Only in a very very extreme situation and taken that person is already dead. Such as those survivors of a plane crash at the Andes in 1972.
Isn't anything I'm looking forward to or even curious about try.

All this fuzz around the so called Muslim ban makes me wonder what will be Trump's undercover move.
This fuzz is creating so much noise, so it gives buffer for anything else to pass barely noticed or even unnoticed. You may see Trump as "an idiot", but don't underestimate him! He's a damn smart one!

Any ideas of what he might be seeking?
As for me I can't see through, have no clue, just that awkward sensation he's looking for something else.

On the Euro-American el-Dorado, I'm more concern about the irresponsibility of some political leaders. So eager to look good in the picture, many engaged in invitation propaganda that resumes to disaster as their capacity falls too short of their good will.
In the end many of them will find themselves stuck in the middle of frozen land as poor as they arrive, totally neglected in a strange land with a weather they aren't used to.
There's nothing worse than feed expectations and not fulfill them!

I don't see any reason to hate a whole people, what I don't like is the ideology behind political Islam - and there's no such thing as separation between State and Religion at Islam, the Quran is more of a law book than anything for start with and it presents VI Century laws as something to apply today.
But Muslims themselves aren't all ISIS or terrorists, the very most of them are just common people like anyone else around.

Uniforming societies is plain stupid. What Communism attempts to do is in all ways irrational, for it to work everyone would need to have exactly the same needs and value equally exactly the same things.

So there was never Communism, it was just a tool for work the poorly educated into Populism of a few.

Sum all countries that claim to had receive Syrian refugees and you get the oddity of know those countries already received 3 or 4x the whole Syrian population in Syrian refugees...

Still, they've a good reason, despite for an outsider it's "Islam", they're way too fractionated, they're aren't quite "the same Islam" and have internal conflicts that may cause severe social unrest. In short a Syrian running from ISIS to Saudi Arabia would be running to ISIS' bosses home, as ISIS aligns more to Wahhabbis than to any other flavor of Islam.

Actually the situation is getting pretty weird! It's not just women who start to blackmail with domestic violence charges, but men as well. Have you notice boys lately? They turn more feminine than many women I know... In short babies will be presented with a "Welcome to Twilight Zone" banner upon birth.  

Hoa! Calm down the slander! Chinese don't eat fetuses, that's just an old urban myth based on a vintage fake Polaroid.
Some regions of Asia - not all Asia, as it is f****ing big - use dog meat, but that's just as "awful" as we eating pork to a Muslim, or, in terms of meat eating, eating any other mammal - sheep, goat, cow... you name it! It's a cultural thing. During my campaign at ET one of the translators was always inviting me to eat dog... needless to say I never ate at her house.

PETA is composed by total wackos, so they hardly worth anything as source, at one of their campaigns those idiots were trying to present a skinned sheep as part of the wool...

Mrs Hillary wasn't the smartest tool in the box to put against Trump... Our fellow Americans ended up with a choice between evil or lesser evil, and no one could tell exactly which was which.
Now they are stuck with a reality show host for POTUS...

Another thing the Congress and the Senate may think about is to set an expire date for given office powers. Otherwise the next president heritages all powers from his predecessors and... let's just say that might not be quite a good idea.

Not every atheist is Richard Dawkins, militant AA are pretty rough compared to the rest of Atheists, they're far from being just writing books or giving lectures, they want to impose their narrow view into society as much as the next fanatic from any religion.
ie, We, normal Atheists - or European Atheists if you prefer -, don't chase Christians if they put a small cross in a corner or whatever.

@popcorn1,

No, no sound from Muslims, they're OK with it/doesn't bother them... unlike the so called "warriors of no faith" they got there.

@af_newbie,

I don't use the Bible! I use Biblan or Qurble. It's a mix of two, stirred with the latest top notch Moulinex blender, a blender that wasn't around at the Bronze Age (at least the blades are made of inox). 

Dude! You not even American, leave alone an "AA". 

Those AA's are constantly witch hunting! Now they're suing or whatever a small place in the middle of b*ttf*ck nowhere because they put a memorial with a cross... 
That's hardcore...

Sample #1: The "US vs THEM" guy.  

Next!

For the notice, the sites or books you take as holding supreme truth, your facts, your beliefs, your "gods"... that's your bible being written. It doesn't need a heaven or after-life promises to become a religion.
If you blow the store because it has a cross/crescent or its owner is of "the wrong religion", it's still religious terrorism.

