for them.

Especially when you stop his or her heart from beating.

Land of the Free... Unless your a woman

And the hypocritical talking point lives on

Which talking point are you referring to?

They're against anything that will keep them out of a woman's vagina.

I see how everyone is avoiding the actual facts as spelled out here ... religion should stay the F away from politics, and this pseudo concern for a collection of cells is fake. Once those cells transform themselves into a living breathing, unwanted individual living below the poverty line, all concern and care vanishes. They are happy for the government to tell women what they can / cannot do with the collection of cells - but once in the world there is no support for government help and support and it's all down to the individual. Hypocrites.

So they are against pretty much everything 'GOPer'?

Then they should start by working on their personalities.

I was with you until you started on the no support afterwards line. Limited support perhaps, but "extremism" (/"absolutism") isn't the tact to take.

WIC and other programs exist. Link
I haven't seen anyone arguing against such programs here. Pregnancy support centers are also something that many people against abortion support.

I'll reiterate I think this bill is ridiculous. Just making stuff up is a Trump move, though.

Because Candice Keller is a raving lunatic. A little background on her....

The chairwoman of the Ohio Republican Party called on Monday for the resignation of State Representative Candice Keller, a fellow Republican who one day earlier said mass shootings were the result of such factors as “homosexual marriage,” “drag queen advocates” and “recreational marijuana.”

....In the post, Ms. Keller, 60, who represents Butler County, a suburban and rural area about 30 miles southwest of Dayton, listed several factors that she said had led to mass shootings.....

Among those, she included “professional athletes who hate our flag and National Anthem,” “snowflakes who can’t accept a duly-elected President” and a culture “which totally ignores the importance of God.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/us/candice-keller-ohio.html

It makes sense when you consider the fact that republicans are constantly trying to take away those programs.

You are right that absolutes are wrong and "never" and "always" aren't good terms to use in a debate.

That said - the ones arguing for the government to determine what the woman can do with the collection of cells in her body are also 'normally' the ones also fighting to minimize any government assistance and support to those in need and below the poverty line.

With that resume, she has a shot to be Trump's running mate.

Sure, things like WIC and Medicaid are available... but look at how republicans look down upon anyone receiving public assistence. They are degraded.

Take an 16 year old Rape Victim.. Should she be required to have the baby? Personally, I don't believe she should. Make that a 20 year old Rape Victim.... I don't think she should be required to have the baby either.

We old white men are telling a young girl what she can and can't do with her own body ....I just don't think that's right.

Having said that, I'm not at all for abortion, but geez, some common sense might be nice.

I'm right with you more or less.

It was the presenting generalities as absolutes that I thought could have been better said. Such hyperbole has a tendency to turn threads into shouting matches, and there isn't much discussion that goes on. Sides typically just double down into the more extreme expression of their base views.

I am pro-life but that is idiotic.... ectopic pregnancy is rare and basically not viable...no need for this bill...

Want idiotic?
How about this display from the anti science psycho right...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.insider...ed-eggs-2019-11

“A Pennsylvania bill would require death certificates for fertilized eggs that never implant in the uterus”
Anti-abortion lawmakers in Pennsylvania want to pass a bill that would require health providers to arrange burials or cremations for all of a person's "fetal remains," which under the lawmakers' terms, includes fertilized eggs that never implanted in the uterus.

But fertilized eggs must divide to become the ball of cells that implants in the uterus for a pregnancy to occur.

The proposed bill also means health providers would have to obtain death certificates for all fertilized, but not implanted, eggs, since in order to to obtain a burial permit, you first have to obtain a death certificate, Christine Castro, a staff attorney at the Pennsylvania-based Women's Law Project, told Vice. "The bill is written in a misleading way," she said.


If the bill, known as the "Pennsylvania Final Disposition of Fetal Remains Act," passes and isn't followed, it could result in a $50 to $300 fine or up to 30 days in prison for providers.

The problem is women, and even their doctors, can't track when or how many fertilized eggs don't implant in the uterus because those eggs typically dissolve in utero and are shed through a woman's menstrual lining every month, making them undetectable.

It's common for fertilized eggs to not implant in the uterus
According to University of California San Francisco Health, only half of a woman's fertilized eggs will naturally implant in her uterus.

