Cleveland and least has Akron beat. We had the National Inventors Hall of Fame... But it didn’t make any money, so now it’s elementary/middle school.

How does it work with two people in bed?

They will, but you also need a Huawei phone.

As someone who doesn’t drink, I have often been tempted to give this excuse. Why is it that alcohol is just expected, and people who don’t want it are considered the weird ones? And only telling people that you used to have a serious illness makes them be able to respect you enough to let it go?

Or just tell them you are on a diet.

Yeah, I don’t get our whole aversion to people with different genitals shitting next to each other. It’s already considered an invasion of privacy if a dude looks at another dudes dick at a urinal, is it that much worse if a woman does it?

And at the end of the day, Uber still isn’t going to make any money either way.

The issue is that, in addition to selling the the service of connecting drivers and riders, Uber also dictates the price of the ride. It’s not like Ebay, that takes a cut of a sale but allows the seller to set their own price, and the buyer to pick a best price. Instead, Uber says what any given fare will cost, and…

But so will quality of service.

Yep, that’s the problem. And it’s why Uber and Lyft have an upper hand in a lot of the legal issues. Asking them to change is also asking them to fundamentally change the nature of their service - possibly in a way that would significantly reduce the number of customers interested in the service.

But who does the right of the fetus outweigh the right of the mother? If I find a person, dying, and a doctor with the necessary equipment says “I can save them, but we need your blood to do it” I can strait up refuse and walk away. I do not have to give my blood to save someone’s life. A woman should not have to give…

No, they made the point that with sufficient external support, any cell could be “viable” so the argument that a fetus is viable earlier than what routine medical practice would allow is flawed. There is a point at which the amount of effort put into bringing that “human tissue” to the point of self-sustainability can…

Alternative moral issue: is it moral to force a person to be alive with a debilitating illness or impairment? If we know a fetus has a serious defect, is it moral to make it develops into a thinking person, and live out some life (short as it often may be) dealing with that problem consciously, when we could end it…

It renders it unnecessary as well. The issue is that women must have the choice of whether or not to use their body as a living life support system. If they can opt out without the fetus being terminated, that makes very little difference to them. Few people will say “nah, I want it dead” when they walk into a clinic.

Exactly. If women didn’t have to go through the whole ordeal of pregnancy to get the kid out without it dying, there would be no real issue. Except of course for figuring out what to do with the kid at that point, and who’s going to pay for it.

At that point, we as a society get to decide whether or not we want to accept the financial and economic burden of bringing so many motherless children into the world. If we can end a pregnancy without ending the life... then laws requiring that be done are viable, as long as the mother is able to bow out, it’s no…

And neither does a fetus in and of itself. A fetus can’t grow, and is not viable outside the environs of the womb. The facilities and resources of the female body are an indispensable necessity for viability. And it is the right of a woman to deny the use of those resources to any other person - even if that “person”…

And in some countries, they will cut it right off like a tumor if you let ‘em. Same people that say “no, you can’t get an abortion, it’s a baby and it has rights” have no issue cutting off parts of your body that they don’t like.

That’s the key element. The term “pro choice” doesn’t mean “pro abortion” it means that individual women should have the right to make a choice for themselves, without the beliefs of others being pressed upon them.

Of course it is, but so are a lot of things. But what exactly does that mean? In what way does that really apply?