And to add to what you just said A Theist, Donna has since left CNN because CNN is trying to cover their behinds. They know they are guilty of being a government/establishment mouthpiece (i.e. state run media outlet). They are clearly guilty of collusion with a Hilary's campaign and giving an unfair advantage to Hilary. Why would Donna leave CNN if she's not guilty? Reminds me of when Debbie left the DNC (because she was guilty). They are only sorry they got caught. They don't care that they are undermining democracy.

(October 31, 2016 at 7:45 pm)Aractus Wrote: Again, I really doubt Russia would trust Assange.

They don't need to trust him. They just need to push material his way and he will do the rest. A tool, as I said. He will do anything to restore his fame of old. That's why most of his former coworkers left him. Everything to get his name published again.

I liked the guy when he published his first materials. But not anymore. For quite a long time actually, since he threw Bradley Mannings to the wolves and a lot of informants who's names he didn't black out when posting secret materials. The materials were valid, but the approach was despicable since he put lives on the lines. That was also the point when most of his followers left. They're working on different projects by now, projects on similar lines but with more ethics involved that just looking for fame.

Well, whaddaya know? 

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donal...15120.html

Quote:Donald Trump’s Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders

By Kurt Eichenwald On 10/31/16 at 7:00 AM

Quote:… Donald Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders. These tactics—exposed by a Newsweek review of thousands of pages of court filings, judicial orders and affidavits from an array of court cases—have enraged judges, prosecutors, opposing lawyers and the many ordinary citizens entangled in litigation with Trump.

Drumpf is a fucking crook.  No news there.

(October 31, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am fairly familiar with this because I was borderline preeclamptic when I was pregnant (due to the placental abnormalities) which can be life threatening and is only "cured" once the baby is out. If the mother's life is in immediate danger, the moral thing to do would be to induce labor or perform a C section. Abortion at late stages like this involve dismemberment and that is very painful for the baby who already has the nervous system fully intact. Luckily in my case, the baby died before it got to the point where we'd have to induce him while he was still alive. He wouldn't have survived outside the womb anyway because of how sickly he was, so at least he went peacefully on his own terms while he was still inside. But I do believe Tib is correct that late term abortion can also happen if the mother for whatever reason decides she no longer wants the baby (down syndrome or other birth defects, life changes, etc).

Ah!  I'm so torn on this issue...I absolutely consider myself pro-life, but the idea of late-term abortions solely on the basis of mother simply not wanting the baby just rips my insides out.  I can't even IMAGINE how it must make you feel, CL.  Does this make me hypocritical?  Is my position illogical?

(October 31, 2016 at 9:12 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Ah!  I'm so torn on this issue...I absolutely consider myself pro-life, but the idea of late-term abortions solely on the basis of mother simply not wanting the baby just rips my insides out.

Yeah, but that's not legal anywhere in the world. Apart from a life threatening condition of the mother and her giving consent.

(October 31, 2016 at 9:14 pm)abaris Wrote:

(October 31, 2016 at 9:12 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Ah!  I'm so torn on this issue...I absolutely consider myself pro-life, but the idea of late-term abortions solely on the basis of mother simply not wanting the baby just rips my insides out.

Yeah, but that's not legal anywhere in the world. Apart from a life threatening condition of the mother and her giving consent.

Illegal abortions are a thing.

(October 31, 2016 at 9:16 pm)Bella Morte Wrote:

(October 31, 2016 at 9:14 pm)abaris Wrote: Yeah, but that's not legal anywhere in the world. Apart from a life threatening condition of the mother and her giving consent.

Illegal abortions are a thing.

The solution is to make it legal then.

(October 31, 2016 at 9:16 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: Illegal abortions are a thing.

Yeah, but they're illegal. That's the point. Murder or bank robbery is also illegal, but noone makes a fuzz over it.

(October 31, 2016 at 9:19 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(October 31, 2016 at 9:16 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: Illegal abortions are a thing.

The solution is to make it legal then.

I'm pro-choice.

So I agree.

(October 31, 2016 at 9:25 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: I'm pro-choice.

So I agree.

I'm also pro choice, but - depending on what late time means - I don't agree. There's a point when an organism seizes to be just a collection of cells and develops senses. That's where I draw the line outside of life threatening conditions.