There was quite an unexpected and surreal moment about half way through when Elton talks about a song he's going to do that was written by a friend of his he hasn't seen in a long time but who lives just down the street here. Then he starts singing Imagine. In less than three months John was killed. So sad.

But, I couldn't stop laughing - and dancing - at the end!

Enjoy!

That may be a basic truth but, it's far from being the essential one.

It's where the discussion needs to go!

I see. Sorry about lumping you in with the sorry lot who are for restricting a woman's reproductive rights.

Hope you see that the power lies just as much with the man who opposes abortion rights as it does with any woman when it comes to getting pregnant! :)

You seem to have an erroneous opinion of which "side" I'm on. I've explained many times, I'm all in favor of abortion rights.

The only thing I'm against is the stupid attempt of many of those who also favor abortion rights, to rationalize it by claiming the kid is not really a "baby", or nor really "alive", or not really a human being.

Enjoy!

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but that is what it is, an opinion. Whether religious or based on some other criterion, the question of what is human, "sub-human" or non-human is firmly in the category of belief.

Paul McCartney in New York City

I have a sneaky feeling that you might have been there, my friend ...

Beatles in the morning! Just what I needed. :-)

There is one power which women mostly have which nobody ever talks about in this debate, and that is the power to not get pregnant in the first place, right!!

Wrong! Well, more wrong than right, anyways.

But, we have moved the conversation toward a place where it belongs!

There are a few things that you may not know about who has that power. For starters, men have the power to come when they want and, for that matter, where they want.

Of course, men who wish to have control and power of another sort over women by restricting a woman's reproductive rights would probably not have learned about this other power that they have.

I have hope, though ... :)

I have two words for you ... Alexey Welsh. :)

And, one book title ... She Comes First.

The 4th Amendment begins The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…

Why doesn’t this settle the abortion issue in favor of the pro-choice side?

Ok, maybe some progress: life definitely does not begin at conception. Something else does. Good to have established that.

But biologically, a zygote is not an individual. The development that makes the difference between a typical single birth and identical twins hasn't happened yet. The development that makes the difference between what's going to be part of the embryo and what's going to be part of the embryonic side of the placenta also hasn't happened yet. So individuality does not begin at conception unless a pair of twins is one individual. Are they?

[14] of previous

If Russia won't let independent countries exist next door, then you're going to fight the Russian Empire sooner or later. In that case, it's better to fight a smaller version of it than a larger version, and it's better to fight where someone else's homes are getting bombed instead of yours. If Russia will let independent countries exist next door, then you're no worse off with Ukraine in the alliance than out, unless Ukraine decides to veto the membership of a more valuable potential member later. That's not likely enough to outweigh the advantages. For that matter, even if Russia were willing to let independent countries exist next door to its empire, it's not the only potential aggressor in the world. NATO is a defensive alliance, not an alliance against Russia: no member state has any obligation to act against Russian interests in any way, so long as Russia doesn't attack any of the other member states; and if Iran or whoever eventually manages to build up an empire strong enough that they think they can pick off a NATO member, the treaty obligates all NATO members to help just the same as if it's Russia. In the latter case, it's better to have a stronger alliance with more members, than a weaker one with fewer. Ukraine would definitely be an asset in a hypothetical war against some future aggressor.

There's no reason not to want Ukraine in the alliance, other than a commitment to the principle that once a piece of territory is conquered by the Empire, it belongs to the Empire forever. That's not a principle that everyone is willing to accept, certainly not Poland, the Baltics, or Germany.