40 maps that explain the world

47 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
A very interesting post from the Washington Post. I'm not saying I agree with all of them but this will get you to thinking.

A few of the map titles.

3. The world's major writing systems

7. A European missionary's map of Africa, circa 1908

18. Where people smoke the most (and least) cigarettes per person

24. More than half of humanity lives inside this circle
^^^ Very interesting. ^^^

26. How far Hamas's rockets can reach into Israel

29. The cancer villages of China

40. The world as seen from space, over a 12-month time-lapse

Have a look.

40 maps that explain the world

Joe Mobley
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    11. A Russian professor thinks the U.S. will break up into these four countries.

    IMHO...

    ...Doesn't make sense.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8411088].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      11. A Russian professor thinks the U.S. will break up into these four countries.

      IMHO...

      ...Doesn't make sense.
      For ONCE, I think they got it mostly right. I'm SURPRISED, since it isn't really PC!

      As for the split to four? The east coast pretty much HAS to do that to remain much the same, etc... The west also would. BOTH are moving towards that! Texas has ALWAYS been pretty much moving towards that. HECK, have you BEEN down there or known people from there? There is even a cooking style called TEXMEX. They may SAY "remember the alamo", but most have FORGOTTEN! Of course, mexico would LOVE the move, since texas is a blend of both, and has a lot going for it. Many texans even speak Spanish, and likely have close relatives in mexico.

      As for the midwest? Well, canada is about the closest country, culturally, anyway. It IS ironic. I saw a commercial only last month advertising coins celebrating Canada's victory in 1812 against the US! Granted, the US declared war, and the boundaries didn't change, but the US wanted the british monarchy off of the continent. Still, of all the major countries, they are the closest to the US, yes geographically, but also culturally.

      Ironically, New york is more likely to go to the EU though they are nextdoor to canada. There IS one state I think is closer to canada that is in the EU column, and one that is closer to china than it is to canada. And Hawaii might go to japan. They HAVE had a lot of japanese go over, and have ATMs that display japanese, etc.... Outside of a strategic port, I doubt china would want them. And alaska going to russia? I think canada would be better. Of course, with a weak US, russia might just take it back.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8411228].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        For ONCE, I think they got it mostly right. I'm SURPRISED, since it isn't really PC!

        As for the split to four? The east coast pretty much HAS to do that to remain much the same, etc... The west also would. BOTH are moving towards that! Texas has ALWAYS been pretty much moving towards that. HECK, have you BEEN down there or known people from there? There is even a cooking style called TEXMEX. They may SAY "remember the alamo", but most have FORGOTTEN! Of course, mexico would LOVE the move, since texas is a blend of both, and has a lot going for it. Many texans even speak Spanish, and likely have close relatives in mexico.

        As for the midwest? Well, canada is about the closest country, culturally, anyway. It IS ironic. I saw a commercial only last month advertising coins celebrating Canada's victory in 1812 against the US! Granted, the US declared war, and the boundaries didn't change, but the US wanted the british monarchy off of the continent. Still, of all the major countries, they are the closest to the US, yes geographically, but also culturally.

        Ironically, New york is more likely to go to the EU though they are nextdoor to canada. There IS one state I think is closer to canada that is in the EU column, and one that is closer to china than it is to canada. And Hawaii might go to japan. They HAVE had a lot of japanese go over, and have ATMs that display japanese, etc.... Outside of a strategic port, I doubt china would want them. And alaska going to russia? I think canada would be better. Of course, with a weak US, russia might just take it back.

        Steve
        The authors also said this about that particular map...

        "I’ve included it both for a taste of how the United States is sometimes perceived abroad and to give American readers a sense for what it can feel like to have the outside world get your country so wildly wrong."

        But. I'm not surprised you agree with the Russian professor's hogwash since you already said we're done as a nation right?


        How patriotic of you.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8411408].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          The authors also said this about that particular map...

          "I've included it both for a taste of how the United States is sometimes perceived abroad and to give American readers a sense for what it can feel like to have the outside world get your country so wildly wrong."

          But. I'm not surprised you agree with the Russian professor's hogwash since you already said we're done as a nation right?


          How patriotic of you.
          YOU'RE the one that wanted change, and doesn't like the constitution.

