J.C.MacSwell

Pigeons Unlimited.

Sounds like "drain the swamp...dredge...build sewage lagoon"

A couple of things here. I never claimed it would be easy, I just think it can be done by some reasonable common sense centrist. He or she would also have to no doubt have the charisma and oratory skills of a Kennedy, Obama, Bill Clinton, or Reagan. Sanders could have been that guy if not so far "Left" economically. I don't see the overall positions of either Party being particularly advantageous. It seems more they hope to get everyone to hate the positions of the "other side"...enough to get them to get out and vote for something most don't really want. Might look like "no man's land" in the middle, but I think most are getting tired of the sometimes absurd positions of the fringes, the corruption, and the lobbying that makes money count more than their votes. No wonder most know the moon landing was faked...no obvious sign of cheese on set...and if they can't even get that right...

You are resilient!

Point taken. (but no +1)

Point taken. +1

I still think most Americans are reasonably centrist...but the politicians seemed to have done the Lemming thing, so your point is of course valid.

The questionable part was the Dems putting him on the ticket, well past his prime, when he really never was capable enough at any point in his career. The only thing Trump had to do with that was the Dems being afraid they would lose to Trump with anyone else. I will certainly admit he was not as pathetic a choice as Trump. You have 300+ million people...

He does seem to have been suffering some confabulation for quite some time now. I'm not sure how fast he's declining. Considering the position he has questionably been elected to, he seems to holding up better than many expected, opinion polls notwithstanding.

Right. That's why we need laws that we can accept. We certainly need inputs from professionals in their areas of expertise but they can't pass them. (unless of course, we elect them) On topic, this current dilemma is lawmaker fail, not SCOTUS fail.

We essentially have that with control and guidance, due to lawmakers, and avoid spontaneous viewpoints of politicians, due to lawmakers (and our constitutions and our courts...also due to lawmakers) Of course...when I say we have that...we can debate whether that includes Americans... The medical fraternity didn't simply plant a flag and gain that right and responsibility.

There are medical personnel on this planet that would be more than happy to harvest your organs against your will to "donate" to someone they feel is more in need, more deserving, or simply willing to pay enough for the service. Fortunately there are "moral lawmakers" that won't allow it.

Just comes down to Peterkin Economics of Abortions 101. 2 kids cost more to bring up than 1.

Is "whatever" infanticide? Gun control? Just wondering what point you think it's fair to start forcing your beliefs on others. What makes it morally okay to support aborting a fetus while protecting her twin brother born 5 minutes earlier? Why can't your guardrail include her?

What happens in the labour room, stays in the labour room? No restrictions?

Close. That of their constituents...but you are slowly getting there despite your extreme polarizing mindset. Both mothers and medical personnel need restrictions on their choices. Without it infanticide would be legal. ...and that has been done, illegally, in our country.

I guess in fairness I can claim that you believe medically trained persons should be unrestrained by any laws made by legislators? Why is it all or none with you? After giving your head a shake, try looking at these two choices, one which I agreed with and one I rejected: - taking medical decisions away from physicians - a morality-based judgement system controlled by law-makers Is my position getting any clearer to you?

Right. But you made your list with that exactly as one of options. I answered your question. Your welcome. The majority fall in neither of those strict categories. Surely it's apparent that if the majority had their say, though few might be fully satisfied there would be a much more satisfactory situation than what we have currently. You only get to vote during elections. You can refuse to support the current Parties at any time and signal openness to "voting better" to better options. I'm quite aware that it's complex and difficult. Electoral reform could be worthwhile as well, but you can certainly improve the lot of pregnant women and fetuses without it.

The one I bolded when quoting CY. It's in all our job descriptions...at least those in democracies. Many, many, and many...Both sides have presented it this way.

Which is how it should be...so why don't you find some reasonable law makers? The vast, vast majority of Americans agree with the objections to the extremes of both sides, including: 1. No abortions under any circumstances and 2. Abortions by choice under any circumstances I think that law might point to why each of the Parties should sew their shirt together, rather than hope the other Party can be made to look worse...assuming they have any actual interest in improving outcomes and maintaining anything worthwhile they have in place.

What law allows someone to abort a tumour?

I guess as long as you don't call it an abortion it's okay... The Parties sure like their extreme positions. How about "I can't really define abortion but I know it when I hear about it".

My only assumption was that any State law that differed would have to be an unreasonable one. I'm certainly not naive enough to assume all State (or other) laws are reasonable.

What makes you think I would?

I would say Putin for starting it all, but I guess one could always say society is to blame...Russian society. Anything else you might like to ask?