[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I just wanted to be sure someone wasn't playing fast and loose with the definition of a procedure.


From page 4 of your link:

Pap smears in 2006: 1,070,449
Abortions in 2006: 289,750

Seems to me abortions do not outnumber all other services by 10 to 1 as you initially claimed. They do not even outnumber this one service.

A pap smear is regularly performed as part of an abortion to ensure there are no cervical cell abnormalities, particularly considering the demographics of women seeking these services most often overdue for a pap smear. Any documentation you'll find on what to expect with the abortion procedure includes this as well as a host of exams and tests. Looks good for PP on paper, but still has much to do with their abortion services. When you look at abortion services as portion of profit, compare the services for prenatal care, adoption referrals, infertility, and account for where the lions-share of their resources are spent; the figure is actually much greater than 10 to 1 as I initially claimed.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A pap smear is regularly performed as part of an abortion...

You've put me in a difficult place here. You will get no argument from me that PP are just the sort of intellectually dishonest types who would try and shoo that fact under the rug. I don't like them for this reason, and I don't particularly like defending them.

On the other hand, your math just isn't computing, or if it does, you aren't showing your work. How many pap smears do you claim are followups? More than two per abortion? With the ones left over, that's still more pap smears than abortions. What about the million and a half BCP scrips? I think you can rack that all the way up to four scrips for each abortion client and with what's left over you still have them distributing more BCPs than abortions.

A situation you claim is not only reversed but reversed by an entire order of magnitude.

Does not compute.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by subego 

You've put me in a difficult place here. You will get no argument from me that PP are just the sort of intellectually dishonest types who would try and shoo that fact under the rug. I don't like them for this reason, and I don't particularly like defending them.

On the other hand, your math just isn't computing, or if it does, you aren't showing your work. How many pap smears do you claim are followups? More than two per abortion? With the ones left over, that's still more pap smears than abortions. What about the million and a half BCP scrips? I think you can rack that all the way up to four scrips for each abortion client and you still have them distributing more BCPs than abortions.

A situation you claim is not only reversed but reversed by an entire order of magnitude.

Does not compute.

He's still a fan of Bush, no matter how much you erode his math/logic!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

On the other hand, your math just isn't computing, or if it does, you aren't showing your work. How many pap smears do you claim are followups? More than two per abortion? With the ones left over, that's still more pap smears than abortions. What about the million and a half BCP scrips? I think you can rack that all the way up to four scrips for each abortion client and with what's left over you still have them distributing more BCPs than abortions.

Pap tests, STDs testing, and breast exams are available at a host of State-sponsored clinics where there is no need to seek PP. These are low-income clinics that provide the same services with more oversight. The math I'm using is generally regarding "pregnancy" services. They're shtick is not Planned OB/GYN.

That said;
We strongly recommend a post-op visit which is free if you return to the clinic two to three weeks following [abortion] surgery. The post op visit includes a full gynecological exam and a pap smear. If you wait longer than three weeks, there is a $50 fee for the exam.
ppga.org

Aside from the fact that a pap smear is relatively common with the pregnancy test, it is common post-op as well. PP likes to segment their services in their reporting as though they are somehow unrelated to their abortion services by claiming they've provided 10.1 million different medical services. (i.e. including pre and post-abortion pap smears) In reality, they've administered these services to 3 million clients. In absolute numbers, one in three visited Planned Parenthood for a pregnancy test and of those, almost one in three had an abortion.

This, taken in context of where the lions-share of their resources are spent and how the lions-share of their income is attained, while unscientific as it might seem; abortion clearly outnumbers the other "services" provided by Planned Parenthood combined. Because PP separates these "services" as if unrelated to abortion services, I'm perfectly comfortable with my cited numbers. We can count condoms and pap tests, but the fact is their identity remains the primary abortion provider in the US as evidenced by payables as well as receivables and their marketing both in and out of the courts.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

He's still a fan of Bush, no matter how much you erode his math/logic!

