re: #620 Charles

I did. I saw only a picture. That’s why I asked - thought you might have a link to more info. I could Google but then I might not be reading the same as you which is where I prefer to start and take it from there. Not a challenge, not looking for an argument. Maybe my browser is blocking a script or something, I’ll go back and check.
Thanks anyhow.

#621:

Listen, I’m NOT trying to say anything other than what you feel so STRONGLY about today can change tomorrow. Call it “evolution” of the mind. I’m not judging anyone, their decisions, opinion(s) etc., I type as plain as I possibly can that I am not looking to argue one side ot the other here. I’ve been reading here forever but have not posted as I am no longer as fired up about anything today as I was even 6 months ago. I’m trying to understand each persons view/opinion. I just asked for a bit of info. so I could be spared the “search” if at all possible. The only reason for this was so I could keep on top of the follow up posts and not be lost in Google Land until 2am. I’m NOT trying to restrict a freakin’ thing ! Do whatever the hell you want - its your life not mine. I simply asked for a little info if it was readily available
as it appeared that new info./facts have come to light that may give a bit more insight into the interested parties state of mind at the time - possibly making their positions a bit more outragous given these facts if they were known and then went on to point out that the way one may have felt about a given subject/opinion may change. Do you see the connection between the two ? is it just me ? In other words - IF the plaintiffs had the CAT scans during the hearings and had proof + that there was ZERO brain activity and I/we didn’t KNOW this, then we can re evaluate their
“position” with this new knowledge. If they DID NOT have this proof and, from the little i still re call, their position was based solely on the testimony/opinions of “professionals” (who can be hired to testify both pro and con) then evaluate (re evaluate) from this. And, if it is NEW proof/info. then, as I was trying to point out, ones opinion may be altered now these few years later.
My point on “Roe” is, for all I know, her current position (if it hasn’t changed again) MAY have derived from the advances made over the past 40 years from ultra sound to the amazing photos/video of the fetus living in the womb - I don’t know, I don’t really care, just had the thought when I reflected on the CAT scan pix Charles linked to. I’m not really up to speed on the subject, don’t know when the C scan pix were done and wonder if they would have impacted those so entrenched if they had them at the time. J_sus my head is FREAKIN POUNDING now ! Nothing like a little friendly exchange of info. ! I don’t even know what I just typed or why I’m bothering ! I wasn’t taking sides or trying to piss anyone off ! So much for being curious and trying to explain a difficult experience. No matter where you go or who you talk to these days it seems everyone just has to say “shut up old man, no one gives a sh*t about what you went through or what you think”. And I’m not whining about it either so don’t take this wrong. I just happen to still have very good long term memory and there was a time when people were interested in hearing others experiences and what they learned from them. Then again, maybe I’m deluding myself about the “good old days” too.
Make your own choices and live with ‘em. Its what life’s about anyhow right ?

“…by claiming that they just might regret making those choices somewhere down the road.”

I hope you don’t work for for your local “Suicide Hot Line”.