          If patroitism is following the actions of a land then ALL in the land are patriotic, and the word loses meaning! NO, it is fighting for, and a strong preference for, the country as it has been traditionally and usually as it has been founded.

          So I view more people in alaska to likely be patriotic, and YOU would likely say the same about the governor of New york. If we were to feel that way and that was considered true for both, WHAT meaning could patriotic have?

          As for hogwash? Let's see! Texas HAS always had strong ties to mexico, even though it fought for independence, etc... And California is ever going towards that side. The east coast would love to, but it would gut their way of life. Perhaps the EU is closer. Maybe that is because it was never seen to be as big of a target as the US, etc...

          AGAIN, even the EU is changing. IT is ironically going to something more like what russia had. From what I have seen and heard, Canada is likely changing more slowly.

          At this point, I have seen things that 40 years ago I would think were NUTS! EVEN as I saw them move, and made some logical(based on precedent but NOT reason) predictions, I kept thinking NOOOOOOOOOO! It CAN'T go that far! X happened and Y said Z and this group DIED fighting it, etc... And yet it came to pass. Some stuff I am SHOCKED some people don't see, but it is there. Some people that came from russia, and people that fought in WWII have ALSO expressed surprise. But people always manage to discount them. I could say more, but I will stop here.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8412386].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            YOU'RE the one that wanted change, and doesn't like the constitution.

            If patroitism is following the actions of a land then ALL in the land are patriotic, and the word loses meaning! NO, it is fighting for, and a strong preference for, the country as it has been traditionally and usually as it has been founded.

            So I view more people in alaska to likely be patriotic, and YOU would likely say the same about the governor of New york. If we were to feel that way and that was considered true for both, WHAT meaning could patriotic have?

            As for hogwash? Let's see! Texas HAS always had strong ties to mexico, even though it fought for independence, etc... And California is ever going towards that side. The east coast would love to, but it would gut their way of life. Perhaps the EU is closer. Maybe that is because it was never seen to be as big of a target as the US, etc...

            AGAIN, even the EU is changing. IT is ironically going to something more like what russia had. From what I have seen and heard, Canada is likely changing more slowly.

            At this point, I have seen things that 40 years ago I would think were NUTS! EVEN as I saw them move, and made some logical(based on precedent but NOT reason) predictions, I kept thinking NOOOOOOOOOO! It CAN'T go that far! X happened and Y said Z and this group DIED fighting it, etc... And yet it came to pass. Some stuff I am SHOCKED some people don't see, but it is there. Some people that came from russia, and people that fought in WWII have ALSO expressed surprise. But people always manage to discount them. I could say more, but I will stop here.

            Steve
            You should have stopped before you got started if you're going to agree with that Russian professor regarding map #11.

            ( saying that the US will split into 4 countries )


            Sure I wanted and still want change.

            No one in here likes the constitution any more than I do including you.

            I guess if the SCOTUS makes a ruling that you don't agree with then they also don't like the constitution since you're the ultimate patriot.
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8415056].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              You should have stopped before you got started if you're going to agree with that Russian professor regarding map #11.

              ( saying that the US will split into 4 countries )


              Sure I wanted and still want change.

              No one in here likes the constitution any more than I do including you.

              I guess if the SCOTUS makes a ruling that you don't agree with then they also don't like the constitution since you're the ultimate patriot.
              Several of the supreme court members stated POINT BLANK that they should not decide based on the constitution! They have made the SCOTUS a laughing stock! Or are you saying that they are LYING about violating their OATH! If they would lie for that, what would they NOT lie for.

              As for the US breaking up into 4 countries, I said it was feasible. In spirit, many already have!

              Then again, your statements contradict one another!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8415223].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                Several of the supreme court members stated POINT BLANK that they should not decide based on the constitution! They have made the SCOTUS a laughing stock! Or are you saying that they are LYING about violating their OATH! If they would lie for that, what would they NOT lie for.

                As for the US breaking up into 4 countries, I said it was feasible. In spirit, many already have!

                Then again, your statements contradict one another!

                Steve

                Thank you Ultimate Patriot.