Garbage in is garbage out. I do the best I can with the data made available by the entity's reporting.

I don't know that Bush has done much of anything on abortion legislation do you? How does my position on abortion dictate my degree of support for Bush? Or is it really that everyone and everything must be defined in terms of support or opposition to George Bush in order to simplify things enough for you?

I'm fascinated by the sheeple mentality that defines itself exclusively by what it opposes, having no clue at all what it supports.

[ironknee]

you should change your name to ebush and keep writing a few dozen paragraphs about things.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

you should change your name to ebush and keep writing a few dozen paragraphs about things.

Not a bad idea for some actually. This would serve the simpletons by compartmentalizing myself into the obligatory pro/anti-Bush crowd while at the same time trimming down the amount of material for the less literate.

The good news is I won't have to change my name or posting style for the 2% here with ADD.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That said;
We strongly recommend a post-op visit which is free if you return to the clinic two to three weeks following [abortion] surgery. The post op visit includes a full gynecological exam and a pap smear. If you wait longer than three weeks, there is a $50 fee for the exam.
ppga.org

I'm noting a determined effort on your part not to meet me halfway.

Why did you quote this at me when I agreed it was the type of thing that PP would do and said I didn't like it, instead of answering my direct question?

Again: for 2006, how many of the 1,000,000 pap smears do you claim are followups to the 300,000 abortions?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm noting a determined effort on your part not to meet me halfway.

Why did you quote this at me when I agreed it was the type of thing that PP would do and said I didn't like it, instead of answering my direct question?

Again: for 2006, how many of the 1,000,000 pap smears do you claim are followups to the 300,000 abortions?

Assuming 2 paps for each abortion, that would roughly translate into 600,000 of the pap smears as part of the abortion procedure, at least half of which are apparently free (assuming the first one as part of the abortion procedure isn't absorbed into the cost of the abortion which would make 600,000 free).

So, we are left with 400,000 pap smears and 300,000 abortions which are much more expensive and profitable than pap smears.

(I know you asked eBuddy, but I'm following along here )

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Assuming 2 paps for each abortion, that would roughly translate into 600,000 of the pap smears as part of the abortion procedure, at least half of which are apparently free (assuming the first one as part of the abortion procedure isn't absorbed into the cost of the abortion which would make 600,000 free).

So, we are left with 400,000 pap smears and 300,000 abortions which are much more expensive and profitable than pap smears.

(I know you asked eBuddy, but I'm following along here )

That would be 400,000 pap tests and 0 abortions left.

Back on topic, I'm sure you can add stupendousman and Paper Notes to the list of Bush supporters.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That would be 400,000 pap tests and 0 abortions left.

We are talking about abortions, and other paid procedures not related to abortions. That makes 400,000 non-abortion related pap smears and 300,000 abortions. Take away the abortions and you only have 400k pap smears.

Which do you think is more profitable for PP, the 300k abortions or the 400K pap smears? We know that the pap smears only cost $50. What's the going rate on an abortion these days?

[Atheist]

I just love popping into these threads after 100+ posts. It's almost always abortion, gun control, or global warming that we end up with. Glad to see there's consistency somewhere.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We are talking about abortions, and other paid procedures not related to abortions. That makes 400,000 non-abortion related pap smears and 300,000 abortions. Take away the abortions and you only have 400k pap smears.

That doesn't make sense. If there are approximately 1,000,000 pap tests, 600,000 of which already went to abortions, that leaves 400,000 pap tests left for non-abortion related procedures. You're also assuming that 100% of women go in for an abortion followup with the second exam within the statute of limitation.

If it's done at a hospital, it's insured. The doctor is on salary so it doesn't make any difference. If it's done at a clinic, it's usually done by Doctors who do it on their own time and for free, they're not doing it for the money.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which do you think is more profitable for PP, the 300k abortions or the 400K pap smears? We know that the pap smears only cost $50.