The other 50% of those fertilized eggs that don't implant dissolve in the body and are expelled through a woman's uterine lining, which she naturally sheds during her menstrual cycle, according to University of Wisconsin-Madison's School of Medicine and Public Health. Newly fertilized eggs are about the size of a pinhead, according to the National Institutes of Health.


When the lining sheds, it results in the bleeding women experience every 28 or so days. Because of this, non-implanted fertilized eggs are neither detectable nor able to become blastocysts, then embryos, then fetuses, and eventually, babies.

The only time a fertilized egg that hasn't implanted in the uterus is detectable is if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, which occurs when a fertilized egg attaches itself outside the uterus where it can't grow. In this case, the egg is detectable but must be surgically removed from the woman's body immediately to prevent health complications like ruptured fallopian tubes, Insider previously reported.

The bill also ignores the science-backed definition of "pregnancy"
ultrasound
A fertilized egg must multiply to
House Bill 1890 also ignores the science-backed definition of pregnancy because it says that all fertilized eggs are "unborn children."


According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, non-implanted but fertilized eggs are actually single-cell zygotes, which have to divide before becoming the ball of cells called a blastocyst that eventually implant in the wall of the uterus, according to ACOG.

It's not until a fertilized egg has been successfully implanted in the uterus that ACOG considers it a pregnancy. Once the implanted and fertilized egg reaches nine weeks in the uterus, it is referred to as a fetus, according to ACOG.

This isn't the time a pregnancy-related bill has been scientifically inaccurate
Anti-abortion legislators in Ohio also recently presented a scientifically unsound abortion bill.

On November 14, 20 Republican lawmakers proposed an abortion ban that would, in most cases, consider doctors who perform abortions guilty of aggravated murder and require doctors to attempt to reimplant ectopic pregnancies in the uterus, Insider previously reported.

The Ohio proposal ignores the fact that reimplanting an ectopic pregnancy is "physiologically impossible," Dr. Chris Zahn, the vice president of practice activities at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told Insider. In fact, attempting that is extremely dangerous, and the technology needed to do it doesn't even exist.

——————————

So are women in Pennsylvania supposed to send their used pads and tampons to the state every month to have them checked for fertilized eggs?

I am on the fence about this subject. Some woman can not handle this (and I am not 100 percent sure that they should have to) and some woman keep the babies and raise them, while others have them and put them up for adoption. This is one of those questions that I wrestle with myself.



Us old white men also tell people they can not shoot their neighbors, family, friends or strangers. Do you have a problem with that? We tell folks they can not kill their 1 day old, 3 day, old, 3 week old, 3 month old, or 13 year old babies. Do you have a problem with that?


The common sense we agree on. We just disagree with what common sense is. IMO killing babies is wrong.... no common sense even needed.

ok boomer.

Thanks old man lol

How can you possibly be on the fence on Rape victims rights. Come on GM,,

Old white men saying you can't shoot your neighbor is way different than old while men telling a girl what she can and can't do with her body....

I believe she should be able to do whatever she wants to her body. But not to the babies body.

It’s not a baby, it’s a cell cluster.
How many times have we gone over this basic biology lesson?

Not only is it a cell cluster, but it’s one put there against the will of the host. Defending anything but her choice in this decision is absurd.

And sorry. No 16 year old is ready to have a child. I don’t care about anyone’s anecdotal story. At 16 you’re not educated enough to thrive in today’s world. At 16 you don’t have the life experience to create a healthy adult ‘you’ while raising another being to also be healthy. At 16 you’re setting yourself up for missing some very important years of maturation through life lessons, love/loss, etc, while you raise a child. At 16 you shouldn’t have to raise someone’s RAPE BABY! Period. No one should. At any age. Period! If someone wants to make that choice. Fine. Forcing it is disgusting.

Call it what you will it is murder!

You call it what you will. It’s not murder.

It's not a human, it's a bunch of cell clusters.

That argument isn't very good. Most living things are "just a collection of cell clusters."

I feel there are times when abortion is a viable option. It's more the clinical dispassion that goes along with it that bothers me. Aborting life should be seen as more serious than wart removal. A wart is a cell cluster. Unlike a wart (hopefully), a fertilized embryo has the potential for sentience. While there can be other babies, will there ever be one with that specific combination of DNA ever again?

While there are many bad possibilities that might be good reasons for terminating a pregnancy, there are inevitably losses of good possibilities.

