No, we poors don’t spend “a couple grand” on cars. And on the rare occasions we do - hey, I’m big-time now: I spent $1,5000 on a car! - we know it’s going to happen, and either go to a branch, or spread the withdrawals out over a few days.

No offense to you, or your lifestyle - which I think is probably quite nice, personally - but I’ve never had $1,000 to pay a handyman to do fixes on my house, and certainly haven’t ever been in a situation where I wouldn’t have had some warning, such that I could do to a bank, or make the withdrawals over the course…

It takes quite a lot of imagination to think of why I - that is to say me, personally - would need more than $1,000 cash from an ATM in a single day, yes. Not least because the idea of having $1,000 in my account at all requires a fair amount of imagination.

I’d like to be living whatever kind of life is necessary to have a $1,000 daily ATM cash withdrawal limit somehow complicate my vacation plans.

I’d like to be living whatever kind of life is necessary to have a $1,000 daily ATM cash withdrawal limit be an infringement on my privacy. What a rough life those very private, very wealthy people must be leading.

But, alternately, the whole experience of movie-going is based on leaving the house and kids.

If there’s demand for this, more power to them, but it’s probably worth remembering as a user that not everyone can or will text you. I don’t just mean your grandparents, I mean, you know, people calling you for a job interview or the police calling to tell you they’ve found your - oh, but you won’t know that, because…

An inexpensive but not waterproof solution that eliminates any question of dexterity is to simply cut slits under the first knuckle of the thumb and forefinger of your gloves; slip the last joint of the finger/thumb out of the slits and use your phone with minimal exposed skin. Lasts for years, and costs no more than…

And, if you’ll permit me this slight divergence: this isn’t just an abortion question, it’s a question that has many, many implications for other important legal issues. Who deserves legal protection, and why? Let’s say we decide the critical factor is self-awareness, and since a foetus isn’t self-aware, it doesn’t…

Well, there’s literally no other situation in which anyone is inside of someone else’s body! So we don’t have precedent to fall back on: thus, we have to fall back on first principles: what about life deserves legal protection? And I don’t have a problem with us saying that a foetus needs to be at some particular…

Sure, but that happens rather a lot, where the rights of one person have to be limited because of the rights of some other person. As a general case, that’s kind of what laws are. Almost all abortion laws respect some point at which the foetus gets rights that then conflict with the mother; unless you’re proposing…

As far as that goes, I do believe that any human’s right to what goes in and out of their body is not currently legally absolute; that’s not a gender issue, it’s how our current laws work. I’m absolutely open to the idea of giving humans back complete control of what goes into and out of their bodies, I’m just not…

If “undecided” means “decided” to you, there’s probably not a lot further we could go in the conversation anyway. Thank you, though!

I believe humans have the right to autonomy over their own bodies, but I also believe laws put limits on that autonomy; my purpose is to find the point at which that’s appropriate, and apply it to this situation. The things I find genuinely uncertain - what life is, when the law should protect it - remain so, and so…

But I haven’t made my choice: that’s the point. No one has yet convinced me that a foetus isn’t alive, just as no one has yet convinced me that a foetus isn’t alive. No one, in all the variety of conversations I’ve had on the topic, has been able to explain to me what “life” is, and where and when and why it deserves…

Another excellent example of why I usually don’t get involved in these conversations: almost no one is willing to accept the genuinely uncertain, when their own moral certainty is so strong. That’s entirely all right, and I apologize if I’ve troubled you in any way. Go well, and if at any point you might wish to…

If you believe in souls, I’m not sure that justifies terminating that soul’s vehicle: otherwise, we’d just be allowing murder of anyone. And the existence of souls is most definitely a belief, and not a scientific fact. The very problem I face is that I only embrace scientific fact, and science doesn’t hand out…

I can’t quite do either of those things (and that could well be a flaw of mine and not of the universe itself). I can’t accept “commonly accepted” things: I have to have the proof, or at least a very strong amount of logical support. And how would I choose amongst the various basic principles upon which I could derive…

And it’s not that I don’t get your point, but I think when I’m in that situation might be the worst possible time for me to make that moral judgement. Decisions made on the basis of emotion, in my experience, aren’t always the most ethical decisions I make.

As regards the robbing issue, I mention elsewhere - you’d have no reason to have seen it - that I think IUD failure rates are low enough that it’s difficult to use that as legal “assumption of risk,” so I think we agree as far as that goes.