The procedure is free and you only pay at-cost for medicine. It ranges from about $250 to $450 depending on how late the abortion and how much treatment is required for the client. If it's within the first 8 weeks, the cost is negligible.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What's the going rate on an abortion these days?

If Republicans have their way, the cost will be one fetus and the client dying from complications or infection by a back ally crook.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Garbage in is garbage out. I do the best I can with the data made available by the entity's reporting.

I don't know that Bush has done much of anything on abortion legislation do you? How does my position on abortion dictate my degree of support for Bush? Or is it really that everyone and everything must be defined in terms of support or opposition to George Bush in order to simplify things enough for you?

I'm fascinated by the sheeple mentality that defines itself exclusively by what it opposes, having no clue at all what it supports.

I don't know why your bringing up abortion...this thread is titled "Any Bush suporters left in here?" Is there some Freudian connection I am not picking up on?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm noting a determined effort on your part not to meet me halfway.

I clarified "pregnancy" services. Would an apology on my lacking clarity vindicate your efforts, whatever they may be?

Why did you quote this at me when I agreed it was the type of thing that PP would do and said I didn't like it, instead of answering my direct question?

You're splitting hairs on the absolute least significant portion of my post for a yet-to-be expressed reason so I took the opportunity to add more abortion-related services to keep the discussion fruitful.

Again: for 2006, how many of the 1,000,000 pap smears do you claim are followups to the 300,000 abortions?

It seems we may not know for certain. If a pap smear is generally important as part of the initial testing and is important post-surgery, then this would leave up to 400,000 pap smears as a non-pregnancy service provided by Planned Parenthood. This discussion began as an offshoot of someone's grades on the President's performance in office on abortion. Planned Parenthood is not generally understood as the primary provider of OB/GYN, they are the nation's leading provider of abortions. The KKK may donate to charity, but this does not mean our Federal tax dollars should help fund their cause.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

I don't know why your bringing up abortion...this thread is titled "Any Bush suporters left in here?" Is there some Freudian connection I am not picking up on?

Don't let the animated emoticons distract you little buddy. Go back and read the thread and you'll see when the abortion discussion was raised and by whom.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If Republicans have their way, the cost will be one fetus and the client dying from complications or infection by a back ally crook.

This is silly on a host of levels. Not long ago you'll recall a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican President. They're too politically shrewd to deny arguments such as yours above. The sad thing is while they're not dying in back alleys, they're dying at the hands of allegedly more competent "doctors" in unsterile clinics at the cost of a great many fetuses. No less crooked mind you. Hell, one of the selling points of legalizing abortion in the first place was how competent the "back alley abortionists" had become and how "safe" the procedure already was.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is silly on a host of levels. Not long ago you'll recall a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican President. They're too politically shrewd to deny arguments such as yours above. The sad thing is while they're not dying in back alleys, they're dying at the hands of allegedly more competent "doctors" in unsterile clinics at the cost of a great many fetuses. No less crooked mind you. Hell, one of the selling points of legalizing abortion in the first place was how competent the "back alley abortionists" had become and how "safe" the procedure already was.

Those are extremely rare exceptions given how many abortions there are (which I'll remind you went down nearly 80% after Planned Parenthood was introduced.) If you take away a woman's only recourse for an abortion, she'll take very dangerous measures to have it done.

Like I said, if Republicans had their way.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Those are extremely rare exceptions given how many abortions there are (which I'll remind you went down nearly 80% after Planned Parenthood was introduced.)

Given the death rate of breast cancer and its connection to abortion, "rarity" of death due to abortion is subject to considerable debate not withstanding the obvious cases of botched abortions, procedures performed on women who weren't even pregnant, and a host of problems with unsterile procedures and infection leading to death.