Treating abortion (the abortee) with a little more dignity, contemplation, and respect rather than a sense of throwing out trash might make the idea a bit more palatable.

Unpleasant necessity, okay. No big deal, I'm not so much on board with that.

I'm not going to tell anyone what decision to make, but it's not a decision that should be made lightly.

"It's just a cluster of cells. We'll squirt those out on Tuesday," shouldn't be the entire thought process.

I agree on most counts.
I’m not a ‘fan’ of abortion. I’m not one that thinks it should be used flippantly. I’ve never had to go through the decision process of whether to have one or not. Thankfully. Not for always being smart, just lucky.
I’d prefer offering sex education and encouragement of use of prophylactics. I think most young women should consider an IUD when they’re beginning their first sexual relationships. I think all 18 year old boys should be allowed to bank a load and then get snipped. (Hell I’m almost for mandating that.)
I also think it’s none of anyone else’s business if all these things were done, or none of these things were done. If a woman wants an abortion it should be her choice. I do feel there is a timeline that should be considered. I’m open for conversation on this. I’m not for late term abortion unless there’s true harm for the fetus or woman.

Ultimately, it’s not my body. Therefore it’s not my choice. Shouldn’t be anyone else’s either.

I think too often sex gets confused with intimacy. More than sex ed, they need healthy relationship classes, of which sex ed could be a part.

Have you ever scene a 3d ultrasound? If you ever get a chance please do so. Your mind will change. It is a baby insode a womb.

I’m a nurse.
It’s a fetus.
It’s non viable outside the womb until the 24th week. Again I’m not for late term abortion. (Or any abortion really.)
Mind unchanged.

He/she is a baby not an it. You see my friend you think I don't get it, and I know you don't get it. So you see all 500 times we have disagreed on this your the one who doesn't get it.

Now if you want to lump all 16 year olds together thats up to you, but many folks 18, 20, 25, 30, and even at 50 are not mature enough to have a baby.

BTW My wife was 17 when we got married and I was 18. We have been married for 38 years and raised two wonderful children aged 34 and 33. So I have heard all the crap about OH your not old enough/mature enough/to young. I call bull manure on that one.

Now as far as a 16 year old raising a rape baby I can not and will not argue with you on that one as I wrestle with it myself. If you didn't notice I am against this bill and called it asinine already in this thread.

I'm fighting for new abortion legislation that lets people abort within 3 months after seeing the results of the target person's IQ and political leanings test. If we are going to get accused of killing fully formed humans we need to start catching them while they are Trumpians...

A lot has changed in the 30+ years since your spouse got pregnant. You could graduate high school and get a job that paid well enough to raise a kid. Potentially on one income. Those days are well past. No modern 16 year old (from a non wealthy family) is in a good space to raise a kid in today’s world.

I was on board until it turned Partisan. I thought you were going full circle (thread-wise) and talking about dumb politicians. Though calling them fully formed ignores the missing sense of ethics/humanity.

I'm pretty sure all trumpians are just clumps of non self aware cells that cannot exist on their own outside the hive womb.

You can still live on one income. You just have to give up a few things like a second car, a fancy house, motorcycles, boats, fancy vacations, going out to eat 3 times a week, cell phones, cable tv, internet, etc, etc, etc.

And it better not be a minimum wage income or you are screwed.

Which is what a 16 year old would earn.

This side trip has been interesting and all, but one fact hasn't been given nearly enough attention:

These fools drafted a bill that proposes criminal charges be leveled at medical professionals who fail to migrate an ectopic pregnancy to the uteran wall- a procedure that is medically impossible.

Now, this is one of two things, as far as I can see:
1. A woefully misinformed and misguided bill that will never pass the smell test enough to become law
2. A truly cynical attempt to slip it past an uneducated public as a means to eradicate all doctors who support a woman's right to safe legal procedures.

BTW: 'ectopic pregnancy' is something of a misnomer in that it is not, never was, and never will be a viable pregnancy. It is an accident of biology that is by its very nature deadly to the host.
It truly is a cluster of cells and nothing more.

The real subject of the thread is this awful, reprehensible bill. That should always be kept in mind.

Which is why I called it asinine.

Yeah punishing woman and doctors for abortions more harshly than a rapist makes tons of sense. Nice going Ohio.

Only part of it.