                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8415316].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author serryjw
                STEVE...IMHO the US is the 3rd largest country in the world and way too diverse. It is tearing us apart...whether you are center right or center left, there is no more compromising for the good of the whole. Congress is worthless and SCOTUS lost me for good with Robert's decision on Obomacare. He cared more about his legacy than the constitution.
                WHAT % of this country has a clue what the constitution said. I was at a gathering of educated people when we did the last census, NOT ONE person could tell me WHY we do the census!!!
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8415392].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

                  STEVE...IMHO the US is the 3rd largest country in the world and way too diverse. It is tearing us apart...whether you are center right or center left, there is no more compromising for the good of the whole. Congress is worthless and SCOTUS lost me for good with Robert's decision on Obomacare. He cared more about his legacy than the constitution.
                  WHAT % of this country has a clue what the constitution said. I was at a gathering of educated people when we did the last census, NOT ONE person could tell me WHY we do the census!!!
                  You are certainly right there. MANY today say that the slaves being worth 3/5th was because they were black, and was AGAINST the slaves! *******WRONG******* on BOTH counts! FIRST, not all slaves were black, and some were indentured! SECOND, if WOMEN were not allowed to vote, WHY would slaves, etc be? So HOW did the 3/5th come into play? SIMPLE! 500 slaves were counted as 300 to allocate services and representation for the states. If slaves had been counted as a whole person, it would have been WORSE for the slaves because the congress would have been even MORE in favor of it, since the slavery states would have more people in the house.

                  The federal government is NOT supposed to treat people different, so WHY ask about RACE? It is NOT supposed to allocate funds to aliens, so WHY ask that? It is NOT supposed to favor or be against religion, so WHY ASK?

                  And the census is SUPPOSED to be to count CITIZENS! NOT RACE, NOT ALIENS, but CITIZENS to determine representation and allocation of resources.

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8416553].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author serryjw
                    SECOND, if WOMEN were not allowed to vote, WHY would slaves, etc be?
                    Sorry, don't understand your point.
                    The federal government is NOT supposed to treat people different, so WHY ask about RACE? It is NOT supposed to allocate funds to aliens, so WHY ask that? It is NOT supposed to favor or be against religion, so WHY ASK?
                    I don't believe they did...it was the state you live in that asked
                    And the census is SUPPOSED to be to count CITIZENS! NOT RACE, NOT ALIENS, but CITIZENS to determine representation and allocation of resources. Sorry, I have to disagree. No place in the constitution does it state 'citizens'...it it inferred, that it is PEOPLE that live in the state...resident legal or not, still live in that state.
                    ------------
                    I have a good one for you...Do you know that in my lifetime birth control was ILLEGAL!
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8416780].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

                      Sorry, don't understand your point. I don't believe they did...it was the state you live in that asked
                      Well, women have never had a position as low as slaves, but they at one time were't allowed to vote. CLEARLY, slaves weren't either.

                      The census is through the federal government.

                      As for birth control, I son't believe it was EVER illegal. I think the closest thing was that the catholic church was against it and could conceivably ex communicate you if you did.

                      Abortion is kind of way to prevent a likely imminent birth. It shouldn't be confused with condoms, birth control pills, the rythm system, etc... Abortion has been illegal. Abortion varies from causing an early misimplantation(RU486) to a killing of a baby delivered breech on purpose(PBA).

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8416819].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fazal Mayar
    Very interesting share mate, human civiliation has spread fast over the last decades
    Signature

    Blogger at RicherOrNot.com (Make Money online blog but also promoting ethical internet marketing)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8411178].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Thanks, Joe. I love maps.

    Here's a map (set of) that I like. Global incidence maps - covers Hazmat situations, food/medicine incidents, forest fires, disease outbreaks, gang activity, border security, presidential threats, terrorism event predictions, quakes map, drug interdictions, non-terror aviation incidents, human trafficking.

    http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...ain-world.html

    If you put your curser over the icons it tells what the exact incident is/was.

    Edit - wrong link - here's the right one:
    http://hazmat.globalincidentmap.com/map.php
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8411280].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sjy156
    Thanks for posting these. Really cool. i agree with the one about most and least welcoming couuntires.

    I loved Thailand down to Singapore. and Russians don't like anyone, who would if you were that damn cold all the time?

    Was surprised to see such diversity in South America.

    Was surprised to see England as moderately emotional. i think they're often unemotional.

    great link. thanks for the break in my working Sunday!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8411442].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by sjy156 View Post

      Thanks for posting these. Really cool. i agree with the one about most and least welcoming couuntires.