To your point; Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921. The only statistics I can find provided by the CDC; began reporting in 1926 starting with 2 annually, remaining at 2 annually until 1931 and jumping to 48 in 1931. The abortion rate remained somewhere between 71 and 89 until the Founding of Planned Parenthood in 1942. In 1943 the abortion rate jumped from 58 to 697 and only saw a decline from ranking in the hundreds in two years; 1948 and 1950. I'm not sure how you can connect these very isolated periods of reduced abortion in any way, shape, or form to Planned Parenthood. Since 1965 the rate has never fallen below 1,000 abortions annually. In short, since the renaming of Sanger's foundation to Planned Parenthood in 1942, the abortion rate has only skyrocketed and in fact only began an appreciable measurement of total US residents after the inception of Planned Parenthood.
Abortion rate archives
I'd be willing to entertain a link of your choosing?

If you take away a woman's only recourse for an abortion, she'll take very dangerous measures to have it done.

She may also take the option of live birth as evidenced by more compelling data.

Like I said, if Republicans had their way.

While it might make this very complex issue more palatable to you, it's simply not true. General public consensus favors abortion only in situations of life of mother, rape, and incest. Interestingly, women (the rights of whom we're supposedly protecting) favor more stringent restrictions on the procedure than do men. With approximately half of abortions being repeat abortions and per the reasons given by abortion clients, those three reasons given above barely register. Safe abortions statistically equal little more than the advent of penicillin.

This is not a "Republican" or "Democratic" phenomena evidenced by the dominant Republican majority and subsequent inaction on this issue.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To your point; Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921. The only statistics I can find provided by the CDC; began reporting in 1926 starting with 2 annually, remaining at 2 annually until 1931 and jumping to 48 in 1931. The abortion rate remained somewhere between 71 and 89 until the Founding of Planned Parenthood in 1942. In 1943 the abortion rate jumped from 58 to 697 and only saw a decline from ranking in the hundreds in two years; 1948 and 1950. I'm not sure how you can connect these very isolated periods of reduced abortion in any way, shape, or form to Planned Parenthood. Since 1965 the rate has never fallen below 1,000 abortions annually. In short, since the renaming of Sanger's foundation to Planned Parenthood in 1942, the abortion rate has only skyrocketed and in fact only began an appreciable measurement of total US residents after the inception of Planned Parenthood.
Abortion rate archives
I'd be willing to entertain a link of your choosing?

Sanger was a eugenicist and wanted to rid the world of "human weeds"

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Given the death rate of breast cancer and its connection to abortion...

There is no connection between breast cancer and abortion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To your point; Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921... *snip*

It was covered in this thread. You brought up a nearly identical argument. The numbers come from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

She may also take the option of live birth as evidenced by more compelling data.

Which is?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

General public consensus favors abortion only in situations of life of mother, rape, and incest...

So women are only Constitutionally protected some of the time, but not if a court decides she can't choose for herself? Sorry, I don't draw lines like that. A woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. If you have a court decide a woman has to have the baby, you're treading dangerously. It doesn't matter if you make exceptions, the women who don't want to have a child will find the means to not have one; that will lead to extremely dangerous situations.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is not a "Republican" or "Democratic" phenomena evidenced by the dominant Republican majority and subsequent inaction on this issue.

Republicans never had a foolproof way of getting it past. There's no point in bringing it up. I don't think there are enough pro-life Democrats to prevent a filibuster.

[ironknee]

when there is nothing left to defend, bring up abortion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There is no connection between breast cancer and abortion.

The last time we discussed this I had corrected some misunderstandings of yours regarding miscarriages and I didn't hear back from you. There most definitely is a connection between abortion and breast cancer.

It was covered in this thread. You brought up a nearly identical argument. The numbers come from the U.S. Census Bureau.

This is a conversation in which you only mention the abortion rate once. You mentioned that abortions are at their lowest rate in 20 years because of access to contraceptives and sex education. You believe so strongly in this notion that you're much bolder this time around. With absolutely nothing to back your claim you simply utter that there's been a decline in the abortion rate since Planned Parenthood was introduced. I'm assuming you believe this because Planned Parenthood is also involved in contraceptives and sex education. In fact not only are you patently incorrect on this, you cited no Census Bureau statistics in this thread nor in the thread you linked to upon my request for data. BTW, I didn't hear back from you in that linked conversation either.