In other words ... “Homeless”

No I mean just like others have done all through history, instead of being greedy gimme, gimme, gimme folks like WE are today.

Yep the part about reimplant an ectopic pregnancy. The part about no exceptions for the womans health, maybe the part about no exceptions for rape. The part about throwing the women, and Doctors in jail for not doing something impossible. So you see I am against those parts.

A quick note about your ‘things to live without’ list. A cell phone is a necessity. You pretty much can’t get a job without a phone number.

You can remove all of the "fancy" from that because you can't afford those things really at all. Change going out to eat 3 times a week to never. And if you think you can exist today without internet and a cell phone, good luck.

I left out the Internet from my last post as it could be argued you can use a computer at a library. Which can be a major inconvenience for many. Especially if you’re emailing applications and having to return emails frequently.

Yeah, raising a family of four on $10 dollars an hour is totally doable!

Yes, a lot of things are possible to save a few bucks until you add back in the loss of efficiency and productivity that comes along with trying to work without it.

You could live in a house without a kitchen if you could cook outside on a fire and drink/bathe straight from a well.. but it's not practical.

Totally agree.

Why are you trying to raise a family of 4 on 1 person working a job at $10 an hour?

There are a ton of jobs - full time, with benefits, just around here starting at $12 to even $20 an hour.

And if you have a family of 4, it stands to reason you've been working at least 2 years. Show me someone that has worked the same job for at least 2 years - a full time job - that is making $10 an hour.

Sorry, I know too many businesses, just around here, that start off at $12, minimum, and move you up to $15 rather quickly, with benefits. That's here, not NYC.

Well, to be fair to GM... he and his wife were married for 5 or 6 years before they had their first child. Presumably until the kids were born, both were working... then hopefully before having the child and deciding to go single income, he was making more than the equivalent of $10/hour.. which you should be if you have been working for 5 or 6 years.

Once again you can't seem to follow a thread. You really need to work on that.

The thread was saying how you could live on one job.

Have you ever heard of a single parent arch? But then I guess a single parent should work three jobs and ignore raising her family. Then when they turn out to be thugs people like you can blame the parents.

Women have husbands who leave them. Refuse to pay child support or die.

Think arch, think.

While I do understand your point, we both know that wage disparity has increased greatly over the past 40 years.

When I was young I started out on what were considered low wages at the time. As you stated, it didn't stay that way.

But even on those low wages I paid rent on a small cabin that was furnished, had a car loan and had no problem buying my groceries.

It's not like that anymore. Those at the bottom have gone backwards and for me to try and compare what I could do on low wages in the 70's to now simply isn't logical.

What I think a lot of people have trouble with understanding is just how much those at the bottom of the income level have fallen and they think, "Well I did it", when the situation is nowhere close to what it was so long ago.

Check the thread title. Thanks.

The rest of your reply is just gibberish talking points. Sorry dude, not buying into it.

You blather on about single parents, yet you talk about a family of 4.............

Women have husbands that leave them? Hey, wake up - men have women that leave them also.

Believe it or not, I was a single dad, I know what goes on.

And, bottom line, if you're working, after several years, and are only making $10 an hour at a full time job (and there are many, many available) you're doing something wrong. You know it, you just won't admit it.

The difference between $10 an hour and $15-$20 an hour for a single income family of four would be significant day to day, but you are still living the american dream in total poverty.

So what you are saying is that a significant portion of this problem could go away if baby mommas and baby daddys were a little more selective in who they choose to make babies with?

Awwweeee....

Yes, there are millions of single moms out there. So you're not buying into the fact that there are millions of single moms out there?



Sure there are single dads out there too. Just not nearly as many and women still make less than men for the same job.

In some cases yes. Not all but some. Sometimes when you marry someone or live with someone, they don't have a drug problem, or a mental problem. People change. And many times you don't know someone is going to die when you have children with them.

But now you're changing the discussion.

What a concept.

I think people should be able to see into the future that the person they have children with are going to die in a car crash or cancer. Damn them!

The single moms................what's the thread about? You have a horrible time keeping up with the thread. In fact, you make things about what YOU want them to be about.


Here's a fact: Decent jobs are available. DEal with it.

And if some baby daddy ain't paying child support? A simple phone call changes that - unless the guy isn't working.

So now living a decent life in America has a prerequisite of making 100% wise choices in your life. I'd like to hold all GOPers to that.