      I loved Thailand down to Singapore. and Russians don't like anyone, who would if you were that damn cold all the time?

      Was surprised to see such diversity in South America.

      Was surprised to see England as moderately emotional. i think they're often unemotional.

      great link. thanks for the break in my working Sunday!
      I have heard a lot of detail about places in south america and it ranges from like poor, addicted, crime-ridden places to places that are richer, high class, and safe. It is a pity that the former tend to be larger than the latter.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8412395].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8412110].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    In case ya didn't see my edit in my last post -- here's the link to the maps that I meant to post:

    Global Incident Map Displaying Terrorist Acts, Suspicious Activity, and General Terrorism News
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8413017].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Sherry - I worked on the census in 2009 - we verified address locations........and were asked to list anywhere on GPS that a human could hold up at, such as caves. Why would they want a GPS of caves that could fit humans? It struck me pretty strange, too. As far as census taking - --- that's how they determine funding allocations, but a lot of their questions now go very far beyond what they need them to. And GPS of sheds, shacks, barns, caves, etc. kinda chilled me a little bit.

    Ruling outside of the Constitution is a violation of office - no matter what side of issues you are on. If we void our rights, well, that makes us a different type of political system than a constitutional republic -- and when lawmakers are not held to the laws of the land.........that is the very structure of tyranny.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8415805].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author serryjw
      The U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to carry out the census in "such manner as they shall by Law direct" (Article I, Section 2) Sal, This HOW we determine congressional representation. After the census you always hear that Ohio, states in the N.E lost a congressional rep because the population is moving from the N.E to the south and the west. I don't have a problem with looking for people under bridges, canes and living in their car...They are still live in that state.
      Unfortunately, we don't have a constitution any more..they have done a great of deciding issues that suit their re-election.
      Until we have federal funded national elections, get money out of politics, we will continue to have our representative vote against our interests.

      SERRY
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8416418].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jacktackett
    Anyone who thinks north or South Carolina will follow New York needs to come live here for few months...
    Signature
    Let's get Tim the kidney he needs!HELP Tim
    Mega Monster WSO for KimW http://ow.ly/4JdHm


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8416558].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by jacktackett View Post

      Anyone who thinks north or South Carolina will follow New York needs to come live here for few months...
      Well, you never know. Part of it is obviously about simplicity. That would explain why they have a kind of communist state going to canada, and one that is generally mid west going to the EU. AGAIN, the EU is becomming like a little russia. No offense to those in the EU. I'm just referring to laws being adopted, etc...

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8416577].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author serryjw
    The census is through the federal government.
    There quit a uproar over the demographic questions( which I didn't answer) which was revealed it was NOT the Feds that were asking the questions but the States were piggybacking with the Feds in the hope citizens would never know...well they got that wrong

    As for birth control, I don't believe it was EVER illegal
    LOL! We take our rights so for granted. It was illegal until the 1965 landmark Scotus decision Griswold v Connecticut
    Landmark Case Protected Women's Right to Birth Control

    Abortion varies from causing an early misimplantation(RU486) to a killing of a baby delivered breech on purpose(PBA).
    Ohhhhhhhh, time to go back to sex education 101...neither statement is correct
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8416908].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

      Ohhhhhhhh, time to go back to sex education 101...neither statement is correct
      Actually, NEITHER of these types of abortions were even available when I even GRADUATED highschool, let alone during sex ed!

      OK, name ONE type of abortion simpler or safer than RU486. Just ONE!!!!!!! It is a drug that causes the ovum to not implant properly.

      OK, name ONE type of abortion later or more heinous than PBA where they deliver the child BREECH, and kill it before it can take the first gulp of air.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8418272].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

      There quit a uproar over the demographic questions( which I didn't answer) which was revealed it was NOT the Feds that were asking the questions but the States were piggybacking with the Feds in the hope citizens would never know...well they got that wrong
      FUNNY, since the FED seems to use the data, etc... They ALSO encouraged aliens to be counted, which is one reason for HEYSALS statements.