The stats I cited are CDC archives with dates as to the "introduction" of Planned Parenthood and a link. Wanna try again? The states showing the greatest decline in the abortion rate are those that focused more on parental involvement and adopted informed-consent statutes.

Which is?

The birth rate?

So women are only Constitutionally protected some of the time, but not if a court decides she can't choose for herself? Sorry, I don't draw lines like that.

I understand your view olePigeon, I just think it lacks a great deal of information.

A woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. If you have a court decide a woman has to have the baby, you're treading dangerously.

The court already decides a great many things for us. Often as the result of our actions. The danger is putting yourself before the court in the first place. For example; two people who engage irresponsible sex are putting themselves at the mercy of a great many things before court is even in the picture. You're correct though, in our country today women have the right to choose to have an abortion, just as we're allowed to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. The choice of abortion unfortunately has given rise to the most exploitive industry known to mankind and instead of taxing the industry at a higher rate like we do for the disgusting personal choices of smoking and drinking, we're helping fund it. Arguments to the contrary have already been addressed.

It doesn't matter if you make exceptions, the women who don't want to have a child will find the means to not have one; that will lead to extremely dangerous situations.

In most cases they will find the means to have the child and perhaps adopt the child out. Abortion always has and always will lead to extremely dangerous situations.

Republicans never had a foolproof way of getting it past. There's no point in bringing it up. I don't think there are enough pro-life Democrats to prevent a filibuster.

This will change in time. Unfortunately for you there will never be a situation in which there is NO opposition to a Democrat just as there will never be a situation where there isn't a pro-life Democrat. I'd ditch the whole "republican" thing. These sentiments are getting sillier by the month it seems.

[TETENAL]

“Current Knowledge

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.”

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...on-miscarriage

[OldManMac]

All this flowery oratory, and it doesn't change one point; the government can't tell a woman what to do with her body.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

“Current Knowledge

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.”

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...on-miscarriage

Interestingly, they affirm the link while saying the exact opposite. They're going to wish at some point in the near future that they were more forthcoming with the facts as they are doing women a huge disservice here. From your link;

Important Information About Breast Cancer Risk Factors
At present, the factors known to increase a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer include age (a woman’s chances of getting breast cancer increase as she gets older), a family history of breast cancer, an early age at first menstrual period, a late age at menopause, a late age at the time of birth of her first full-term baby, and certain breast conditions.

How they can cite a known aspect of abortion, delaying full-term pregnancy into later "ages" in life yet continue to deny a link is absolutely confounding.

Why is "full-term" important? The development of the breasts during pregnancy carried to full-term are important for resistance to well-documented cancer causing carcinogens. Explosive levels of estrogen during pregnancy cause breast cells to multiply until about the 32nd week when they are converted to milk-producing cells. There has been no link between the milk-producing cells and breast cancer, but the link between the undeveloped, multiplied cells and breast cancer is well-documented and unmistakable not only among women, but in rats per Russo and Russo; 1980. By terminating the pregnancy early, you retard this development leaving the breasts less resistant to the carcinogens.

While more than 30 studies (17 statistically significant) since 1957 have shown similar links, you'll notice the Cancer Institute must first discard these as having some sort of reporting bias because they were often retrospective with regard to breast cancer cases. Of course their studies suggest the same flaw and in many cases entirely omit the very demographic that could've had an abortion since its legalization. Many more problems including huge proportions of study subjects misclassified, inadequate follow-up periods for the latent effect of breast cancer to develop, inadequate control for cohort effects, and "frank violations of proper methodology."
induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer

- the risk and/or exposure precedes the disease. All studies; yes.
- the compilation of data must show an association. 28 out of 37 studies report an association between abortion and breast cancer.
- the studies must be statistically significant. 17 of 37 studies are statistically significant.
- there must be a plausible biologic basis. If a pregnancy is terminated before 32 weeks, the woman is left with increased numbers of type 1 and 2 lobules which are most sensitive to carcinogens. It is only after 32 weeks of pregnancy that type 3 and 4 lobules, resistant to carcinogens, are formed.