Also for the notice, I'm an atheist too, but relativist and epicurean.

Out of the normal relaxed atheism, as it used to be, we seams to have a growing branch of a special "atheists" that act as much as the next religious fanatic!

This "special atheists", pretty much common at US, so we can call them "American Atheists" (or AA) act like if they can't live without strict good and evil, they uphold their beliefs as it were the supreme truth, like to call it facts and often scientific facts to things science doesn't even come close to, such as human philosophic affairs.
Let's then start to examine this "new religion":

- It's mostly based on "studies" from "experts".

As result there are now thousands of concurrent "studies", most without any scientific value at all (sample too small, bias interpretation of data, non-repeatability, and so on) and paradoxical to its peers, and here, as religious do, they cherry pick the "studies" they found convenient to their belief.

- Anyone denying "MY" facts is an idiot.

The "supreme morality" of the group makes them so wise... It looks like they don't believe there's no God, but instead there's a job vacancy for being God and they want to apply for it.

- If you're not with us, then you're against us!

This is common ground to religious fanatics, they deal quite harshly to any criticism on their views. Moderation is out of the scope.

- The Dogma

The so called harmful part of religions isn't their crosses, crescents, yin-yangs or whatever symbols they use, isn't also praying - praying is somewhat the psychologist of the poor -, but the dogma: The incontestable truths they are meant to react violently if challenged! And in here, the AA's have a LOT of them!
Some are taking just as "to look opposite of what they recognize as their opponents", for AA's this means Christians, such as being "pro-choice", others are plain bull as feminism, lgbt rights, free-for-all economics and so on...

It won't surprise me that in a short these groups start to resource terrorism.

And those who can't afford/want to pay for private schools in time will let you know the whole price of ignorance.
Just study a bit of History, it's there to prevent the same old mistakes to surface again...

About the free money, it will slowly burn down the economy. When they get their economy to be totally worthless they will know the exact price of "free" also.

I didn't said Obama created ISIS, but FSA and similar groups.

Prophets of Apocalypse... as always.
Hey, don't even think you're new around, this has been like this since antiquity, way before the Bible or the Jews.
He didn't say he wanted to create safe zones for ISIS, Al-Nusra or the other Obama-planted terrorist groups there.

Well, for starters it's more expensive to support and educate a kid up to 16 yo than an old fart for 50 years. The early ages of a person is when more resources are needy.
Then, Social Security is a ponzi scheme, no doubt about it, however you're missing the nature of money, and money is actually nothing. You see central banks buying most of bonds, meaning the issuer is taking debt on what itself somewhat "produces", but they do this to prevent devaluation for a while. Unlike bitcoin, that is controlled by the whole community and has a supply celling, money issuing is controlled by a few and has no limit on it. The whole attempt of money is to represent and limit resources access. And it isn't linear;
"oh, but with 1 million euro you can buy 1 ton of gold (assuming 1Kg of Gold is 1000€)"... Surprise! You don't! As you start buying the price will go up as the physical resource is being depleted more and more of your virtual resource will be needed to buy it. The same will happen for whatever limited resource you may try to get with your virtual money.
So don't get too much attached to money, you'll miss the big picture. The contribution to the system isn't so much about deficit I/O, but to prevent it from giving money for nothing, giving money for nothing will make a society to self-destruct with so many lazy people as well as devalue the currency to zero.

Back on topic;

I understand abortion for medical issues, it's senseless to put the woman life to risk, rape or severe formation issues with the baby. On demand, just until it isn't a viable baby, pass this point is plain murder.
But again, how is it set to be a women decision? What data provides us that figure? How about external pressure - social, family, the father of the child - to abort? Is it still a "woman's choice"'? Or is it just convenient to pass it that way?

Abortion has nothing to do with women or sexism, it's one of the most reverse psychology move around. It's mostly done at convenience of men.

For the woman, once pregnant, going full term or not, she's f***ed (both literally and figurative), for the guys is a great way to dodge the responsibility and expenses of having a son.

Still, Trump didn't outlaw it, so the article is pure propaganda... the sort of propaganda made by the press that works against it.

China has a lot to lose by engaging US. So I believe it's not on their interest to seek such war, not even by Taiwan. They would loose their Asiatic sphere of influence. To not mention their ancient hi-tech enemy, Japan...
«Oh but they've a big army!»... unless you're on the 3rd World, nobody is fighting wars with foot soldiers anymore, and that just means it would take more bodybags. Too much at stake and for them this can be an opportunity for explore alternative markets.