      LOL! We take our rights so for granted. It was illegal until the 1965 landmark Scotus decision Griswold v Connecticut
      Landmark Case Protected Women's Right to Birth Control
      That is hard to believe. I know that my mother has been taking birthcontrol since the 1960s. About as far back as I can recall. Kids get around, and she wasn't that secretive about it, and the dispenser IS very distinctive. She told me that the doctor said she couldn't handle another birth, and she had some problems soon after I was born.

      So wikipedia got it wrong?

      During the same time period, the pharmaceutical industry was steadily developing new modes of contraception. In the early 1950s, philanthropist Katharine McCormick provided funding for biologist Gregory Pincus to develop the birth control pill, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1960.[152] The pill became very popular and had a major impact on society and culture. It contributed to a sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women.[153] New forms of intrauterine devices were introduced in the 1960s, increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptives.[154]
      THE federal agency for authorizing drugs declared the birth control pill to be OK! BTW the lawsuit was against CONNECTICUT!

      Keep in mind that "planned parenthood" thinks abortion is birth control! I guess that is true in the same way that a debt may be settled by a world war.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8418336].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author serryjw
        That is hard to believe. I know that my mother has been taking birthcontrol since the 1960s. About as far back as I can recall. Kids get around, and she wasn't that secretive about it, and the dispenser IS very distinctive. She told me that the doctor said she couldn't handle another birth, and she had some problems soon after I was born.
        Actually, your timing is perfect...SCOTUS's decision was 1965. We have to assume that it took Griswold 5 years to make it to the high court. What is the sense of winning a SCOTUS decision IF there was no B/C available to implement? I was curious, so I googled it...
        The first oral contraceptive was submitted first for regulatory approval in 1957 as a treatment for menstrual disorders and infertility, not as a contraceptive (although the drug had been developed as an oral contraceptive). It was not until 1960 that the same drug was submitted to FDA for approval specifically as an oral contraceptive

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8418941].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

          Actually, your timing is perfect...SCOTUS's decision was 1965. We have to assume that it took Griswold 5 years to make it to the high court. What is the sense of winning a SCOTUS decision IF there was no B/C available to implement? I was curious, so I googled it...
          [/COLOR][/B]
          Well, it takes a LONG time to present info to the FDA for approval. 3 years isn't out of line. And that is true of ALL drugs!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8419393].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

          Actually, your timing is perfect...SCOTUS's decision was 1965. We have to assume that it took Griswold 5 years to make it to the high court. What is the sense of winning a SCOTUS decision IF there was no B/C available to implement? I was curious, so I googled it...
          [/COLOR][/B]
          Yeah, I am pretty sure I saw them BEFORE 1965.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8419490].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author serryjw
            LOL! I didn't say doctors didn't prescribe them on the guise of health issues. If your mom was having problems and another pregnancy would have endangered to her life, she could have gotten them from a doctor.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8419527].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author serryjw
        THE federal agency for authorizing drugs declared the birth control pill to be OK! BTW the lawsuit was against CONNECTICUT!
        Yeah, If you had clicked my link, you would have known that. Yes,some married couple had to go all the way to SCOTUS to make family planning legal . In 1972 SCOTUS gave single woman the same right.Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
        These two decisions laid the ground work for 'ROE'
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8418974].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author serryjw
      Abortion varies from causing an early misimplantation(RU486) to a killing of a baby delivered breech on purpose(PBA).
      Actually, NEITHER of these types of abortions were even available when I even GRADUATED highschool, let alone during sex ed!

      OK, name ONE type of abortion simpler or safer than RU486. Just ONE!!!!!!! It is a drug that causes the ovum to not implant properly.

      OK, name ONE type of abortion later or more heinous than PBA where they deliver the child BREECH, and kill it before it can take the first gulp of air.[quote]
      Keep in mind that "planned parenthood" thinks abortion is birth control! I guess that is true in the same way that a debt may be settled by a world war.
      You are obviously republican and very miss-informed. What I don't know is how old you are, are you married and do you have children...answer these and I will be happy to respond to the above.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8418992].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        [quote=serryjw;8418992]Actually, NEITHER of these types of abortions were even available when I even GRADUATED highschool, let alone during sex ed!

        OK, name ONE type of abortion simpler or safer than RU486. Just ONE!!!!!!! It is a drug that causes the ovum to not implant properly.

        OK, name ONE type of abortion later or more heinous than PBA where they deliver the child BREECH, and kill it before it can take the first gulp of air.