I follow the thread. that takes reading it and replying as thread evolves. I mean I understand how evolution is a strange concept to you, but threade do evolve. Keep up

e·volve
/ēˈvälv/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: evolve; 3rd person present: evolves; past tense: evolved; past participle: evolved; gerund or present participle: evolving

1.
develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Hope that helps you.

Yes, I am changing the discussion from... How can the government pay for the fact that over 30% of the nations kids don't live in a 2 parent home.... to.... how can we get back to kids living in a 2 parent home, which is the single biggest key indicator of future success.

17.2 million (23% of all kids under 18) live with just a mother
2.8 million (4%) live with just a father
3 million (4%) live without either, living with grandparents, aunts/uncles, older siblings, etc

23 million kids, immediately put at a significantly higher risk of failure, not because of the government or their own fault...

And you can talk about people developing mental illness or whatever.. but we both know, most of those kids NEVER had a chance at a stable two parent home.. not from day 1.

Full circle... this is also why abortion should continue to be a choice. One that’s none of anyone else’s business.

So how does any of that change or impact wage disparity and those at the bottom rung of income?

I mean I understand your point, but that has zero to do with the fact I could afford to live on a low wage job 40 years ago and people can't do that now.

It doesn't change the fact that those on the bottom end of wages are worse off now than they were 40 years ago. I mean we can keep evolving the topic or we can face up to the fact that things are getting worse for low wage workers and not better.

They always seem to try and make excuses even when DC points out the problems associated with forced births. Unless they plan on standing in line at adoption agencies, they should just mind their own business.

I know that. You know that. Everybody knows that. Evidently it's unrealistic for kids to know that and stop having kids.

Forced births from unforced pregnancies.

LMAO they still make phones that use a landline for a lot less than you get charged for a cell phone. Get with the times bro LOL

Maybe you need a tad more, but 32 years ago I was raising a family of four with two kids in diapers at the same time on 10,000 per year. It was tough but it was also the best few years of my life.

People don't get it. They want it all, now.

Talking to myself here.

I can't believe the USA has raised so many wimps in my life time. You do what you have to to survive. Single, married, one kid, five kids it doesn't matter. You do what you have to if you want to get by. You work 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, or 100 hours per week. Trust me I worked a MIN of 60 hours a week for 33 years years. I also worked 110 hours per week some years.

Wimps?

Snowflakes.

Oh really ? So I guess you want to adopt all the kids aged 1 day old to 10 years old who are killed by their parents. I mean unless your ready to do that then you should shut up about those of who oppose abortion. If you blame them for not adopting babies then you should blame yourself for not adopting babies who are already born and who are abused, or killed.

Leave me out of this LOL

And it seems you don't understand just how much more spending power that gave you decades ago. That's the entire point.

Well DC, we all know kids always do the responsible thing.

Doesn’t sound like much of a life.
I’m glad I don’t have to give 110 hours of my week away to anyone. I don’t care the money. My life is far more valuable than that.
To each their own.

That's about $40 K in today's dollars.

I worked crazy hours like that too. Then some fat cats crashed the economy and I lost pretty much everything I worked for... but I still have the health problems that come with that workaholic lifestyle bodily abuse. Does that make me a wimp?

Since when was making enough to live considered, "wanting it all"?

Almost half of all Americans work in low-wage jobs

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minimum-wage-2019-almost-half-of-all-americans-work-in-low-wage-jobs/

A minimum-wage worker needs 2.5 full-time jobs to afford a one-bedroom apartment in most of the US

https://www.businessinsider.com/minimum-wage-worker-cant-afford-one-bedroom-rent-us-2018-6

And you don't seem to remember what it was like to struggle. I know you did. I know you did what you had to do to raise your family and pay your bills. You have always been a hard working and caring man bro. Min wage was never ever intended to support a family of four, and it never will. Hell it never ever has. Quit making excuses for the lazy SOB's now.

A life for who YOU or your KIDS? My kids were worth way more than 168 hours per week. You feel like your would be kids are not. It just makes us disagree on this subject and nothing more bro. But to me everything, and everything is worth my kids life. You however feel that your life is more important than the life of any kids you might have had. I am jot saying I or you are right. I am just saying that I am happy with my choice. As you may also be with yours.