Melbye et al. 1999; women who have premature deliveries before 32 weeks more than double their risk of breast cancer... women who have children have a lower risk of breast cancer. Women who never have children are also at increased risk because of their lack of type 3 and 4 lobules.

In subsets of women, the relative risk is greater than 3.0: Teenagers less than age 18 who have abortions between 9 and 24 weeks have an 800% increased risk or a relative risk of 9.0 according to the National Cancer Institute commissioned study, Daling et al. 1994. This team found a relative risk of infinity among teenagers procuring abortions when they also had a family history of breast cancer. This was because all women in her study who had a family history and an abortion at age 18 or younger developed breast cancer by the age of 45.

I'd be happy to cite at least 35 more studies if you'd like. The link is well-documented and unmistakable. While there may in fact be a political reason to avoid the obvious, it certainly isn't humanitarian.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

All this flowery oratory, and it doesn't change one point; the government can't tell a woman what to do with her body.

Sure it can. The government can tell her that she cannot sell her body into prostitution, use drugs, not wear a seatbelt or any number of things.

You're correct though; today the US government can't tell a woman whether or not to have an abortion just as she's welcome to use tobacco and alcohol. Why she'd pay increased taxes on the latter while we fund the former is beyond me.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I clarified "pregnancy" services. Would an apology on my lacking clarity vindicate your efforts, whatever they may be?

If what you mean by your clarification was that you withdrew your claim that abortions outnumber (not outearn) all other services to replace that claim with "pregnancy services" then yes, the apology would both vindicate my efforts and be accepted. This was not what I understood you to be doing. If it was, I owe you an apology as well.

There is no reason, nor any desire for me to refute your revised statement, as I believe it to be true.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So, we are left with 400,000 pap smears and 300,000 abortions

400,000 > 300,000

Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

which are much more expensive and profitable than pap smears.

Not a point I've refuted, nor one that's relevant to my refutation.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

If what you mean by your clarification was that you withdrew your claim that abortions outnumber (not outearn) all other services to replace that claim with "pregnancy services" then yes, the apology would both vindicate my efforts and be accepted. This was not what I understood you to be doing. If it was, I owe you an apology as well.

I was not clear enough. No apology necessary. I withdraw the former in favor of the latter. I take issue primarily with their "pregnancy services" and particularly, the (indirect) funding of it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

There should be a function of the forum whereby the title of a subject chances once the thread has morphed into the whichever of the three or four inevitable topics. So basically, the thread list would read:

More Global Warming Nonsense

Abortion

Abortion

Panties in a twist over someone else's beliefs

More Global Warming Nonsense

Abortion

Iraq War history revision attempt # 3,736,098

Bush Hatred

Abortion

Panties in a twist over someone else's beliefs

More Global Warming Nonsense

Abortion

Obama Hatred

Abortion

More Global Warming Nonsense

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

There should be a function of the forum whereby the title of a subject chances once the thread has morphed into the whichever of the three or four inevitable topics. So basically, the thread list would read:

More Global Warming Nonsense

Abortion

Abortion

Panties in a twist over someone else's beliefs

More Global Warming Nonsense

Abortion

Iraq War history revision attempt # 3,736,098

Bush Hatred

Abortion

Panties in a twist over someone else's beliefs

More Global Warming Nonsense

Abortion

Obama Hatred

Abortion

More Global Warming Nonsense

We could just change the name of the forum altogether. It's the Global Warming nonsense, Abortion, Obama/Bush hatred/support, War revisionist Lounge; or instead of PWL... GWNAOBh/sWRL