        You are obviously republican and very miss-informed. What I don't know is how old you are, are you married and do you have children...answer these and I will be happy to respond to the above.
        WOW, If I am SO misinformed, WHY didn't you answer? PBA, According to NARAL, was introduced in SEPTEMBER 1992! That is when a doctor actually submitted a document on how to do it! RU486 was approved in 2000, according to wikipedia. OK, OK, the morning after pill is now something else, but THAT was approved in 2010. All those dates are AFTER I graduated. SORRY! Since your questions have no bearing on the answer...

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8419459].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author serryjw
          ONE type of abortion later or more heinous than PBA where they deliver the child BREECH, and kill it before it can take the first gulp of air.
          It takes maturity to understand this issue...not repeat of some political meme.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8419540].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

            It takes majority to understand this issue...not repeat of some political meme.
            Majority of what? Political? There have been such cases. HECK, why call it PBA otherwise? I mean MOST try to just do it.

            OK, so wikipedia suggests a name change, BUT... A rose by any other name....

            Under the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[3] Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.[5]
            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8419735].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author serryjw
              Majority of what? Political? There have been such cases. HECK, why call it PBA otherwise? I mean MOST try to just do it.
              LOL! I changed it...I am busy working while reponding your posts...maturity became majority!-
              _------------
              GOPers don't seem to understand that it is a gut wrenching decision that is made only about 1000 times a year when the health of the mother or fetus is the issue. Try and imagine being told in the 8th month that your baby will live outside the womb for a few hours..what do you do? Carry to term? Or have a Late Stage Abortion...it happened to a friend of mine....NOW, every person will have an opinion BUT you can't imagine how hard this is and pro-choice people do not believe YOU should have the right to make that decision... it is between you , your doctor and your God..not 9 people in black robes.
              -----------------
              My niece is adopted...She was the 6th illegitimate child of some bimbo...and we know she had a 7th! Do you REALLY want her to keep 7 children? She was totally irresponsible will her life, what would she have done with 7 more?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8419799].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

                LOL! I changed it...I am busy working while reponding your posts...maturity became majority!-
                _------------
                GOPers don't seem to understand that it is a gut wrenching decision that is made only about 1000 times a year when the health of the mother or fetus is the issue. Try and imagine being told in the 8th month that your baby will live outside the womb for a few hours..what do you do? Carry to term? Or have a Late Stage Abortion...it happened to a friend of mine....NOW, every person will have an opinion BUT you can't imagine how hard this is and pro-choice people do not believe YOU should have the right to make that decision... it is between you , your doctor and your God..not 9 people in black robes.
                -----------------
                My niece is adopted...She was the 6th illegitimate child of some bimbo...and we know she had a 7th! Do you REALLY want her to keep 7 children? She was totally irresponsible will her life, what would she have done with 7 more?
                It's interesting how you switched the story around 180degrees from EVERY other case I have heard. THEY said it was to save the life of the mother! Of course, I could never understand the idea of a BREECH birth for that!

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8419887].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author serryjw
                  You are too hung up on the procedure...there are 3 way to do a LTA...that is when the doctor comes into place in what is the safest. A LTA may very well be to save the mother BUT make no mistake it is dangerous & requires a 2nd opinion. Many in the pro-choice movement do believe in abortion on demand. After 20 weeks, viability, it has to be for a good reason....I know you are going to hate this BUT No male should have a say in this...you will never know what it's like to be pregnant with an unwanted child.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8419915].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

                    You are too hung up on the procedure...there are 3 way to do a LTA...that is when the doctor comes into place in what is the safest. A LTA may very well be to save the mother BUT make no mistake it is dangerous & requires a 2nd opinion. Many in the pro-choice movement do believe in abortion on demand. After 20 weeks, viability, it has to be for a good reason....I know you are going to hate this BUT No male should have a say in this...you will never know what it's like to be pregnant with an unwanted child.
                    I could certainly imagine what it would be like to be pregnant and not wanting to finish the 9MONTH and possibly more term. I doubt ANYONE thinks it is that painless. There is the weight, balance, size, eating, restroom, possible problems like gestational diabetes, etc... And, frankly, the final pain is one that VERY few seem to think is painless. And almost NO women even give themselves a CHANCE to experience the full impact. They have a cesarean and/or epidural!