Maybe for you and where you chose to live. Around here life is much cheaper. I once posted that I lived in a 280,000 house. I was proud of that about 3 percent of the people around here owned houses that cost that much. I was attacked by some posters on this board who said I must live in a crap hole. Just because they lived in an area of the country that cost 5 times more than things do around here. They still do the same thing today.

No I meant the 10K you earned 32 years ago is about 40K in modern dollars buying power wise. hell 32 years ago you could rent a decent 3 bedroom home for like $250 a month. Hamburger was under $1 a pound, probably closer to 50 cents. Gas was under a buck too.

I hearby dup thee Pee Wee Herman

I do the math. Inflation verses the current wages. Math doesn't lie. Yes I did struggle. But I can do the math and see that I could never make it today on wages just above minimum wage. I could do it when I was young.

It's easy to say we both did it if we refuse to look at the facts that it's not the same today.

To live like I did in 1977 I'd have to be making way over minimum wage.

I didn't need to work two and a half full time jobs to do it.

The economics have changed. And it's the people that refuse to see it and blame low wage workers for it that are a big part of the problem.

?

I'm just saying all things do not compare so easily and all problems are not the same for everyone. I am where I am, you are where you are... You can't tell me working like that doesn't take its toll and that if you could have a few hundred of those healthier hours back to enjoy life you wouldn't take them.

I also believed I was doing it for my kids, giving them all I could would be an advantage... Turns out it wasn't an advantage at all. They would have rather had me more involved in the day to day.

It's a balance many wish they had the ability to afford.

In my area 8 bucks an hour is 17,800 per year. Does it buy you as much as it did 36 year ago... NO but it gets you close to what Me and my family lived on. Which in my area of the country could get you way more than a one bedroom apartment bro.

We can agree 110 percent on that part. I hated working those hours and missing out on family time. However I don't regret it at all. My kids had everything the needed (not wanted) growing up. Would I like some of those hours back for me.... you bet your ass I do. Do I want them back for my kids.... NO. My kids are happy and well adjusted. They have their own families, and they both are happy kids (yes for us old folks people in their 30's are still kids)



But I was involved with my kids. I ran on about 2 hours of sleep 6 days a week. Did it affect my life.... I guess with my health problems I would have to say yes, BUT I don't know for sure.

It's not. Go get a better paying job or don't have a family.


Yes, I know that is easy to say. Sometimes things change. Families have to be prepared to make changes. There are a LOT of 2 year degrees that give you the opportunity to make better than pretty good money. You just have to be willing to suck it up for a few years and get it done.

As for the abortion question... if we discovered life on some moon of Saturn and brought it back, it would become the most protected life form on earth, yet we toss our own lifeforms down the drain.

Hard to figure.

You make assumptions that just aren't true.

First, you assume people start off in minimum wage jobs. I can list, at least around here, 20 companies if not more that DON'T start you off at minimum wage. Full time jobs, with benefits.

You also assume that a minimum wage job means you stay at minimum wage. Full time jobs just don't do that, as long as you show up for work, work, and can pass a drug test.

And as I alluded to, n.w. ohio doesn't have the cost of living of cities.

I've stated many times, I can walk out my door and look left, at my pastor, or right, at my neighbor. Both smoke me in income and benefits. And I can choose to envy them and pity me.

Or I can choose to not. I can see many, many friends making 2, even 3 plus times as much as me. And not 1 bit happier.

I can look just a bit further and see the family of 5, dad works in a factory making maybe $18 an hour after 20 some years..........and they are doing just fine.

I sometimes lay in bed, as I did last night, and think of my friends: CFO's, CEO, sales rep traversing the entire U.S. making what I consider HUGE sums of money. And I can be envious/jealous, or I can choose to not be envious/jealous.

Decent paying jobs are out there, for anyone that desires them. Hell, even mechanics, plumbers, builders, etc.


What you make is only a small part of what makes you happy.

I have millionaire relatives that........just want more. More money, more stuff. For what?

If you compare food prices from 1987 to 2019 it would cost you $45.48 to buy the same food that you paid $20 bucks for in 1987 so that 10,000 would be equivalent to $22,740 not 40K

https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food/price-inflation/1987

Also if you use the AIER COLA Calculator what you bought in 1987 for $100 would cost you 224.80 today which would be $22,480 per year. not 40K

https://www.aier.org/cost-of-living-calculator/

So a person making 11 bucks an hour and working only 40 hours a week has about the same spending power as I did back then. I person working 60 hours a week at $7.30 per hour would also have the same spending power even without getting time and a half for the overtime.