                    WHO ever said it was simple, etc? But a woman has a LOT of choices! LTA is a ridiculously LATE one.

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8420287].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author serryjw
                      you are all over the board...yes, cesarean is up in the US but here are some reasons to explain that...older moms & multiple births. Casarean of convenience is not discouraged my the medical community...less malpractice problems for the OB-GYN
                      ---------
                      Back to LTA is very rear...GOPers talk like it happens 1000's a time a years...maybe around 1000 times a year...There are so many medical reasons for the 1000. In modern day America, we still lose about 1000 moms every year to complications from pregnancy/delivery...make no mistake...pregnancy is potentially dangerous and she deserves to have options when it turns bad. Many times the problem does not rear its ugly head until very late in the pregnancy...WHAT would do IF you had to choice between the life of your wife or your future child?
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8420377].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

                        WHAT would do IF you had to choice between the life of your wife or your future child?
                        If it were a choice like that, there would be no choice. I would opt for my wife. But that is often not the case.

                        As for quantity? Who would know?

                        As for political? I'm not even mentioning a party. It all started with someone saying I was very foolish and suggesting that I go back to a class that, at the time, wouldn't even have spoken about such things. It would be like my saying that flash memory is very popular, and someone telling me to go back to my first formal computer class, because I was wrong. At the time, flash memory didn't even exist, and EEPROMs were just starting to be available to electronic hobbyists.

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8420569].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author serryjw
                          If it were a choice like that, there would be no choice. I would opt for my wife. But that is often not the case.
                          That is always the case...you can't do a voluntary, 3rd trimester abortion.
                          As for quantity? Who would know?
                          WHAT does that mean?
                          I was very foolish
                          never said that. You lump birth control, morning after ill, RU486 with early stage abortion, late stage abortion.
                          No matter what statistics/reasons you are given you don't acknowledge this is not an simple black & white issue.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8420642].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                            It's never been a clearcut issue. The pro and con people are so entrenched in their beliefs, it never will be.

                            Personally, I think until men start giving birth they probably shouldn't have any influence on legality or illegality of abortion:p
                            Signature
                            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog.
                            ***
                            It takes nothing away from a human to be kind to an animal.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8420925].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author serryjw
                              POST #37
                              No male should have a say in this...you will never know what it's like to be pregnant with an unwanted child.
                              Yes, thanks for your support...honestly, it started out talking about SCOTUS and ended up with abortion. In the history of the US, the only person that ever changed their opinion on 'choice' was...ROE herself :-p
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8420979].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

                                POST #37
                                Yes, thanks for your support...honestly, it started out talking about SCOTUS and ended up with abortion. In the history of the US, the only person that ever changed their opinion on 'choice' was...ROE herself :-p
                                Actually, I have known several.

                                Steve
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8421956].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author serryjw
                                  Next subject to discuss??
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8423012].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                              It's never been a clearcut issue. The pro and con people are so entrenched in their beliefs, it never will be.

                              Personally, I think until men start giving birth they probably shouldn't have any influence on legality or illegality of abortion:p
                              SERIOUSLY, I can't imagine ANY person not recognizing the ordeal! I rattled off several of the problems without hesitation. And some WOMEN are against abortion ALSO! Some men are all for it!

                              There is the religious objection, and the thought of killing. IRONICALLY, and women may not even think about this, there is ALSO the idea that the child is half the man's as well. He WOULD want a say. In such a case, it WOULD be nice if the woman could just give him the fetus and be done with it. Some men might even WELCOME that. But men and women ARE different.

                              But I, for one, recognize the inconvenience, strain, pain, and some other issues. You don't have to be female to realize that. HECK, some females that say otherwise have never been through the ordeal themselves. How could THEY know any better than a male?

                              Steve
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8421954].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kentah
    Aren't we getting too political here?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8420438].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Fereday
    Cool stuff Joe Mobley. Thanks for sharing. It's amazing how everything can (and is) be reduced down to a statistic for some present or future reference use.
    Signature

    Like Dogs? Come see us to Get Daily Heart, Soul and Fun for The Dog Lover in You! http://www.facebook.com/PuppyDogDaily ; http://www.PuppyDogDaily.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8434737].message }}

Trending Topics