See my post right above this one bro

get real for once please....these scenarios you guys spew are ridiculously stupid. And besides climate change and global warming is slowly killing off all life forms on earth. So if you guys think you are saving life and humanity by stopping legal abortions you’re barking up the wrong tree.

So your $10 hr wage is equivalent to $22.65 hr today. Yep, those entry level $22.65 hr jobs are just all over the place... Give it a rest, life is harder for those starting out today.

I don't believe it is any harder today than it was 20, 40, or even 100 years ago.

J/C

Getting back to the topic I actually think this sounds a little to radical but its not as crazy and heartless as the nutbags on the lefts Planned Parenthood inner city slaughterhouses that sells baby parts for sportscars. Fighting fire with fire is probably the thinking from the cons. IMO

That depends on how you define "hard." Many tasks may be easier due to technology, but other problems have arisen.

In an increasingly "independent" society, we've really become more dependent.

Most jobs require your own transportation now, a vehicle requires payments for both itself and insurance. You can argue that mass transportation exists, but outside of big cities it generally isn't convenient in location or frequency and housing generally costs more in cities.

People don't grow their own food or have the land to do so, so they generally have to pay for minimally nutritious, highly preserved foods. Healthy, fresh foods are more expensive and go bad relatively quickly. You can mention refrigeration, but that requires electricity which is another bill.

Most jobs require phone and/or email, which is another bill or two.

If the single mother is working, she'd have to find and/or pay for childcare.

She's also likely paying rent.

If she's having the baby she's probably going to have it in a hospital, which means medical bills and probably health insurance payments.

She probably can't afford all these things on a single income, so probably will take on debt, which will have an interest rate which will balloon. Her credit rating will probably suffer as she can't afford increasing payments, which most likely adversely affect her ability to get a better job.

Broken families that are similarly poor are rather "normal," so parental support is not a given and often unlikely.


Despite all this, I still think abortion is morally wrong. There are circumstances where it is the lesser evil.

However, many (not all) circumstances are avoidable.

We should put more emphasis on avoiding unwanted pregnancy, so abortion doesn't become the question.

Sex sells is a common advertising cliché. And, while using sex to sell other things, we are also effectively selling the idea of sex.

Using sex to get what you want (and that sex is something you should want) is an unspoken message that nonetheless gets transmitted, often to vulnerable people (children) that aren't fully equipped to deal with all the ramifications.

A girl using sex to "sell herself" to a boy she likes is a common byproduct of our societal selling practices.

The pervasiveness of sex often leads boys to the expectation of it.

Basically, I wonder if we worry to much about the expression of the problem (abortion) rather than the underlying factors that make it such an issue.

There's nothing inherently wrong with sex. However, the when's and why's and reasons and how's and alternatives might deserve more attention.

3% of Planned Parenthood services are abortions. The other assertions you spout have been disproven.

Planned Parenthood Is Not Harvesting ‘Baby Parts’

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/po...by-parts-71830/

And that’s the issue. The girl gives into the boy or refuses and the boy doesn’t stop and takes what’s expected. They want to punish the girl and her doctors for what the boy took from her.

When a government messes with your sex life (consensual) and or your reproductive rights... well it's time to chuck that government for a nice democratic socialist government where people can thrive... and abortion is legal.

One of the issues anyway (a big issue). Or the girl offers because she expects the boy to expect it and he accepts because he doesn't want to be the "lame" guy who says no to sex. So, the question we probably should be asking is,"how do we change the expectations that lead to the problematic behavior?"

We have this strange mixture of shame and a just do it philosophy with regards to sex in our culture that leads to lots of bad decisions. Plus, there's the everyday in your face of it, so how is it not on a hormone-filled teen's mind? If a commercial isn't using sex to sell a product, the most likely alternative is a commercial literally selling a sex enhancing product. It's a fairly common topic in music and film.

Don't forget porn in their pocket 24-7.

I just know I'm tired of all these woman only wanting me for my body

Dammit GM! There are some things you just can't unsee in your mind! Thanks for that...

At least Trump didn't say it

He's probably said it too.

But what do they want it for? Medical research?

Certainly some crazy things happening these days.

No They want it for target practice